What a 'defund the police' plan in Seattle might look like

[HoverBoarder]

In Seattle, there is a veto proof majority of the City Council that has vowed to cut 50% of the police department. The King County Executive Dow Constantine has also declared that the Seattle jail will be closed and replaced with a center for Community programs. In addition, all youth detention in King County will be outlawed.

Currently the council members have not been answering any/very little questions from their constituents on how this would affect public safety, and they currently have released very few details on the next steps or contingency plans.


One of the people that has had an enormous influence in this process is community activist/lawer Nikkita Oliver. Nikkita was also a leading contender for Seattle mayor in this last election.

Nikkita recently laid out plans for how she would like to see defunding of the police in Seattle plan to proceed, with the goal of getting rid of police entirely to be replaced by community social services in 2021.

Her opinion on this is especially important since she is one of the select few that has been allowed direct access to the City Council, and the organization that she advocates for, Decriminalize Seattle and King County Equity Now, have had a large influence on their plans on the matter.

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

Originally Posted by Nikkita Oliver in July 20th Converge Media interview

Our first set of demand as it related to defund in 2020, is we see three million dollars go to a participatory budgeting process. Because we need to have as much time as possible to get as much community involved as possible in deciding what is the next phase of services that we move into, and we want that process held by community. We want it to be in partnership with King County Equity now, Decriminalize Seattle, and the organizations that are under those coalitions.

Because we know that community is going to better administer that process than bureaucracy will right? The next step is also scaling up community-based services. So we're looking at 10 million dollars to help those organizations that already exist, that are doing public health and public safety work to be able to scale up so that in mid 2021, those organizations can start taking a much higher level of calls from 911, which is also about civilianizing 911 infrastructure.

As it stands now, police officers are involved in determining when people call into dispatch, what gets sent out to respond to that call. And so it is really important that we get this armed police mentality out of the way that we respond to crises, and really get a true social work understanding of what it means when someone in crisis calls.

You know, we have services in our city that know how to respond to domestic violence, know how to respond to mental health crises, know how to support people through courts, and other processes within the criminal punishment system, and those systems need to be well funded. The truth of the matter is that many of those organization are doing far more work, but are grossly underfunded, and we want to get to a place where those organization have exactly what they need.

The fourth bucket that we are looking at right now is housing, because we know that when people [don't have] housing and are stable, there's no way that they can live a totally safe life. When you're worried about where you are going to live, or what you're going to eat, you're inevitably going to be pushed into the criminal justice system. Your going to have to commit quote unquote crimes of poverty, and you're going to have to do things that otherwise you would not have to do if we made sure that everyone in our city who wanted it, had access to safe affordable housing.

So that's 2020, when we get to 2021, we're going to be asking the Seattle city council to also still commit to that 50% cut of SPD's budget, which is going to be 205 million dollars, because their budget right now is 410 million. That is a new opportunity to grow our civilianized 911 infrastructure, and to ensure that we grow those services that we know sociologically, we know scientifically, this is not some stuff we made up. There's tons of research that shows this, that we know actually keeps people from ever having to have having an encounter with police, and as we strengthen those services, we can continue to decrease SPD's budget, until we get to the place where they are no longer needed."

I noted before in this forum, that in my view, "under policing" was once determined to be a tremendously racist policy that caused there to be fewer police in an area, and it led to many unnecessary deaths. In fact, the police station that was at the center of the Seattle CHOP controversy was established based on advocacy of Seattle's first black Council member, Sam Smith, who "pushed for the establishment of the precinct so that officers would be more able to serve those living in the Central District" (a historically black neighborhood in Seattle).

The really ironic thing, is that I don't think that many of the white protesters and politicians who support policies like these realize how incredibly racist they are being towards black people when they don't consider the consequences of their actions.


That may seem overly harsh, but I view this as an issue that would result in more unnecessary deaths. In another interview by Converge Media, they interviewed the head of the Seattle Police department guild and other officers who noted that they definitely agreed with increasing community public health services, they also had a number of other ideas on reforms.

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

However in that interview, they noted that none of the Seattle Council members who support the 50% reduction have even reached out to the police to review plans on how the transition would be done safely, or their concerns on the matter. They simply won't return phone calls or answer any emails from them on the matter. They are also not responding to constituents who are asking for details on the plan. Even though they are fully set to move forward without hearing any input or considerations on the potential challenges.

It is very unclear to me how an active shooter, or sexual predator, or organized crime incident, or murder investigation, or even an armed burglary would be better suited by a squad of social workers.

There are very real reforms to address the issues of Systemic Racial Oppression, but this plan would almost certainly greatly increase the amount of death and suffering in the communities that proponents of 'defund the police' are most trying to "help."


In the Nikkita interview, they talk about a tragic mental health situation with Charleena Lyles that resulted in a shooting death after Charleena, who was a pregnant mom, charged police with a knife. She notes how a social worker trained in mental health response would have made a positive difference, and Charleena may have been alive if that had happened. I agree. However, that is not the correct solution to every 911 call.

The increased time to respond by police where life or death matters, and the increased impunity for criminals to engage in armed robberies, murders, and rape will only increase under this plan. Situations like George Floyd and Charleena Lyles are tragic, but they should absolutely not be used as justification to kill 100's or thousands of more people. Their future deaths, and the loss and pain from their families will be just as tragic. The choice whether or not to kill them is entirely up to the Council members across this country, and other supporters of the 'defund the police' movement. Their fingers are on the trigger, and they are expressing as much callous disregard for the lives they are about to take as seasoned murderers.


Gun sales throughout the Puget Sound region are surging dramatically. Those unable to wait in the long lines at gun stores in King County, are going to other counties where lines are also stretching around the building. People are preparing for a large increase in shootings and violence, and the lack of planning or concern from Seattle Council commissioners are giving them little reason to believe otherwise.

How do people here view Seattle's plan, do you think my reservations or concerns are somewhat valid, or overblown? Some have stated that any concerns about public safety are racist, even if those concerns come from people of color.

As someone who has to live through the results of this plan, I am more than just academically interested in the results.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by HoverBoarder

Gun sales throughout the Puget Sound region are surging dramatically. Those unable to wait in the long lines at gun stores in King County, are going to other counties where lines are also stretching around the building. People are preparing for a large increase in shootings and violence, and the lack of planning or concern from Seattle Council commissioners are giving them little reason to believe otherwise.

At the end of the day, police serve to protect criminals from vigilante justice just as much as they serve to protect people from criminals. If police are sufficiently restrained, all those guns people are buying will get put to use.

[arthwollipot]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

At the end of the day, police serve to protect criminals from vigilante justice just as much as they serve to protect people from criminals. If police are sufficiently restrained, all those guns people are buying will get put to use.

And here was me thinking that those people were buying those guns so that they could protect themselves against a tyrannical government.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

And here was me thinking that those people were buying those guns so that they could protect themselves against a tyrannical government.

That’s a pretty lame attempt at a gotcha. The point was always simply to have the power to defend yourself. Tyrannical government is only one of the potential threats.

And it’s a god-damn attractive point right about now.

[HoverBoarder]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

At the end of the day, police serve to protect criminals from vigilante justice just as much as they serve to protect people from criminals. If police are sufficiently restrained, all those guns people are buying will get put to use.

That is an excellent observation. There certainly would be some vigilante justice, and a MASSIVE increase in private security which got an enormous increase in contracts during the time of CHOP.


There will certainly be long time trained gun owners who have trained themselves to handle firearms safely, and other new inexperienced gun owners who may panic under pressure. While people have long armed themselves to protect their home and family, there has never in my memory been such a large need or demand for residents to arm themselves outside of actual wartime conditions in the US.

I don't know that most of the people are necessarily being restrained from using their guns on other people in the city. As many studies have shown, the vast majority of residents of Seattle have a positive or highly positive view of police, and would much rather have trained professionals do the work of keeping them safe. Rather than having to figure it out themselves.

In Seattle, a recent survey showed that 72% of residents of Seattle had a favorable, or highly favorable view of police, and only 17% supported cutting the police force by 50%. The suprising thing about that survey is that the elected council members who support the veto proof majority plan of cutting the police force by 50% are neither responding, or even addressing the concerns of the 83% of Seattleites who do not want to move forward with the 50% SPD reduction plan.

[HoverBoarder]

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

And here was me thinking that those people were buying those guns so that they could protect themselves against a tyrannical government.

To my knowledge, besides CHOP and maybe a few other examples, we have never attempted an experiment with such an idea of lawlessness. There will be a lot of unknowns until it is actually carried out.

It certainly is a bold experiment with the lives of 750,000 people.

[Busta Capp]

I have never been a fan of the police.
I have fought them on numerous occasions, for some perceived injustice or another.

I can honestly say a city, a state, a country without them is gonna su-diddly-uck.

We need stronger accountability for police that cross the line.
We don't need less police.

[arthwollipot]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

That’s a pretty lame attempt at a gotcha. The point was always simply to have the power to defend yourself. Tyrannical government is only one of the potential threats.

And it’s a god-damn attractive point right about now.

For the first time in my life, I can actually sympathise with this point of view.

Mind you, do you think anyone is actually all that likely to start shooting at the militarised police?

[rjh01]

Here is a Youtube from Vox that explains the concept. It is a good idea.

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

[arthwollipot]

Originally Posted by rjh01

Here is a Youtube from Vox that explains the concept. It is a good idea.

John Oliver has a good breakdown, too.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

For the first time in my life, I can actually sympathise with this point of view.

Mind you, do you think anyone is actually all that likely to start shooting at the militarised police?

Did you miss the point on purpose? Or do you honestly not understand how this plays out?

[Puppycow]

What business is going to want to set up shop in a place where their store can be demolished at any time by an angry mob and the police can't or won't do anything about it?

[rockinkt]

Originally Posted by Puppycow

What business is going to want to set up shop in a place where their store can be demolished at any time by an angry mob and the police can't or won't do anything about it?

They're not going to stay or go there to set up shop.
Just look at the abandoned inner core of many US cities for existing examples. The nice sanitized description is calling it urban decay.
It should be called - "The multi-generational criminals who live here are too out of control to have any sort of civilized commerce so we're leaving".

[uke2se]

Originally Posted by rjh01

Here is a Youtube from Vox that explains the concept. It is a good idea.

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

Seems rather reasonable, actually. Might not be applicable in all countries, but considering the history of US policing, it certainly seems to be applicable there.

[Distracted1]

Originally Posted by HoverBoarder

To my knowledge, besides CHOP and maybe a few other examples, we have never attempted an experiment with such an idea of lawlessness. There will be a lot of unknowns until it is actually carried out.

It certainly is a bold experiment with the lives of 750,000 people.

Truly seems like something that should have been put up to some kind of referendum.

That buys some time for the first %10 of the citizens who don't wish to be the subjects of such an experiment to sell their houses before the values plummet too much.
The rest can take huge losses. Fairly quickly the tax base will not support such a large police force anyway.

The residents of the suburbs will undoubtedly be thrilled with their skyrocketing home values.
so, In a way, this does do a lot of good for a lot of people- just not the ones stuck in the city.

[Arcade22]

Is there any other place where the proper response to mentally unhinged people acting out with knives or guns is to call social care workers?

Even here in relatively peaceful Sweden the police sometimes have to act against people like this and sometimes they end up dead.

[uke2se]

Originally Posted by Arcade22

Is there any other place where the proper response to mentally unhinged people acting out with knives or guns is to call social care workers?

Even here in relatively peaceful Sweden the police sometimes have to act against people like this and sometimes they end up dead.

That's true. People acting erratic and wielding weapons would require police presence. Might be a good idea to also have a mental health expert on site to attempt to talk the person down.

Or they could just shoot him.

However, there are times that a crazy person is acting out without being armed. Maybe armed police isn't necessary then. That's what "defund the police" means.

[Distracted1]

Originally Posted by rockinkt

They're not going to stay or go there to set up shop.
Just look at the abandoned inner core of many US cities for existing examples. The nice sanitized description is calling it urban decay.
It should be called - "The multi-generational criminals who live here are too out of control to have any sort of civilized commerce so we're leaving".

Detroit
Cleveland
Pittsburg
Baltimore
St. Louis
Atlanta
New Orleans
Etc. etc.

We have seen the outcome of such things before.

De-facto De-Integration in action. Doesn't turn out well for those left behind.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by uke2se

However, there are times that a crazy person is acting out without being armed. Maybe armed police isn't necessary then. That's what "defund the police" means.

What "defund the police" means keeps changing. It's a motte and bailey, and you're describing the motte. But the bailey is still there, it's still being pushed.

[Distracted1]

What "defund the police" means to me.
By Evelyn Roberts, grade 4

Good Idea to push policy that is not clearly defined- that way one can pander to everyone.

[Brainster]

I would love to see a very detailed budget of the SPD; the one that they have doesn't break down expense by category, but by location. I have a very strong inkling that $205 million is more than the combined total of all SPD's payroll. Remember that police departments have lots of other expenses than payroll. The "thought process" behind the 50% budget reduction appears to be that this will reduce the number of cops by 50%. Guess again. Yes, as you cut the force there will be reductions in some other expenses; presumably the department would need only half as many patrol cars, computers, etc. But other expenses (fixed expenses) don't scale.

After watching that special, Seattle is Dying, I can see that SPD is being required to handle far too many mentally ill people far too often. That said, putting more mental health professionals on the street isn't the answer; getting more of the mentally ill off the street seems more likely to result in positive outcomes for everybody.

[Brainster]

Originally Posted by rjh01

Here is a Youtube from Vox that explains the concept. It is a good idea.

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

I know I shouldn't point this out but somebody should tell Vox that if you have a young journalist with a squeaky little-girl voice, having her use kids' toy blocks as props might undercut the notion that this is a serious presentation on an adult topic.

[crescent]

Originally Posted by Busta Capp

(snip)

We need stronger accountability for police that cross the line.
We don't need less police.

This is pretty close to my idea. We could get by with less police - IF (big if) we had much more robust social services than we do. Better societal attitudes and funding towards treatment of addiction and mental health.

The catch being, we can't just strip funding from the police and use it for social services, because it will take time to build up such services.

Ramp up social services for mental health and addiction. THEN we can start reducing policing levels. Sometimes you gotta spend more money to build the ability to start saving money. We need to do that.

While policing levels remain high, implement better use of forces and disciplinary practices. Do sentencing reform and prison reform. Shift more to crime prevention and away from "maintaining order", which has shown itself to often be massively counterproductive.

[HoverBoarder]

Originally Posted by crescent

This is pretty close to my idea. We could get by with less police - IF (big if) we had much more robust social services than we do. Better societal attitudes and funding towards treatment of addiction and mental health.

The catch being, we can't just strip funding from the police and use it for social services, because it will take time to build up such services.

Ramp up social services for mental health and addiction. THEN we can start reducing policing levels. Sometimes you gotta spend more money to build the ability to start saving money. We need to do that.

While policing levels remain high, implement better use of forces and disciplinary practices. Do sentencing reform and prison reform. Shift more to crime prevention and away from "maintaining order", which has shown itself to often be massively counterproductive.

This is extremely close to what I had been planning on saying in a post here later today. We need actual plans to transition specific duties if there were to be a safe transition, not just a catch-all buzz word of Social Services, and the hope that they can do everything.

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by HoverBoarder

To my knowledge, besides CHOP and maybe a few other examples, we have never attempted an experiment with such an idea of lawlessness. There will be a lot of unknowns until it is actually carried out.

It certainly is a bold experiment with the lives of 750,000 people.

Leadership in the City of Seattle has been a fan of "bold experiments" for a while now. Including the Seattle School district's plans for "critical math" that includes discussions on how math is inherently a tool of oppression.

Arizona is full of whackos. But I like this brand of whacko better than the brand of whacko I left behind when I moved our of WA.

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

That’s a pretty lame attempt at a gotcha. The point was always simply to have the power to defend yourself. Tyrannical government is only one of the potential threats.

And it’s a god-damn attractive point right about now.

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

For the first time in my life, I can actually sympathise with this point of view.

Mind you, do you think anyone is actually all that likely to start shooting at the militarised police?

Pretty sure you're both looking at different points.

Zig is looking at "point to defend yourself" as an attractive point.
Arth is looking at "defend against tyrannical government" as being the attractive point Zig's talking about.

[Brainster]

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

Leadership in the City of Seattle has been a fan of "bold experiments" for a while now. Including the Seattle School district's plans for "critical math" that includes discussions on how math is inherently a tool of oppression.

That's a shame, because all it takes is a little creativity to turn math into a tool of liberation:

Q. If Jesse has three molotov cocktails and he hurls two at police cars, how many does he have left?
A. What does it matter? What matters is that he was furthering societal change by a radical act!

[HoverBoarder]

Originally Posted by Brainster

That's a shame, because all it takes is a little creativity to turn math into a tool of liberation:

Q. If Jesse has three molotov cocktails and he hurls two at police cars, how many does he have left?
A. What does it matter? What matters is that he was furthering societal change by a radical act!

Haha, I love it! Pure gold.

[HoverBoarder]

And so it begins........

I am really saddened and fearful for what this will mean for Seattle. The city council recently banned the use of any crowd control measures by SPD, and even the ability for them to own the devices. They are literally only left with batons, shields, and guns.

Last week, a group of about 150 people roamed around Seattle, burning and destroying businesses without any intervention by the Police. However, it is about to get a whole lot worse. The Chief just signaled that they will likely continue to not intervene unless it is life or death.

https://mynorthwest.com/2042993/seat...d-control-ban/

Originally Posted by SPD Chief Best

As you may have seen, yesterday the federal court chose to not intercede, at this time, in the Council’s ordinance banning the possession or use of less-lethal tools typically used in crowd control situations – including the 40mm “blue nose” and any chemical irritant.

This does include OC (“pepper spray”), if it is used at a demonstration, rally, or in any way that it would affect someone other than the intended individual. Since it would nearly impossible to keep OC spray from affecting anyone nearby, the ordinance effectively bans the use of OC as well.

The ordinance goes into effect this weekend, on Sunday, July 26th.

Given these facts, and with many individuals clearly intent on violence as in recent events, we are significantly adjusting our deployment plans for all upcoming major events, including this weekend.

Your commanders will provide more detailed information, but I want to be clear that I will never ask you to risk your personal safety to protect property without the tools to do so in a safe way.

We will closely monitor all events, and the incident commanders will direct any action in line with laws, department policies, and officer safety considerations. We will continue to address life safety incidents and calls for service.

With no intervention by SPD, and the ability to destroy anything they want with impunity short of "life safety" incidents, the SPD will not intervene to protect property without the tools to safely protect their officers from harm. Police have definitely had many injuries from last weekend, and there will definitely be a lot more injuries this weekend, although I am hopeful that no one will be killed.

To be clear, the Police Chief just told Seattle residents that if their house, building, or business is being attacked or set on fire by a large mob, they will not be there to protect you unless it's life or death. If you want to protect yourself, you will either need to run away, or shoot them yourself.

[rockinkt]

I would strongly suggest the police direct and funnel the rioters and looters into the neighborhoods where the Seattle City Council members have their homes.
With any luck - the city councillors who voted for this insanity will lose everything in a burning violent maelstrom of attacking rioters and looters.

If any of the city councillors or their families are put at risk of death or grievous bodily harm by rioters or other criminals - the police should give them advice on how to defuse the situation verbally. The police must give this advice at a distance using loudspeakers as police officers should never be put in a situation where they might have to use force on a voter.

[dann]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

That’s a pretty lame attempt at a gotcha. The point was always simply to have the power to defend yourself. Tyrannical government is only one of the potential threats.

And it’s a god-damn attractive point right about now.

Yes, tyrannical government is indeed a threat right about now:
MSNBC (July 25, 2020): It’s Time We Use the F-Word: Fascism

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by dann

Yes, tyrannical government is indeed a threat right about now:
MSNBC (July 25, 2020): It’s Time We Use the F-Word: Fascism

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

The dark night of fascism is always descending on America, but it lands in Europe.

[deadrose]

1. A federal judge has overturned the ban on less-lethal weapons, so the cops can go back to firing tear gas grenades directly at people's faces and torsos.

2. The places damaged by people were specifically targeted. One was owned by a cop & his wife, one of the cops who shot a pregnant mentally-ill woman to death 3 years ago. One was an Amazon-owned business. I don't recall what the others were right now, but it was targeted, not general mayhem.

This is not to say I approve of their actions, I'm just clarifying that they were not randomly burning and looting. So far the only major looting turned out to be a criminal group trying to take advantage of the protests, and they were identified and caught (it probably works better to be somewhere near the protests instead of hitting the high-end shopping center in a posh suburb).

[rockinkt]

Originally Posted by deadrose

1. A federal judge has overturned the ban on less-lethal weapons, so the cops can go back to firing tear gas grenades directly at people's faces and torsos.

2. The places damaged by people were specifically targeted. One was owned by a cop & his wife, one of the cops who shot a pregnant mentally-ill woman to death 3 years ago. One was an Amazon-owned business. I don't recall what the others were right now, but it was targeted, not general mayhem.

This is not to say I approve of their actions, I'm just clarifying that they were not randomly burning and looting. So far the only major looting turned out to be a criminal group trying to take advantage of the protests, and they were identified and caught (it probably works better to be somewhere near the protests instead of hitting the high-end shopping center in a posh suburb).

Because vigilantism and mob rule is just dandy.

You forgot to mention that the mentally ill woman was armed with a knife and told the officers to "get ready". She refused repeated commands to drop the knife and the officers did not have a taser. She was within a few feet of the officers in a small kitchen. It ain't like TV where anybody can instantly become Bruce Lee and kung fu a knife wielding person with no chance of getting an artery slit, a knife in the throat, or their bowels spilled onto the floor.
This was not the first time the police had to deal with this poor deranged woman. She held a pair of scissors to her child's neck on a previous occasion but the police were able to talk her down. You can talk someone down when they are threatening someone else - it's a lot harder to talk someone down when they are threatening your life with a knife within striking distance.

BTW - that "criminal group" seems to be a pretty large and very active group. What proof do we have that the "peaceful protesters" are not purposely protesting wherever they want the criminal group to strike? Seems like an interesting coincidence that wherever the protesters are a "legitimate mob justice target" just happens to be there as well.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by deadrose

2. The places damaged by people were specifically targeted. One was owned by a cop & his wife, one of the cops who shot a pregnant mentally-ill woman to death 3 years ago. One was an Amazon-owned business. I don't recall what the others were right now, but it was targeted, not general mayhem.

That's actually worse than if it were just general mayhem.

[deadrose]

Funny, the part where I said

Quote:

This is not to say I approve of their actions

doesn't appear invisible to me.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by deadrose

Funny, the part where I said

doesn't appear invisible to me.

It wasn’t invisible to me either. But you don’t have to approve of something to think it’s better than something else. You can think one bad thing is less bad than another bad thing.

And that appeared to be what you were saying, though you are free to clarify. But your post didn’t contain my claim (that it’s worse if the violence isn’t random), either because you didn’t agree with it or because you just didn’t include it.

[HoverBoarder]

Originally Posted by rjh01

Here is a Youtube from Vox that explains the concept. It is a good idea.

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

Thank you for posting this. This is good to have on this thread.

I would challenge you to watch this again with a more critical eye.

The most critical mistake of defund the police is that they do not think of how specific duties of police would be sufficiently replaced by social services. It is often used as a catch all phrase without much thought past that. Critical issues that could not be easily replaced by social services include:

• Reckless driving
• DUI
• Murder Investigations
• Drive by Shootings
• Arson
• Active shooter situations
• Sexual Predators
• Active rape
• Mass shooting
• Serial killers
• armed robberies
• Car jacking
• Home invasion
• etc.

The Vox video starts out by identifying some of the well known problems with our justice structure today.

• 80% of people arrested are arrested for misdemeanor crimes. While Vox does not go into as much of the details on why this is a serious problem, those arrests can have lifelong consequences. Problems in getting a job, legal fees, and negative interactions with criminals in jail. Those factors make it harder for them to recover and become productive members of society.
  
• The budgets for police are HUGE, and in many case they far outspend community services that can help people to guide their life choices into something that lead them into being successful and productive members of society.
  
• While black people of color commit a higher percentage of crime per capita than other races, they are also much more heavily policed and represent a disproportionate amount of arrests. There are many factors that go into this, not just racial abuse by police, but factors such as educational inequities, issues of poverty, and other areas that have major impacts.
  
• Police have more and more been asked to cover for underfunded social services.

While the solutions they provide start well, they ignore the VAST amount of data that shows the increases in deaths and problems that arise when police services are reduced without an adequate replacement. Basically mental health cases, and issues with homeless, could likely be better served if social services presence was available both during and after an encounter with police, but you would not want to send a squad of social workers into an armed robbery.

The failure to make this distinction is the critical failure of the defund the police movement.

They provided data that showed that deaths went up when policing went down, but assumed that this would not be the case since they would put money into social services. To be clear, increased social services would likely have a positive impact on misdemeanors, not just by changing police response for mental health situations, but for a reduction in jails for low level offenses for programs that focus on recidivism. However, for the main factors that affect deaths from crime, you cannot just assume that deaths will not follow previous instances of death rate increases due to a reduction of police presence if you do not have something to adequately replace the police services in those areas.


They also brought up the idea that the problem would be much better if we were in a communist system. That people with enough stuff would not need to steal. However, we have no plan to move to a communist system, so to plan such a major component of the defund the police scheme to something they know would not happen is disingenuous.

They than went on to describe that social services if funded enough could lead to being able to abolish the police. The problem with that is that there is just not the type of services that exist that would be able to replace some of the key police functions I listed at the start.

They note that those problems including violent crime, while still causing thousands of deaths, still represent a small percentage of the arrests that police make. However, the reason that they are so small is because we have spent so much money on addressing them. If we take away the ability to address those life and death problems with just a buzz word of "social services" those problems, and the real life people that represent the deaths and assault victim statistics will balloon.

[HoverBoarder]

Originally Posted by deadrose

1. A federal judge has overturned the ban on less-lethal weapons, so the cops can go back to firing tear gas grenades directly at people's faces and torsos.

2. The places damaged by people were specifically targeted. One was owned by a cop & his wife, one of the cops who shot a pregnant mentally-ill woman to death 3 years ago. One was an Amazon-owned business. I don't recall what the others were right now, but it was targeted, not general mayhem.

This is not to say I approve of their actions, I'm just clarifying that they were not randomly burning and looting. So far the only major looting turned out to be a criminal group trying to take advantage of the protests, and they were identified and caught (it probably works better to be somewhere near the protests instead of hitting the high-end shopping center in a posh suburb).

That is very good that the Judge did that. That was very close to a lot of people getting hurt, and the Seattle city council being hurt.

As for the victims of the mob last week, that is a very specific hit list you mention. Not just random looting and burning.

It certainly get closer to approaching targeted hate crimes, and purposeful terrorization of specific groups in their community. It is unfortunate for the community, and the victims that none of them were caught. Hopefully they will spend many, many years in jail if they are.

[Brainster]

Here's some news from Minneapolis on one of the unintended consequences there:

Quote:

Minneapolis residents in some areas still recovering from rioting and unrest are forming community watch and security groups, some bearing firearms, to fight a surge of crime in the wake of the George Floyd killing in May. At least one neighborhood has put up barricades to keep away outsiders.

<snip>

Quote:

In late June, residents near a commercial strip that had been looted, and the 3rd Precinct station that was abandoned and burned, were seeing a surge of shooting and drug-related crime on their block.

“It got to the point where crime had no consequences,” said Tania Rivera, 30, who runs a child-care center with her mother. “It was being done deliberately out in the open. Drive-through drug dealing, drive-through prostitution, everything from gunshots to assaults to sex out in the public. Everything you didn’t want your neighborhood to look like.”

So after a number of community meetings, neighbors began constructing a barrier to close off two blocks of their street, first with trash cans, then debris. For a while, a boat on a trailer protected one intersection. Eventually, a nearby iron maker constructed a permanent gate. Police gave their approval as long as emergency responders could get through if requested by the neighborhood.

Neighborhood men also began an armed patrol, kicking out anyone who didn’t belong on the block after dark.

I can't imagine how that's going to improve race relations in the city.