Law Enforcement Reform Thread (formerly Defund the Police) (1 Viewer)

[First Time Poster]

So I got busy the other day with the intention to revisit this topic and answer some of the responses put forward but I realized the thread was deleted. But, I felt we had good dialogue happening before I left so I wanted to restart the topic to get the conversation going again. We started some dialogue about it on the liberal board but I feel this topic transcends party lines so I'm making a MCB thread. Post #2, or my next post, is the post I made on the liberal board when asked to elaborate how I felt.

 

[JimEverett]

This is one of those issues that seem to show that one's stated ideology is at odds with something more fundamental. Traditionally conservatives tend to be against the government, very strong on the second Amendment because they need to be able to defend themselves against criminals and a tyrannical government. However, when people talk about taking power away from the government in terms of having a less heavily armed government in terms of the police and military, they start to object. Those positions seem to be at odds -- if you don't trust the government, why wouldn't you want to have the government less armed?

Modern day conservatism to me seems to be a weird mix of loving and hating authority.

You can flip this with liberals who advocate for more government programs, but not trusting authority.

It is a good point. My initial thoughts on it are:
1 - U.S. conservative theory has usually disliked centralized authority. So while the idea of federal police would be abhorrent conservatives really like LOCAL police. And I think these demonstrations and the movement they represent has a very anti-[local]police vibe to them, hence the opposition from conservatives.

2 - There is always in this day-and-age an immediate political consideration. The rallies/protests are seen as coming from an anti-Trump position, so you are going to get people who support Trump be opposed to anything and everything coming out of the protests simply due to the immediate political calculations.

There is more to it than these, I am sure. That is just what came to mind when reading your post.

 

[Incumbent]

You can flip this with liberals who advocate for more government programs, but not trusting authority.

Not sure I could agree with that.

I think advocacy for a strong social safety net, for example, isn't at odds with also opposing authoritarian overreach.

Am I misunderstanding?

 

[not2rich]

I do and I may have more guns and ammo than you. This isn’t about protecting me or mine. The police are needed to maintain order in our society and without them we would be going back to the Wild West pretty quickly.

The police aren't needed to maintain order. The reason we observe social norms and rules isn't because we're afraid of the cops; it's just a fundamental requirement for living in a society.

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

Not sure I could agree with that.

I think advocacy for a strong social safety net, for example, isn't at odds with also opposing authoritarian overreach.

Am I misunderstanding?

I think the idea is that if you give the government more money, even for social safety programs, you are in effect trusting the government leaders to use that money effectively. To some degree you have to trust that authority, which seems at odds with some of the anti-authoritarian messaging that is sometimes used.

I'm not saying that people who have views that can on the surface appear to be contradictory are hypocrites, or need to change their stances on anything. But I think it's an opportunity for deeper reflection.

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

It is a good point. My initial thoughts on it are:
1 - U.S. conservative theory has usually disliked centralized authority. So while the idea of federal police would be abhorrent conservatives really like LOCAL police. And I think these demonstrations and the movement they represent has a very anti-[local]police vibe to them, hence the opposition from conservatives.

2 - There is always in this day-and-age an immediate political consideration. The rallies/protests are seen as coming from an anti-Trump position, so you are going to get people who support Trump be opposed to anything and everything coming out of the protests simply due to the immediate political calculations.

There is more to it than these, I am sure. That is just what came to mind when reading your post.

So, it's really hard to determine what people's core values are, because I think we're kind of a mix of values from our environment, our various upbringings, cultural values we've absorbed and so on. I've read that a lot of our decisions and so on are actually made instantaneously and we only apply rationals after the fact. I think to some degree our positions on a lot of things are emotionally driven based on our life experiences and we apply philosophies and logic to it after the fact. Ie, we have a conclusion and we seek justifications and reasonings for it after the fact.

So, it appears to me that conservatives have a strong affinity with the ideas of vigorous self defense, the ability to be stronger than any potential adversary is very appealing. So, they want guns to protect themselves, but they also want the local government to have lots of guns to protect them from perceived outsiders, and they want the federal government to have lots of guns to protect the nation from perceived outside threats. I think you are right that they are more comfortable with authority coming from a more local level (the individual being the ultimate authority), as long as they identify with any government going on up, they want that authority to be vigorously armed.

Or something like that, maybe.

I agree with political calculations to some degree, and we all do it. I wish people wouldn't let other people define their positions so easily though. Why should what some idiot in Seattle who takes some position too far, have anything to do with what I actually believe to be the best for the country? I know it's a reflexive attitude, but it's counter productive I think.

 

[dtc]

Yes. I can get behind every thing you just listed. I will also say that probably 99% of the police would be behind those changes especially in regard to mental health calls/checks. Changes are needed and have been needed for sometime and the vast majority of Americans are behind that.

I am just saying it doesn't do the goal of police reform any good when the movement is shouting one thing but then it really means something completely different. You are asking Americans to assume a pretty radical idea in their mind when someone yells "defund the police" where if someone yelled "Re imagine Policing" or something that actually reflects the movement, a lot more people will look and listen with an open mind. You catch more flies with honey.

I've heard 1000 white friends complain about "defund the police" I've been inundated with FB memes and posts telling me to love the police, to respect them to appreciate how dangerous and underpaid they are. I've seen talking heads ridiculue "don't fund the police" for a week now, but it seems to me that's all right wing oratory where the right has taken a term and rephrased it in order to sell use it against an idea rather than actually considering the issue in depth.

Sadly, that's what the right does. They take a word like "socialism" and then brand anything and everything with it as a pejorative. Obamacare is a prime example. Most of its provisions are loved. Call it "obamacare" and the whole right side of the aisle hates it because SOCIALISM.

The left does it too, but not to the same extent and not as cynically.

The point I'm trying to make is that until we stop talking past each others via memes and hurtful slogans nothing is going to happen. The right in this country needs to stop striving for simplistic sloganeering and open their minds to the complexity of a conversation before taking a stand.

If you can understand that nuance in the disproven notion of "trickle down economics" you can take 30 seconds to hear more than defund the police as eliminating all law enforcement and learn that even for a change in its infancy it's more than a policeless anarchy.

 

[dtc]

So I was told that I didn’t understand the defund the police movement. This is in Seattle and there have been similar signs in Chicago and New York.

And clearly you don't if you look at a wall mural slogan and believe that "abolish the police" is a plan to be lawless. It isn't. As I said in the previous post, it's reactive sloganeering instead of actually considering that for some police forces which have been unable to be reformed and cleaned up, wiping the slate and starting over with a new division of tasks among alternative providers may be necessary.

Hell, in my area it could be as simple as not having city police and county sheriffs basically doing the same job with duplicative budgets.

 

[Incumbent]

I think the idea is that if you give the government more money, even for social safety programs, you are in effect trusting the government leaders to use that money effectively. To some degree you have to trust that authority, which seems at odds with some of the anti-authoritarian messaging that is sometimes used.

I'm not saying that people who have views that can on the surface appear to be contradictory are hypocrites, or need to change their stances on anything. But I think it's an opportunity for deeper reflection.

Thank you for the reply. It is an interesting thought exercise.

I guess depending on the depth of mistrust in authority, it doesn't matter if it's government or the private sector. People who generally don't trust authority clearly exist. I'm not convinced that speaks very broadly to people who identify as liberal / progressive, though.

Maybe a point of disagreement is how large of a group of people we are considering?

My sense is that most liberals believe they can trust authority in some functions, and less so, in others, without being (or feeling) conflicted.

 

[Farb]

I've heard 1000 white friends complain about "defund the police" I've been inundated with FB memes and posts telling me to love the police, to respect them to appreciate how dangerous and underpaid they are. I've seen talking heads ridiculue "don't fund the police" for a week now, but it seems to me that's all right wing oratory where the right has taken a term and rephrased it in order to sell use it against an idea rather than actually considering the issue in depth.

Sadly, that's what the right does. They take a word like "socialism" and then brand anything and everything with it as a pejorative. Obamacare is a prime example. Most of its provisions are loved. Call it "obamacare" and the whole right side of the aisle hates it because SOCIALISM.

The left does it too, but not to the same extent and not as cynically.

The point I'm trying to make is that until we stop talking past each others via memes and hurtful slogans nothing is going to happen. The right in this country needs to stop striving for simplistic sloganeering and open their minds to the complexity of a conversation before taking a stand.

If you can understand that nuance in the disproven notion of "trickle down economics" you can take 30 seconds to hear more than defund the police as eliminating all law enforcement and learn that even for a change in its infancy it's more than a policeless anarchy.

You know how you solve this problem. Be better at articulating what you actually mean.
Why is it my responsibility to sit down ad try and filter through different messages to try and translate the 'real' message. Just say the real message. Why is that so hard?

I think it is because you have very different groups marching/taking over/rioting off the backs of other groups that actually want to peacefully protest and effect real change. Until the protesters/rioters/anarchist figure this out and 'police' their own movement, I don't see it turning out like how they imagine.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

You know how you solve this problem. Be better at articulating what you actually mean.
Why is it my responsibility to sit down ad try and filter through different messages to try and translate the 'real' message. Just say the real message. Why is that so hard?

I think it is because you have very different groups marching/taking over/rioting off the backs of other groups that actually want to peacefully protest and effect real change. Until the protesters/rioters/anarchist figure this out and 'police' their own movement, I don't see it turning out like how they imagine.

Phrased another way: Why is it your job to take time to understand people who are terrified of being murdered at the hands of the people that are supposed to protect them.

Maybe if you look at it this way, you will realize how ridiculous it sounds.

 

[Farb]

That's fine. Keep sending out mixed messages and keep losing the people. Keep getting upset when you are screaming at the air with no one listening. Keep blaming everyone else for not solving a puzzle you created. Do you want actual change in system or do you want a new system becasue people don't really know and it appears that neither do the protesters.

And by 'you' I don't mean you Cuddle, but you as in the group.

 

[Incumbent]

You know how you solve this problem. Be better at articulating what you actually mean.
Why is it my responsibility to sit down ad try and filter through different messages to try and translate the 'real' message. Just say the real message. Why is that so hard?

I think it is because you have very different groups marching/taking over/rioting off the backs of other groups that actually want to peacefully protest and effect real change. Until the protesters/rioters/anarchist figure this out and 'police' their own movement, I don't see it turning out like how they imagine.

Isn't it true with any ideology, including the larger groups of conservatism and liberalism, that there will be variations in message and intent, though, and the existence of radicalism?

I agree there are messaging problems with "defund the police", there are also extreme views under that umbrella that I don't agree with, but that shouldn't mean I can't sift through to figure out where I stand and what I support. What we have seen from police around the country, just in the last few weeks alone, should be enough to get everybody's attention on reform. It's been appalling.

 

[Farb]

I would suggest, if your movement includes violence, burning of private businesses, and restructuring/removing/re-imagine/refunding? perhaps one of the most important pillar of the society, then I think it is your responsibility to have a clear message. Otherwise, people will lose interest and then you will have to really burn some shirt to get back their attention and the vast majority of Americans don't like people burning down their neighborhoods.

 

[Heathen]

I would suggest, if your movement includes violence, maiming of peaceful protestors, and restructuring/removing funds to schools and housing programs? perhaps one of the most important pillar of the society, then I think it is your responsibility to have a clear message. Otherwise, people will lose interest and then you will have to really kill more unarmed civilians to get back their attention and the vast majority of Americans don't like police killing unarmed civilians.

See above. Are you able to view things from another angle in that regard?

I don't know what the majority of America thinks. I'm sure a vast number of Americans are against pillaging of businesses. I don't know how many of that number want true police reform -- want to change anything from where we currently are.

That's where the whole 'vast number' thing starts to become an erroneous argument.

 

[Tony1Sainstfan]

And clearly you don't if you look at a wall mural slogan and believe that "abolish the police" is a plan to be lawless. It isn't. As I said in the previous post, it's reactive sloganeering instead of actually considering that for some police forces which have been unable to be reformed and cleaned up, wiping the slate and starting over with a new division of tasks among alternative providers may be necessary.

Hell, in my area it could be as simple as not having city police and county sheriffs basically doing the same job with duplicative budgets.

Police reform is something I agree with. I’m all for body cams and dash cams and I don’t think the officers should have the ability to turn them off. I also don’t think there should be over lapping coverage like you mentioned with county sheriffs and local police. I also understand that sometimes they have to work together on certain cases.
I don’t know where you get your news from but I have seen the call to abolish the police in several cities including Seattle, Chicago and Minneapolis on different news sources. In a city like New York where they have said they are cutting the budget for the police in half that’s not reform and that’s going to have a dramatic impact on the safety of the civilians.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

I would suggest, if your movement includes violence, burning of private businesses, and restructuring/removing/re-imagine/refunding? perhaps one of the most important pillar of the society, then I think it is your responsibility to have a clear message. Otherwise, people will lose interest and then you will have to really burn some shirt to get back their attention and the vast majority of Americans don't like people burning down their neighborhoods.

A clearer version of the message was articulated in this thread already. Why not amplify that message instead of criticizing the version you don't like?

 

[Tony1Sainstfan]

The police aren't needed to maintain order. The reason we observe social norms and rules isn't because we're afraid of the cops; it's just a fundamental requirement for living in a society.

Ok let’s say you are right and that you don’t need the police to maintain order. Who will enforce the laws like drunk driving or arresting anyone who breaks the law. I’ve got a good friend who I’ll admit is a much better man than I am. He and his wife had big problems with having a child but they finally did have a beautiful little girl. After her birth his wife was told she shouldn’t have anymore kids because of her medical issues so she had her tubes tied. They were coming back to Picayune from Hattiesburg one night when they got into a wreck with a woman who was driving at 4 times the amount of alcohol to be considered drunk. They lost their daughter in that wreck and she was only 5 years old. To me that’s maintaining order when the police arrested her and that goes beyond a fundamental requirement. We may have different views on that but that’s my belief.

 

[Richard]

A clearer version of the message was articulated in this thread already. Why not amplify that message instead of criticizing the version you don't like?

It's not even a matter of having to filter what you don't like. There are plenty of people in this country who are never going to get past the initial message. People on this board are more likely to engage and try to understand the nuances of the slogans than people I know who will hear the slogan and shut down. The slogan itself is contrary to their beliefs, so why consider some alternate version of what's being said. Defund the police or abolish the police sounds to many like doing away with law enforcement. Taking to the next logical step, they would reasonably believe that would lead to lawlessness. Those who are behind the slogans may have a clearer message they would like to convey, but I don't think it helps their cause to start out with a message that says something more than what they mean.

The protests have had a righteous message. But for that message to be understood clearly, it should be articulated clearly. It shouldn't be the hearers' responsibility to decipher the code.

I also want to say that the initial protest response to Floyd's killing and that of others has done more than it sought to do. The protests started due to the use of excessive force by police and the disparity of police attention to blacks. It has evolved into a rational discussion about race in this country. Some of those conversations are not going to be pleasant for those who believed that everything was fine, but those conversations need to be held if we are ever going to approach the ideals of equality that this nation is supposed to be founded on. Local police departments can determine how to reform their departments and the federal government could take a leadership role in helping those departments, if it was so inclined. But as a nation, I would like to see us keep our eyes on the ball in addressing some of these racial issues that we have given lip service to for my lifetime.