Should Police Departments Be Given More Money?

[Area54]

On 7/15/2020 at 2:16 AM, Alex_Krycek said:

That's fine.  You're free to interpret what you read any way you like.  I've made an attempt to clarify already; you're not interested in that.  C'est la vie. 

I am very interested in clarification, it's just that I have seen no evidence of it from you. You have moved the goalposts, but you deny this. You misapply poll results to support assertions that seem to lack any sound basis. Your posts continue to have more than a whiff of aggression. All of this you seem to be unaware of; as I noted previously this makes it difficult for readers to take your arguments seriously. You do them a disservice by your approach. Why not go back to square one and restate your argument with accompanying support, then we can debat whether there is anything of substance there.

[zapatos]

18 hours ago, MigL said:

If you don't intend to do violence you should not have a weapon !

Um, you mean like the police?

[MigL]

OK, I'll re-phrase.

In every other normal, or sane, country in the world, if you are carrying a weapon, you intend to do harm to others ( or yourself ).
In the US, where you are Constitutionally enabled to carry military assault weapons into grocery stores, banks, or even churches, I guess that rule doesn't apply.
And you defend that right, making a police officer's choice either getting harmed ( or shot at ) while 'talking', or shooting first, asking questions later, and possibly going to jail for having made the wrong choice.
Policing in the US is becoming untenable; I'm surprised you can find people who want to do the job.
( and possibly a reason why you get people like D Chauvin )

Carry-on, I'm going back to vacationing ...

 

[iNow]

1 hour ago, MigL said:

And you defend that right, making a police officer's choice either getting harmed ( or shot at ) while 'talking', or shooting first, asking questions later, and possibly going to jail for having made the wrong choice.

You're raising a valid and sound / reasonable point overall, but the qualified immunity police enjoy due to the insane power the police unions have has prevented charges from being brought in 97% of all police killings between 2013 and 2019. I think maybe one cop went to jail during all those years. 

We've seen a few more go to jail this year in response to protests, but the number is still somewhere around 5 total. 

Hope you're not vacationing in Florida, mate  😎 

[dimreepr]

17 hours ago, MigL said:

OK, I'll re-phrase.

In every other normal, or sane, country in the world, if you are carrying a weapon, you intend to do harm to others ( or yourself ).
In the US, where you are Constitutionally enabled to carry military assault weapons into grocery stores, banks, or even churches, I guess that rule doesn't apply.
And you defend that right, making a police officer's choice either getting harmed ( or shot at ) while 'talking', or shooting first, asking questions later, and possibly going to jail for having made the wrong choice.
Policing in the US is becoming untenable; I'm surprised you can find people who want to do the job.
( and possibly a reason why you get people like D Chauvin )

Carry-on, I'm going back to vacationing ...

It's so much easier to be fearful than reasonable, consequently it's so much easier to teach. Imagine how much better a good education in reason could be?

Almost all humans don't want to kill, but those that do often find a way despite your fearful attempts to protect.

Imagine if we teach the likes of D Chauvin, to be reasonable rather than fearful; it won't work for everyone, because some bullies have no concept of the line before they go to far, but almost all of us suffer when we do.

The take a way here is education.

The thing about a holiday/vacation is that it differs from everyday life, imagine how good that must feel, when you're not stopped, on an almost daily basis, by an authority that's not pointing a gun in your face?

 

[iNow]

This was a good article that speaks neatly to many of the same issues we’ve explored in this thread:  We train police to be warriors — and then send them out to be social workers

https://www.vox.com/2020/7/31/21334190/what-police-do-defund-abolish-police-reform-training

Quote

For decades, the warrior cop has been the popular image of police in America, reinforced by TV shows, movies, media, police recruitment videos, police leaders, and public officials.

This image is largely misleading. Police do fight crime, to be sure — but they are mainly called upon to be social workers, conflict mediators, traffic directors, mental health counselors, detailed report writers, neighborhood patrollers, and low-level law enforcers, sometimes all in the span of a single shift. In fact, the overwhelming majority of officers spend only a small fraction of their time responding to violent crime. 

However, the institution of policing in America does not reflect that reality. We prepare police officers for a job we imagine them to have rather than the role they actually perform. Police are hired disproportionately from the military, trained in military-style academies that focus largely on the deployment of force and law, and equipped with lethal weapons at all times, and they operate within a culture that takes pride in warriorship, combat, and violence.

<...>

The data overwhelmingly finds that police officers in aggregate spend the vast majority of their time responding to non-criminal calls, traffic-related incidents, and low-level crimes — and only a tiny fraction on violent crimes. <...> 

If you squint a bit, you can see that violent crimes like rape, homicide, and aggravated assault are tucked away in the bottom right-hand corner. Less serious crimes like petty theft, drug use, and vandalism take up slightly more space but not all that much. The vast majority of calls have nothing to do with crime. Instead, they involve disorderly crowds, domestic disputes, traffic accidents, minor disturbances, and a whole array of “unfounded” calls where the officer arrived on the scene only to discover nothing was happening.

<...>

Police killings of unarmed civilians in the United States are magnitudes higherthan those in peer countries. Using 2015 data, Franklin Zimring, a UC Berkeley criminologist and author of When Police Kill, calculates that the chance of an unarmed civilian being killed by police in the US is three times higher than the chance of any civilian, armed or unarmed, being killed by police in Germany and more than 10 times higher than in the UK (and that’s using a very conservative estimate of unarmed shootings in the US). A separate analysis found that in almost half of police killings of unarmed civilians in the US, the person killed was revealed to be or suspected of experiencing either a mental health crisis or narcotic intoxication. 

Even when civilians are armed, that doesn’t necessarily mean police killings are justified. Upon extensively analyzing the 1,100 total fatal police killings in the US in 2015, Zimring concluded that “almost half the cases ... were confrontations where the police were not at objective risk of a deadly attack.” 

More at the link. Agree / disagree? Anything you’ve found insightful or inciteful?

[swansont]

https://www.wave3.com/2020/07/28/kentucky-town-hires-social-workers-instead-more-officers-results-are-surprising/

 

"Instead of hiring an additional officer and taking on the added expenses of equipping that officer, the police chief at the time hired a social worker to respond in tandem with officers.
...
Instead of working at another agency and waiting for a referral from a police department after a crisis, Pompilio works side-by-side with officers to respond as calls come in.
...
After four years on the job, Pompilio said there has been a significant drop in repeat 911 calls with approximately 15 percent fewer people going to jail."

They saved $45,000 - $50,000 year, from reducing the policing burden and because they didn't have to spend money on all the peripherals a police officer needs

 

[MigL]

Came across an interesting poll...

"Four in Five Black Americans Want Same or More Cop Presence in Neighborhood"

https://freebeacon.com/national-security/four-in-five-black-americans-want-same-or-more-cop-presence-in-neighborhood/

So who exactly is demanding the defunding of Police ?

[dimreepr]

1 hour ago, MigL said:

Came across an interesting poll...

"Four in Five Black Americans Want Same or More Cop Presence in Neighborhood"

https://freebeacon.com/national-security/four-in-five-black-americans-want-same-or-more-cop-presence-in-neighborhood/

So who exactly is demanding the defunding of Police ?

From your link:

Quote

Notably, the poll finds that how police officers treat people has a strong effect on their support for the police. While simply having an interaction with the police has no effect on black respondents' preference for level of police presence, 45 percent of those who reported not being treated with respect in those interactions wanted a smaller police presence, compared to just 13 percent who felt respected.

 

[MigL]

Then maybe the signs should say
"Police Need to be More Respectful"

instead of
"Defund the Police"

[iNow]

Sigh

[MigL]

Also from the link

"These findings are just the latest survey evidence to run contrary to the intuitions underlying the progressive push to defund police departments. They also confirm the view that some black communities are likely under-policed, suggesting the need for more, rather than fewer, police...

...Almost as many consistently oppose the move to "defund" the police, perhaps explaining why many national Democrats, including presidential nominee Joe Biden, have been loath to publicly support the movement. Even in Minneapolis, many black residents oppose efforts to defund—a stark departure from the views of the majority-white city council."

But why bother talking about the points that don't conform to your personal narrative, when you can just "sigh" and dismiss them.
Silly me, for thinking this was a discussion forum.

[iNow]

You know me better than that, MigL. We’re now on page 7 of this thread. My position should be clear and has been articulate.

Summarized:

Defund the police is stupid branding for a set of otherwise good ideas. 

The idea is to focus dollars into approaches which are more effective and which more efficiently help us improve. Throwing the mentally handicapped and drug addicted and poverty stricken into cells and fining the poor forcing them to pay into a system thousands of dollars they simply don’t have doesn’t achieve that.

The idea is to increase social and anti-poverty programs and reduce asymmetric punishment; to reduce the way black communities are more heavily punished for the exact same crimes committed by white communities. 

The idea is to eliminate qualified immunity so police can still be held accountable for their actions when they do something wrong; so police are no longer treated as above the law in the US just because they’re a key part of the apparatus which enforces it. 

Specifically to the survey, of course people want their communities to be safe. Of course they want help from the police when things go wrong. Of course they want bad actors removed from their environment. Those facts are not mutually exclusive with being tired of getting targeted by police or being treated asymmetrically by the justice system at large due solely to the color of ones skin.

Yes, defund the police is a dumb slogan. It’s ignorant marketing and bad branding for a set of otherwise good ideas which would almost certainly help us to realize  and achieve a massively improved ROI if we actually implemented them.

Also yes, of course people want the police to be more respectful. We all surely agree there, and that respect is critical. More than that, it’s foundational, but also currently lacking. Good policing is about trust and community, and respect is the glue which binds those things together. We need to reduce the funding for those who can’t be respectful and who fail to EARN that trust.

So I sigh because so many of us keep focusing on HOW people are protesting and by doing so we keep ignoring the reasons WHY. Focusing on the HOW is a distraction. See also: The focus on Kapernick kneeling at football games instead of the focus on black families consistently being torn apart when US police officers keep murdering (or locking up for eye rolling reasons) key members of them.

So what if the slogan is dumb? It’s not as dumb as the tea party morons who said “keep the governments hands off my Medicare!” When we focus on the slogan we forget the reason it’s being chanted or supported in the first place and we make it more likely that we’ll all simply continue on with the current unacceptable status quo.

There is merit worth discussing on this topic, but we never will if we keep getting triggered when we hear/read the word “defund” and keep short circuiting the conversation any time that word gets introduced. Abolish. Defund. Whatever. We need to fundamentally improve how policing happens in the United States, and we need to transfer a significant amount of the revenues they receive instead into social, rehabilitation, and anti-poverty programs.

It makes me sigh because even people I very much like, enjoy, and respect seem to keep doing it... to keep focusing on HOW the protests are happening instead of WHY.

But sure... this is clearly all about me ignoring points which don’t conform to my personal narrative because I’m incapable of having a mature discussion on an online discussion forum. 🙄

Edited August 7, 2020 by iNow

[MigL]

Yes, you have made your position clear, and sorry if I wasn't more clear myself; that isn't what I wish to discuss.

But it can't be just me that finds this poll counter-intuitive. I would not have expected those results.
That the very group that is most affected by bad policing, in fact, want MORE police presence.
The article doesn't quite go there, but it 'hints' at the white progressive attitude towards black people , that "we know what's best for you". meanwhile, what black Americans really want is more police presence in their under-policed neighborhoods.

[iNow]

It was counter intuitive to me, too. Where I landed as I worked through that in my own mind was that they want “effective” police presence and “appropriate” police presence and “just” police presence, while in parallel not just wanting more of the “current” or “bad” or “asymmetric” police presence. 

Just because the umpires in a baseball game aren’t calling balls and strikes fairly doesn’t mean we can’t still want to play or attend a game. I suspect that sentiment largely applies here on the policing question. 

[drumbo]

Well it's clear that the issue is highly politicized. To discuss it objectively we need to identify a goal. Are we interested in maximizing rehabilitation of criminals or the protection of property? Those are juxtaposed goals, if I owned a lot of property I would want more policing preventing rioting and vandalism from damaging it. If I owned little or no property and also had a soft spot for the downtrodden criminals of the world I might want less policing. It all depends on what you value.

[dimreepr]

2 hours ago, drumbo said:

Well it's clear that the issue is highly politicized. To discuss it objectively we need to identify a goal. Are we interested in maximizing rehabilitation of criminals or the protection of property? Those are juxtaposed goals

And they're tackled by different departments, the police have nothing to do with rehabilitation. 

[dimreepr]

13 hours ago, MigL said:

Then maybe the signs should say
"Police Need to be More Respectful"

instead of
"Defund the Police"

That's a good idea, because at least one more person would get behind the need for a solution; I'm assuming you agree with your slogan.

8 hours ago, MigL said:

Yes, you have made your position clear, and sorry if I wasn't more clear myself; that isn't what I wish to discuss.

But it can't be just me that finds this poll counter-intuitive. I would not have expected those results.
That the very group that is most affected by bad policing, in fact, want MORE police presence.
The article doesn't quite go there, but it 'hints' at the white progressive attitude towards black people , that "we know what's best for you". meanwhile, what black Americans really want is more police presence in their under-policed neighborhoods.

I don't think it's counter-intuitive at all; it's clearly a minority of police officers expressing their personal (state aided) bigotry on a minority of a minority, ergo the majority of the minority never tastes that bitter pill.

Most people just want to feel safe and be respected.

[iNow]

13 hours ago, drumbo said:

Are we interested in maximizing rehabilitation of criminals or the protection of property? Those are juxtaposed goals,

No, they are not. You're introducing a false dichotomy.

[drumbo]

8 minutes ago, iNow said:

No, they are not. You're introducing a false dichotomy.

I've seen you claim something I said was not true at least twice now on these forums, without giving any further explanation. How is that constructive? If you aren't able to explain yourself then your input is almost useless. Justify your beliefs.

It seems patently true to me that increased policing protects property during riots and in general in high crime areas, and that protection of property is maximized when the police are well funded. However more policing is necessarily juxtaposed with rehabilitating criminals since it puts criminals in harms way.

[iNow]

2 hours ago, drumbo said:

more policing is necessarily juxtaposed with rehabilitating criminals

No, it's actually not.

2 hours ago, drumbo said:

I've seen you claim something I said was not true at least twice now on these forums

Hmm... I'm surprised it's that low, TBH

[drumbo]

13 minutes ago, iNow said:

No, it's actually not.

Hmm... I'm surprised it's that low, TBH

If you want to repeat yourself without giving any additional explanation so that I can respond and expand upon my viewpoint I welcome your generosity. It's only your case that suffers.

Any time police arrive interact with criminals, or potential criminals, the criminals/suspects are put in harm's way. They could be shot, injured, or given a criminal record that ruins their chances for employment. Increasing policing will necessarily increase the number of these kinds of encounters. You cannot maximize the protection of property while maximizing the potential to rehabilitate criminals.

You are welcome to explain your viewpoint, I am genuinely curious.

[iNow]

12 minutes ago, drumbo said:

You cannot maximize the protection of property while maximizing the potential to rehabilitate criminals.

Of course you can. Why do you keep asserting otherwise?

[drumbo]

5 minutes ago, iNow said:

Of course you can. Why do you keep asserting otherwise?

Do you understand the concept of optimization subject to constraints? Have you ever taken an economics course or a course in optimization techniques (KKT conditions, etc...)? You can maximize something in the absolute sense, or you can maximize it subject to some constraint. Of course you can maximize the rehabilitation of criminals subject to the constraint of first maximizing the protection of property. But if remove that constraint then you could rehabilitate criminals to an even greater degree. I already gave an explanation that the number of police encounters with criminals/suspects increases the number of poor outcomes for the criminals/suspects, thus reducing the opportunity for rehabilitation.

I really have to say, that you have consistently failed to explain your viewpoint demonstrates such contempt and a lack of humility. You may have an unshakable belief in the correctness of your beliefs and the infallibility of your mind, but I do not. Why don't you share your thoughts, as I have so that we can all judge if you are as correct as you think you are?

[iNow]

More police bring more people into the system. Rehabilitation begins after the system has been entered. This isn’t exactly rocket science. 

Also, property can be protected in other ways. More police is not the only option.