Should Police Departments Be Given More Money?

[drumbo]

25 minutes ago, Area54 said:

If you genuinely have no model then you are just farting into the wind and your comments may be disregarded. However, i think you do have a model, it is just over-simplified. I suggest you reflect on the meaning of the word 'model' in a scientific context. You should then, readily, recognise that you do have a model.

I say your model is over-simplified since you fail to consider, for example, having police deployed with 'social workers', or psychologists. Or having improved physical safeguards for the protection of property. Or adjusting the training of officers to reduce or eliminate harmful interactions. And those are just some of the options that are ignored in your simple model, or, as you call it, your "abject truth".

So, I should like to understand on what basis you reject these (and similar) examples. Unless you are able to do so your argument is refuted.

I'm not sure why you're so obsessed with using the word model as your sword and shield, it will not save your nonsensical position. Rejecting each example is trivial since it suffices to consider a realistic scenario. Let's consider a riot, very similar to the ones we've been seeing in the US over these past few months. The rioters are destroying property. In order to maximize the protection of property you must increase the police presence otherwise the rioters will trash the city, physical safeguards can always be bypassed. Increasing the police presence will result in more injuries and life ruining criminal records for the rioters. Sending in social workers or psychologists will do jack to protect property and it certainly won't completely mitigate the harm to the protestors,  and thus the potential for rehabilitation has not been maximized. See? No need for models. You just have to find one example to reject something.

I am very grateful for you teaching me about your innovative way of arguing, I think I will use it now. Please describe an example where the protection of property is maximized while harmful interactions with suspects are simultaneously minimized. Unless you are able to do so your argument is refuted.

Edited August 8, 2020 by drumbo

[Area54]

14 minutes ago, drumbo said:

I'm not sure why you're so obsessed with using the word model as your sword and shield, it will not save your nonsensical position.

Using an appropriate vocabulary for a productive discussion is not an obsession, but a prerequisite for advancing that discussion. Why are you so afraid of the word?

I haven't taken a position. I've simply challenged you to elucidate yours - something you seem unable to do.

17 minutes ago, drumbo said:

Rejecting each example is trivial since it suffices to consider a realistic scenario. Let's consider a riot, very similar to the ones we've been seeing in the US over these past few months. The rioters are destroying property. In order to maximize the protection of property you must increase the police presence otherwise the rioters will trash the city, physical safeguards can always be bypassed. Increasing the police presence will result in more injuries and life ruining criminal records for the rioters. Sending in social workers or psychologists will do jack to protect property and it certainly won't completely mitigate the harm to the protestors,  and thus the potential for rehabilitation has not been maximized.

And yet we saw the example where, a police chief in the US, prior to the riot beginning, defused the situation by offering to walk with the protestors. As you say, a thesis can easily be disposed of by a single, contrary example.

 

20 minutes ago, drumbo said:

I am very grateful for you teaching me about your innovative way of arguing, I think I will use it now. Please describe an example where the protection of property is maximized while harmful interactions with suspects are simultaneously minimized. Unless you are able to do so your argument is refuted.

Done and dusted. If you can make the request without the misapplication of emotive adjectives, I shall be happy to track down a link to the example mentioned above.

Note: looking through your posts it seems you have an inclination to be disagreeable. IF you continue with that attitude with me then my side of the conversation is at an end.

[CharonY]

It think the basic issue for the lengthy argument that leads nowhere is that the assumption being made (more police interactions automatically lead to more negative interactions) fails to address the second dimension of the quality of interactions. If you reduce the likelihood of a negative outcome per interaction, you can obviously increase the number of interactions without also increasing the number of negative interactions.

A simple example is looking at other countries where police shootings are extraordinary rare events. They reduce their issues not by having a smaller police force (in fact in many cases they are on average larger than the US) but by having a different system of policing. I suspect if that is not being acknowledged, we will go another round of identical arguments for a couple more pages.

[drumbo]

38 minutes ago, Area54 said:

And yet we saw the example where, a police chief in the US, prior to the riot beginning, defused the situation by offering to walk with the protestors.

If only all riots were announced so that the police had advance notice. Riots can often result because of sudden and unpredictable events, and therefore you cannot count on a preemptive police response. Once a riot is out control, maximizing the police presence is almost certainly the only way to maximize the protection of property, and that is juxtaposed with minimizing the number of harmful interactions with rioters.

45 minutes ago, Area54 said:

Note: looking through your posts it seems you have an inclination to be disagreeable. IF you continue with that attitude with me then my side of the conversation is at an end.

Don't take it personally. I only disagree with wrong ideas.

44 minutes ago, CharonY said:

the lengthy argument that leads nowhere

Au contraire, it is vital to establish what the goal of the criminal justice system should be, and that includes establishing whether we should prioritize the protection of property or the potential to rehabilitate criminals. Without clearly established goals we are just moving forward blindly.

42 minutes ago, CharonY said:

A simple example is looking at other countries

Other countries do not have the same demographic and socioeconomic conditions as the US, and therefore the variation in the amount of police shootings between the US and European countries is likely not significantly explained by differences in the criminal justice system, but rather by differences in the demographic and socioeconomic conditions.

[iNow]

1 hour ago, drumbo said:

Once a riot is out control, maximizing the police presence is almost certainly the only way to maximize the protection of property, and that is juxtaposed with minimizing the number of harmful interactions with rioters.

Interestingly, this too is mistaken. Decades of evidence shows rather consistently that the riots get more out of control and the property damage gets worse the more police are present.

From 50 years ago:

https://belonging.berkeley.edu/system/tdf/kerner_commission_full_report.pdf?file=1&force=1

From 5 years ago: https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2015/05/01/when-police-ratchet-up-the-force-riots-get-worse-not-better/

And from 5 months ago: https://www.themarshallproject.org/2020/06/01/why-so-many-police-are-handling-the-protests-wrong

Quote

Researchers have spent 50 years studying the way crowds of protesters and crowds of police behave—and what happens when the two interact. One thing they will tell you is that when the police respond by escalating force—wearing riot gear from the start, or using tear gas on protesters—it doesn’t work. In fact, disproportionate police force is one of the things that can make a peaceful protest not so peaceful. 
<...>
There’s 50 years of research on violence at protests, dating back to the three federal commissions formed between 1967 and 1970. All three concluded that when police escalate force—using weapons, tear gas, mass arrests and other tools to make protesters do what the police want—those efforts can often go wrong, creating the very violence that force was meant to prevent. 

 

[dimreepr]

12 hours ago, drumbo said:

Au contraire, it is vital to establish what the goal of the criminal justice system should be

https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/justice

Quote

The proper administration of the law; the fair and equitable treatment of all individuals under the law.

Quote

1) fairness. 2) moral rightness. 3) a scheme or system of law in which every person receives his/her/its due from the system, including all rights, both natural and legal.

 

 

 

[drumbo]

14 hours ago, iNow said:

Interestingly, this too is mistaken. Decades of evidence shows rather consistently that the riots get more out of control and the property damage gets worse the more police are present.

From 50 years ago:

https://belonging.berkeley.edu/system/tdf/kerner_commission_full_report.pdf?file=1&force=1

From 5 years ago: https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2015/05/01/when-police-ratchet-up-the-force-riots-get-worse-not-better/

And from 5 months ago: https://www.themarshallproject.org/2020/06/01/why-so-many-police-are-handling-the-protests-wrong

 

I'm not sure where you learned how to cite a source, but if you have specific pages you want to cite in that 431 page Kerner commision report then do so, otherwise you are just engaging in the classic unethical tactic of dumping paperwork on someone with limited resources.

The second article is behind a paywall.

You have misrepresented the content of the third article. It claims that disproportionate police force is one of the things that can make a peaceful protest not so peaceful, and therefore it does not address the problem of dealing with a riot that is already out control prior to any disproportionate police intervention.

3 hours ago, dimreepr said:

the fair and equitable treatment of all individuals under the law

Unfortunately the goals of maximizing the protection of property and maximizing the potential to rehabilitate criminals are at odds with one another. In order to make a logical and coherent policy, we need to decide what the acceptable minimum levels are for those goals. Both absolutely cannot be maximized.

[dimreepr]

13 hours ago, drumbo said:

I'm not sure where you learned how to cite a source, but if you have specific pages you want to cite in that 431 page Kerner commision report then do so, otherwise you are just engaging in the classic unethical tactic of dumping paperwork on someone with limited resources.

The second article is behind a paywall.

You have misrepresented the content of the third article. It claims that disproportionate police force is one of the things that can make a peaceful protest not so peaceful, and therefore it does not address the problem of dealing with a riot that is already out control prior to any disproportionate police intervention.

Unfortunately the goals of maximizing the protection of property and maximizing the potential to rehabilitate criminals are at odds with one another. In order to make a logical and coherent policy, we need to decide what the acceptable minimum levels are for those goals. Both absolutely cannot be maximized.

You're just blindly gainsaying every valid point presented to you 🙄, this is a discussion site not a playground; I'll not be participating further.

[drumbo]

5 hours ago, dimreepr said:

You're just blindly gainsaying every valid point presented to you 🙄, this is a discussion site not a playground; I'll not be participating further.

I gave fair and valid responses to each source. I'm glad you've found an excuse to leave, I've never seen you make a constructive post.

[dimreepr]

9 minutes ago, drumbo said:

I gave fair and valid responses to each source. I'm glad you've found an excuse to leave, I've never seen you make a constructive post.

OK, just in case you don't understand what gainsay means, I'll make one last attempt; you gave the same responce to each and every valid argument.

Quote

The courts cannot gainsay the legislation and set it aside because they think that a better standard should be endorsed.

 

[Phi for All]

On 8/8/2020 at 6:06 PM, drumbo said:

Don't take it personally. I only disagree with wrong ideas.

!

Moderator Note

Except you give away this lie by also abusing the reputation system, voting down a particular person's posts no matter what they said. Your disagreements ring hollow, and your stance is very personal and belligerent. Take a couple of weeks off and decide whether it will be worth it for you to be more civil if/when you return.

 

[MigL]

Let's see if we can get back to relevant discussion.

Chicago saw massive rioting the other night.

https://www.foxnews.com/us/widespread-looting-reported-in-chicago-after-police-involved-shooting

and in case you don't like Fox...

https://chicago.cbslocal.com/2020/08/09/police-involved-shooting-reported-in-englewood/

Apparently an armed felon shot at police, who then returned fire and wounded him.
A local individual then incited the riots, saying police didn't do enough to de-escalate, and used extreme/deadly force on a young man.

Have we now replaced police authority with mob authority ?
Why are people 'following' those who incite riots, burn or destroy property, and injure innocents ?
That is the MO lynch mobs used, one ignorant person without all the facts, incites violence against a group he hates.

Seems to me America has a more serious disease than Covid-19.

[iNow]

5 minutes ago, MigL said:

Have we now replaced police authority with mob authority ?

Perhaps a better, more situationally relevant question is: Have we given police too much authority to serve without either check or balance as judge, jury, and executioner? Have we abandoned our constitutional right to due process under the law in favor of quick conclusion at the receiving end of a standard issue field pistol in the hands of an underpaid, undertrained representative of the state?

[CharonY]

16 minutes ago, iNow said:

Perhaps a better, more situationally relevant question is: Have we given police too much authority to serve without either check or balance as judge, jury, and executioner? Have we abandoned our constitutional right to due process under the law in favor of quick conclusion at the receiving end of a standard issue field pistol in the hands of an underpaid, undertrained representative of the state?

That is a salient question. Too often it is pointed out that someone did something that prompted to police to a presumably justified shooting. However, especially as someone who grew up with a different type police, I have to wonder what are the steps leading up to the fatal interaction, and why does it not happen that often in most European countries?

Why is an interaction with a drunk and belligerent more likely to end in death in the US (or Canada, for that matter). One part could be police training, but is it really all? I found it befuddling when talking to my US colleagues and friends that they think that if you do not immediately follow police orders or if you startle them somehow, you risk being shot. And again, for someone growing up elsewhere this is just mind boggling.

[iNow]

It's mind boggling for many people who've grown up in the US, too

[StringJunky]

11 hours ago, MigL said:

Let's see if we can get back to relevant discussion.

Chicago saw massive rioting the other night.

https://www.foxnews.com/us/widespread-looting-reported-in-chicago-after-police-involved-shooting

and in case you don't like Fox...

https://chicago.cbslocal.com/2020/08/09/police-involved-shooting-reported-in-englewood/

Apparently an armed felon shot at police, who then returned fire and wounded him.
A local individual then incited the riots, saying police didn't do enough to de-escalate, and used extreme/deadly force on a young man.

Have we now replaced police authority with mob authority ?
Why are people 'following' those who incite riots, burn or destroy property, and injure innocents ?
That is the MO lynch mobs used, one ignorant person without all the facts, incites violence against a group he hates.

Seems to me America has a more serious disease than Covid-19.

In the UK, if you shoot at someone or have a knife in the presence of armed police and don't follow their instructions, you will be shot dead....  telling you to disarm iimmediately is as much 'de-escalation' as you are going to get. Those people there are asking too much, especially given the prevalence of firearms there.

[zapatos]

12 hours ago, MigL said:

Why are people 'following' those who incite riots, burn or destroy property, and injure innocents ?

We have a "contract" with those we choose to regulate us, whether it is government, police, or a youth soccer coach.

We choose to give some people guns and the authority to use them, but the 'contract' says that in turn they will use their authority in the manner we expect, which includes fairness. In other words, "If you only use your guns and authority on those who are breaking the law, then the rest of us will abide by the law. If you break that contract by doing things like kneeling on someone's neck until they die, then we will no longer be bound by the terms of the contract that restrict us."

In broad terms (and not looking at individual events) the police have broken the contract and now there is hell to pay. Today's events in the US are on a smaller scale but no different than the American Revolution, the French Revolution, the Russian Revolution, labor unions that violently fought against businesses and a million other events where those in charge oppressed those in their care. Eventually people have enough and fight back. And with my blessing. 

It is unfortunate that innocent people are harmed in the process but no authoritarian has given up their power because the people asked nicely.

[MigL]

I don't see it that way Zap.
That young man could have been carrying an armed nuclear weapon when the police shot him.
And with current sensibilities, one person could have said "police brutality", and rioting would still have ensued.

Americans seem to have lost their trust of classic authority figures, and now place blind trust in whoever repeatedly scrams loudest or makes the most outlandish claims ( and it does explain why D Trump is your President ).
 It doesn't make sense that the answer to one person being hurt, is to hurt another dozen or so, and wreck their property.

[zapatos]

59 minutes ago, MigL said:

I don't see it that way Zap.
That young man could have been carrying an armed nuclear weapon when the police shot him.
And with current sensibilities, one person could have said "police brutality", and rioting would still have ensued.

Americans seem to have lost their trust of classic authority figures, and now place blind trust in whoever repeatedly scrams loudest or makes the most outlandish claims ( and it does explain why D Trump is your President ).
 It doesn't make sense that the answer to one person being hurt, is to hurt another dozen or so, and wreck their property.

As I said, I'm not trying to justify any particular event that took place. My comment was about the overall situation, why it exists, and why people are acting in a way that they might not normally act.

You can argue that a particular skirmish during WWII was not conducted by the allies in a moral manner, but that doesn't take away from the fact that the cause was just. If you conduct a nationwide movement that is standing up to corrupt authority then unfortunately bad acts will be committed on all sides. I dislike it as much as you do, but I understand why it is happening and recognize that on occasion innocent people will be harmed.

Just because a peacefully protesting woman who showed up with her friends in support of BLM was shot in the face with a rubber bullet does not invalidate the efforts of the police to control the situation. But I agree with you that it doesn't make sense that just because a car was set on fire that these innocent people were attacked by the police.

[CharonY]

2 hours ago, MigL said:

Americans seem to have lost their trust of classic authority figures,

Here is the thing, you have to wonder why. And the reason as has pointed out is that historically the police has been used to subjugate certain groups. It is small wonder that these groups do not accept them as valid authorities. It is not a problem just now. It is only that now finally white folks are also starting to understand the issue on a broader scale than it used to be.

You cannot just look at the point of impact and decide whether the process works. You have to look at the whole mechanism and figure out why the observed impact happened in the first place. Because if you don't all you are going to conclude is that the plane was too fast and the ground too solid.

[MigL]

12 minutes ago, CharonY said:

historically the police has been used to subjugate certain groups

That reads like you think the police have been used by others to subjugate and oppress certain groups.
Doesn't that make the police mere pawns of other players ?
If so, isn't the current situation misdirecting anger at police, when it should be directed at those players that used them ?
That same police also provides protection for me, and the people of Chicago; I don't want them to be reluctant to do that job for fear it might lead to un-informed rioting.

Or am I mis-interpreting your post ?

[CharonY]

35 minutes ago, MigL said:

That reads like you think the police have been used by others to subjugate and oppress certain groups.

No, you are reading too much into semantics. You could instead they they were designed as such. Which means that their internal mechanisms reflect their purpose. It is not that the police works in an innocent vacuum and are only doing someones bidding. And I think this is where the our differences in view appear. You seem to think of the police force as something is something reactive, and if things go wrong it is due to failures of a few individuals on either side of the matter. 

This view does not acknowledge systemic issues within the system were a combination of police, lawmakers and of course big swathes of the populations itself have created a system where deadly force by the police and especially against certain groups (outcasts of society, poor folks, and minorities) are kind of accepted targets.

Again, while in other countries the police may not be perfect and have other issues, they lack certain elements that are apparently part of the North American system, which leads to rather dramatic differences in outcome. Or in short, the difference between systemic issues of the system vs individual responsibility. 

I should probably add that in recent times there are police agencies actively trying to change, including changing accountability rules. The Camden police department was one of the models where the whole department was disbanded, due to corruption, accusations of police planting evidence, and a deluge of complaints. At the same time Camden saw huge crime rates. Crimes went uderreported as the the black residents were afraid of the police.

After disbanding the whole police force and building it from the ground up and starting a community-oriented policing, crime rates dropped, they hired more black officers (as Camden was a mostly black community) and so on. So here a radical rebuild was an effective measure to root out the system that has been set up in the former Camden police force.

[MigL]

52 minutes ago, CharonY said:

No, you are reading too much into semantics

Maybe so; that's why my whole post was questioning.
Thank you for the clarification.

I have previously brought up the 'community policing' model, and am very much in favor of it.

[CharonY]

3 hours ago, MigL said:

I have previously brought up the 'community policing' model, and am very much in favor of it.

I think it is a very good model and evidence suggest that, too. Some of the issues is that the departments and their leadership are too entrenched into their ways and often trying to change it is difficult to impossible. Also trying to change a mindset of folks who are used to an adversarial mindset to do proper community policing is also somewhat unlikely. Studies suggest that one of the impediment is resisting police culture.

Sometimes it is necessary to change the whole thing and often the change has to come from the outside.

[paulsutton]

On 8/11/2020 at 5:09 PM, StringJunky said:

In the UK, if you shoot at someone or have a knife in the presence of armed police and don't follow their instructions, you will be shot dead....  telling you to disarm iimmediately is as much 'de-escalation' as you are going to get. Those people there are asking too much, especially given the prevalence of firearms there.

The police here in the UK try and diffuse situations,  very rarely do the police open fire and kill people,   a very low percentage of UK police carry Guns. Those that do are specialist units.  Police carry  Tazers .  I think most have access to CS gas (or is it pepper spray).