• Welcome to our new home!

    Please share any thoughts or issues here.


Defund and de-militarize the police. I'm all for it.

Joined
Aug 31, 2007
Messages
115,403
The answer to police violence is not 'reform'. It's defunding. Here's why

https://www.theguardian.com/comment...iolence-is-not-reform-its-defunding-heres-why

Bias training, body cameras, community dialogues – Minneapolis has tried them all. We need a better response

Alex S Vitale

Sun 31 May 2020 05.13 EDT

Last modified on Sun 31 May 2020

Every time protests erupt after yet another innocent black person is killed by police, “reform” is meekly offered as the solution. But what if drastically defunding the police – not reform – is the best way to stop unnecessary violence and death committed by law enforcement against communities of color?

Minneapolis, where George Floyd was killed by a police officer who kneeled on his neck for over eight minutes, has tried reform already. Five years ago, the Minneapolis police department was under intense pressure in the wake of both the national crisis of police killings of unarmed black men and its own local history of unnecessary police violence. In response, the department’s leaders undertook a series of reforms proposed by the Obama administration’s justice department and procedural reform advocates in academia.

The Minneapolis police implemented trainings on implicit bias, mindfulness, de-escalation, and crisis intervention; diversified the department’s leadership; created tighter use-of-force standards; adopted body cameras; initiated a series of police-community dialogues; and enhanced early-warning systems to identify problem officers.

In 2015, they brought in procedural reformer and implicit bias champion Phillip Atiba Goff to lead the National Initiative for Building Community Trust and Justice, a three-year, $4.75m project to use data collection, social psychology and police community dialogues to repair and strengthen the frayed relationship between cops and communities.

Following that, Minneapolis implemented a series of training programs designed to professionalize policing in the hopes that it would reduce abuses that might trigger more protests. Officers were trained in how to respond to mental health crisis calls, how to de-escalate confrontations with the public, how to be “mindful” in dangerous circumstances, and how to be more self-aware of their implicit racial bias. In 2018, the department even wrote a report, Focusing on Procedural Justice Internally and Externally, to highlight the broad range of procedural reforms they had implemented.

None of it worked.

That’s because “procedural justice” has nothing to say about the mission or function of policing. It assumes that the police are neutrally enforcing a set of laws that are automatically beneficial to everyone. Instead of questioning the validity of using police to wage an inherently racist war on drugs, advocates of “procedural justice” politely suggest that police get anti-bias training, which they will happily deliver for no small fee.

What “procedural justice” leaves out of the conversation are questions of substantive justice. What is the actual impact of policing on those policed and what could we do differently? Over the last 40 years we have seen a massive expansion of the scope and intensity of policing. Every social problem in poor and non-white communities has been turned over to the police to manage. The schools don’t work; let’s create school policing. Mental health services are decimated; let’s send police. Overdoses are epidemic; let’s criminalize people who share drugs. Young people are caught in a cycle of violence and despair; let’s call them superpredators and put them in prison for life.

Police have also become more militarized. The Federal 1033 program, the Department of Justice’s “Cops Office,” and homeland security grants have channeled billions of dollars in military hardware into American police departments to advance their “war on crime” mentality. A whole generation of police officers have been given “warrior” training that teaches them to see every encounter with the public as potentially their last, leading to a hostile attitude towards those policed and the unnecessary killing of people falsely considered a threat, such as the 12-year-old Tamir Rice, killed for holding a toy gun in an Ohio park.

The alternative is not more money for police training programs, hardware or oversight. It is to dramatically shrink their function. We must demand that local politicians develop non-police solutions to the problems poor people face. We must invest in housing, employment and healthcare in ways that directly target the problems of public safety. Instead of criminalizing homelessness, we need publicly financed supportive housing; instead of gang units, we need community-based anti-violence programs, trauma services and jobs for young people; instead of school police we need more counselors, after-school programs, and restorative justice programs.

A growing number of local activists in Minneapolis like Reclaim the Block, Black Visions Collective and MPD 150 are demanding just that. They are calling on Mayor Jacob Frey to defund the police by $45m and shift those resources into “community-led health and safety strategies.” The Minneapolis police department currently uses up to 30% of the entire city budget. Instead of giving them more money for pointless training programs, let’s divert that money into building up communities and individuals so we don’t “need” violent and abusive policing.
 
If anything, there should be no "Police Department." It's unconstitutional.

If they need more law enforcement, they need to deputize more people to be part of the sheriffs department.

At least there would be somebody responsible for the actions of the deputies who could be voted out of office.
 
Heh.

I'm all in favor of defunding bureaucratically managed police in favor of elected sheriffs, but their proposed solutions are so ineffectual that it has to be on purpose. I'm guessing this is a setup for some kind of bizarre anarcho-tyranny mashup that they can manipulate further: Let serious criminals run amok, but give peaceful citizens the knee-on-neck for petty statutory infractions or defending themselves, while robbing them to fund the crime in city hellholes and convincing the city dwellers their problems are someone else's fault.
 
Last edited:
LOL yeah bad idea. With that same logic lets all defund hospitals and dentists to? lets turn the police like the ones in London
maxresdefault.jpg

The same police that turns a blind eye to pedo rapists from international countries.
 
Heh.

I'm all in favor of defunding bureaucratically managed police in favor of elected sheriffs, but their proposed solutions are so ineffectual that it has to be on purpose. I'm guessing this is a setup for some kind of bizarre anarcho-tyranny mashup that they can manipulate further: Let serious criminals run amok, but give peaceful citizens the knee-on-neck for petty statutory infractions or defending themselves, while robbing them to fund the crime in city hellholes and convincing the city dwellers their problems are someone else's fault.

That's it exactly.

The local cops will only be used to disarm me and mine and prevent organizing to effect our defense.

So I can hope that the local cops get defunded as well.

The cities, on the other hand, will be knee deep in blood.
 
LOL yeah bad idea. With that same logic lets all defund hospitals and dentists to? lets turn the police like the ones in London
maxresdefault.jpg

The same police that turns a blind eye to pedo rapists from international countries.
Oh come on. They can always blow a whistle at the bad guys.
 
If anything, there should be no "Police Department." It's unconstitutional.

If they need more law enforcement, they need to deputize more people to be part of the sheriffs department.

At least there would be somebody responsible for the actions of the deputies who could be voted out of office.

PDs are private corporations enforcing corporate contract regulations under color of law. They're not unconstitutional as they are corporations, not governmental bodies and the BoR guarantees Freedom of Association. Business formation and contracts fall under Association. Whenever someone engages with police they are engaging in a commercial business transaction. That ticket, summons, etc that you are told to sign is a contract. Signature=contract.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: jkr
PDs are private corporations enforcing corporate contract regulations under color of law. They're not unconstitutional as they are corporations, not governmental bodies and the BoR guarantees Freedom of Association. Business formation and contracts fall under Association. Whenever someone engages with police they are engaging in a commercial business transaction. That ticket, summons, etc that you are told to sign is a contract. Signature=contract.

Except, at least not yet, a corporation can't shoot me in the face for not buying their product...well, except for health insurance companies I guess.
 
PDs are private corporations enforcing corporate contract regulations under color of law. They're not unconstitutional as they are corporations, not governmental bodies and the BoR guarantees Freedom of Association. Business formation and contracts fall under Association. Whenever someone engages with police they are engaging in a commercial business transaction. That ticket, summons, etc that you are told to sign is a contract. Signature=contract.

All Police Are Unconstitutional
 
Hey, keeping the rabble (that's us) under control (read that "enslaved") is expensive.

NYPD also maintains the Domain Awareness System, a network that provides information and analytics to police, drawn from a variety of sources, including a network of 9,000 publicly and privately owned surveillance cameras, license plate readers, ShotSpotter data, NYPD databases and radiation and chemical sensors.

That surveillance grid ain't gonna pay for itself.
 
That surveillance grid ain't gonna pay for itself.


Right you are.

Along these lines, here's one that should terrify any freedom loving individual:

The ATF had a budget of around $74 million back in the late 1970s. That's grown to over ONE AND A THIRD BILLION. That'll help you sleep at night
 
Right you are.

Along these lines, here's one that should terrify any freedom loving individual:

The ATF had a budget of around $74 million back in the late 1970s. That's grown to over ONE AND A THIRD BILLION. That'll help you sleep at night

Gee, thanks...
 

I honestly don't expect some writer for the DailyKos to understand what's really going on. The content of my post you quoted were literally confirmed to me by a ranking local police official, based on my own research and practice. It's all business and you (the ALL CAPS NAME) are free to enter into contracts with other corporations (PDs) under the BoR. Just remember that the terms of the contract are always enforced...

eta: the legal reality is that there are no governments anymore. There are only federal, state and municipal corporations engaged in commerce. Laws of commerce and currency (money) is what applies and that's called the Uniform Commercial Code, which not coincidentally every state has adopted. The original Constitution, as opposed to the commercial Constitution adopted in the aftermath of the Civil War, still applies to those that choose to invoke it, but only if you choose to not partake of the contracts offered by the second Constitution, which are bylaws of a federal corporation acting as a federal corporation offering government-like services and its state and local corporate subsidiaries. An employee retirement plan is a government-like service, for example. We call it Social Security.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top