Law Enforcement Reform Thread (formerly Defund the Police) (5 Viewers)

[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.

 

[Richard]

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.

You are correct that we need law enforcement to enforce the law. Where many of our departments have run into trouble is the protect element of "protect and serve." Whether it was gangs, drugs or something else, departments became more militaristic and that has carried over into their run of the mill duties. I don't have the answers. Being a police officer is a dangerous job in the best of circumstances, but I do believe their role should be law enforcement, not animal control or social work. Their focus should be public safety rather than tactical operations. Those roles should be filled by other agencies like DEA, Gang Control Units, etc. Just my opinion.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

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.

I'm not arguing that the messaging is perfect and everyone should understand exactly what is being said. I am sure that we all know people like the ones you mentioned: people that lack the ability or desire to understand nuance. That's why those of us that do understand it need to be out there explaining it. Arguing with each other over the branding doesn't help. Taking action does, even if it's something as small as educating one person that otherwise would have written off the message as an invitation to lawlessness.

 

[bdb13]

I don't think it's even necessarily about one's apprehension to nuance or whatever for a lot of people. It's terrible marketing for the cause because by naming the movement as "Defund/Abolish The Police," you are starting with an absolute nonstarter for way too many people that you need to hear out more of the complete message. Not to mention that many of those same people you need to reach are likely the same ones that have been outraged by the looting and rioting. So essentially, what they're now seeing is that the same people who were rioting and looting are now telling them that the next step is to defund/abolish the police (I'm not saying that's what happening, I'm saying that's what they're seeing and interpreting).

Look, this shirt is important to me. Genuinely, it is. Major changes are needed and I get that that's the point of this, but man, it's hard to not have my feelings on the name - and the problem that it itself is - reinforced back to me when, for instance, the two 30-35 year old black guys I trained with this week both separately told me how dumb they thought 'abolish the police' was. I didn't take it that they were aware of the nuance within.

Yeah it's only anecdotal and only two people. OK, but if there's a problem with the message landing and actually being heard with people who should be more inclined to be naturally supportive then I can all but guarantee that the difficulty in reaching people who are less inclined to be naturally supportive will be exponentially greater.

 

[Tony1Sainstfan]

You are correct that we need law enforcement to enforce the law. Where many of our departments have run into trouble is the protect element of "protect and serve." Whether it was gangs, drugs or something else, departments became more militaristic and that has carried over into their run of the mill duties. I don't have the answers. Being a police officer is a dangerous job in the best of circumstances, but I do believe their role should be law enforcement, not animal control or social work. Their focus should be public safety rather than tactical operations. Those roles should be filled by other agencies like DEA, Gang Control Units, etc. Just my opinion.

I don’t disagree with most of what you said with one exception. I think there are some things I consider tactical like swat teams the police do need. In that case those officers should have more of a military background and should only be used for very dangerous situations. I know for sure the job of police officer is one I wouldn’t want for many reasons.

 

[Tony1Sainstfan]

 

[SaintForLife]

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?

Why not just admit its horrible messaging instead of expecting everyone to know what they really meant to say? I'm unable to read the article, but the title of the article doesn't give it much hope.

Yes, We Mean Literally Abolish the Police (Published 2020)

Because reform won’t happen.

www-nytimes-com.cdn.ampproject.org

 

[Heathen]

Here's an interesting way SF plans to deal with noncriminal complaints:

London Breed pushes San Francisco reforms: Police no longer will respond to noncriminal calls

San Francisco officers will stop responding to disputes between neighbors, reports about homeless people and school discipline interventions.

www.latimes.com

 

[SaintForLife]

This article goes into detail on why the messaging is a problem.

 

[MT15]

Let me be clear, it is not my intent to dissuade discussion about messaging. How we message, how we market ideas, can be essential for moving ideas into reality. I agree that "Defund the Police" on some levels is problematic. And I'm open to discussion on reframing that with persons who are open to discussion on what defund the police means. What I'm not interested in is entertaining discussion about "messaging" with the Meghan McCains of the electorate. Let me explain. In advance, sorry for the ET Canada clip, the commentary is obviously biased, but it is one of the few clips of the exchange that has portions of each important context of the conversation. Just bypass the commentary and skip to Harris and McCain talking.



McCain asks Kamala to explain "Defund the Police" to her because she is having a hard time knowing what is meant by that. Senator Harris, for nearly 7 minutes (in the video, they edited out some of her response, it was nearly 7 minutes) goes into an in-depth explanation of what "defund the police" means to her. This is the exchange after the explanation:

McCain: Senator I hear you loud and clear and I don't think that there is any rational American right now that doesn't think that we need to take a cold hard look at reforming our police. But, there was a video that went viral over the weekend of the Mayor of Minneapolis being yelled at saying, "Yes or no question. Are you for defunding the police?" So, I'm going to ask the same question the protestors asked of him, "Are you for defunding the police?"

Harris: How are YOU defining "defund the police?"

McCain: Well, I'm not for anything remotely for that so I would ask the protestors the same thing. But, I would assume, I assume, and again this is new to me, I would assume it is removing police, and as Congresswoman Ilhan Omar said, bringing in a whole new way of governing and law and order into a community. And my understanding, again this is something that has just come into my understanding recently, is that you would not have police officers, like this Minneapolis city councilwoman said that I would be a place of privilege if someone broke into my home and I wanted to call the police.

Harris: So, again, we need to reimagine how we are achieving public safety in America....

McCain represents the portion of the white electorate, to me, that doesn’t WANT to understand defund the police, regardless of how it is framed. She received an intelligent, clarifying, eloquent and concise explanation on one person's ideology of what defund the police means and her response to that is to say, "well to me its removing all police officers and those protestors told Jacob to go home because they don't want police (you know they burned down a station, wink wink) plus that councilwoman said I'm privileged and I don’t get police for home invasions and most of all....ILHAN OMAR!

This isn't about "the base" or "the 30%" either. McCain isn't a Trump supporter. This is the portion of White America that is so invested, so comfortable, so oblivious to the harms of the status quo that they are afraid or callously indifferent to make any changes because they perceive equality as "something gained, something lost" and in this case, it is the privilege of police being non-factors in their lives, except for traffic violations, which represents minor inconvenience of their time. Messaging and marketing and reframing is lost on them because they weaponize the messaging to remain ignorant so, ultimately, nothing changes.

So, you may say, FTP, that is precisely why we have to tighten up the message. We clarify the ideology for those willing and we eliminate the ammunition for the unwilling. And that is true. But, to that, I would ask this question: How much time and energy do we devote to that part of the mission, that part of the conversation, that part of our resources, in the face of how urgent this issue needs to be fixed? Would that time, energy and resources be better served actually making changes than explaining them? Before you answer, let me better explain how urgent this crisis is.

So this tweet is the first of a thread that I would encourage every American to read. I will link the tweet but I'm going to make a summary of a thread so I can get to my point. So, here's the tweet but before you read the thread, or after you read the thread, make sure you come back and finish reading my post.



So for you lazy bums (LOL), DeForest recounts what he calls "the coolest night of comedy." They are in New York, at a comedy club, and Chappelle pops in. They ask if he wants to go on and he agrees and he closes the show. Chappelle asks the crowd for headlines to riff on. No material,, off the dome comedy. They toss one out; he tells a joke about it. Now, this evening is a few days after the grand jury decided not to indict the officer that killed Eric Garner. So, tensions in New York are high. Definitely was some protesting and rioting happening at the time. So, 20 minutes into the set, someone shouts "police brutality." Chappelle says "you really wanna fo this? Ok." So Chappelle starts talking about Eric Garner and how watching him murdered has made him scared for his kids. He said, "I thought body cams would help, but what good is video evidence if yall don't care?" To which a white female in the crowd yells "Life's hard; sorry bout it!" Chappelle asks her "What did you say?" and she repeats it.

So, Chappelle starts educating the crowd on the history of black people and the police. He talks about slave patrols, Rodney King, Watts, Emmett Till, Black Wall Street, Trayvon Martin and Michael Brown. Then he talked about John Crawford III. If you don’t remember, John Crawford III was the black man in Walmart who was looking at a BB gun for sale. He decides to buy it and continues carrying it while he continues to shop. Someone calls the police on him, the cop comes into Walmart and with warning, no command to put his hands up, shoots and kills John Crawford III. Video below.



So, then Chappelle starts telling a story about how he gets pulled over by a police officer in rural Ohio, where we all know he lives. This is before the Crawford shooting but right after Ferguson, so the public climate is tense. Dave says "I may be white on paper. But I'm still black so I'm nervous." Chappelle says "the cop approaches and he can tell I’m nervous. I have both my hands on the wheel and I say ‘officer my license and registration is in the glove box. I’m going to reach for them now. I’m promise not armed’ I could tell the officer was offended that I was nervous. He said I know who you are Dave Chappelle’ & I said ‘so why do you need my license and registration?’” He lets Chappelle go with a warning. That officer who let him go? The same officer you just saw in the surveillance video that gunned John Crawford III down, no questions asked.

Chappelle then starts talking about his South African friend. He said “I asked him what it was like in South Africa right before apartheid ended and he said it was chaos in the streets. There were riots & car bombs etc, but the amount of people caring hit critical mass and there was nothing they could do to stop it. The people had momentum and apartheid ended. Critical mass. That’s what we have to hit. Once enough of you care, there will be nothing they can do to stop the change”

Sound familiar? I said on SR on the EE that America is at a crossroads but the crossroads will be what White America makes of it. You see, we both watched George Floyd's murder and we both watched in horror. But our horror came from very different reasons. Your horror came from watching a black man be lynched, something I imagine you never thought you would witness in 2020. We've all seen the pictures of "strange fruit hanging from the poplar trees" but to watch it? That had to be frightening and horrific for you. For me, my horror is how easily I can be George Floyd. That is the dilemma that White America has to reconcile.

There is a desperate, sense of urgency that is required to fix this crisis but it is one you have no sense of. How can you empathize with something that doesn't affect your life? You have the luxury of time. Time to discuss things like messaging and framing. Things that are important. But, understand that each second, each minute, each hour, each day that we spend talking about the issue is another second, another minute, another hour and another day I have to spend living with the status quo. Each time I wake up, I have to hope and pray, today is not the day, that through no fault of my own, today is not the day that law enforcement is thrust into my life and the officer I have to deal with doesn't decide to take my life. Because my friends, I'm not Dave Chappelle, so I don't get the benefit of the doubt. I'm the next pending hashtag. #georgefloyd #ahmaudarbery #breonnataylor #trayvonnartin #firsttimeposter

Messaging and framing is important. But, the question becomes how much time do we spend framing the issue correctly as opposed to just implementing the issue. Or more aptly, how much time do YOU spend? There is chaos and rioting in the street and we have hit critical mass. Enough of you, white people, care and the momentum is on your side to do something about it. This is now firmly your issue. "Once you become aware, you become responsible." Or, as Dave told that young lady that came back to apologize, "you're ok. That’s all we can ask. Know better, do better. I want to thank YOU for hearing me and listening. That’s your role. And now you know. Now you’re part of that critical mass we talked about and next time you hear a friend say some ignorant shirt like you said, it’s your job to correct them and share with them what you learned tonight. THEN, you’re no longer part of the problem, you’re part of the solution.”

Know better yall, yes! Messaging, framing, marketing. Sell that shirt. Get people on board. Critique the messaging, critique the ideology, clarify the issue. But, DO BETTER. For God's sake, do better. I don’t know what the proper ratio is. I don't. It is a lot to manage and juggle. It is a hard job y'all have. We have unprecedented momentum and it will be up to y'all, white America, to decide how much time gets spent framing the issue, knowing whom to spend time framing the issue with and for whom and time spent doing; actually accomplishing something. But when you get frustrated, when it gets hard, remember you could be me. A black man waiting, hoping this shirt gets changed and praying I'm alive to see it.

All of y'all are a part of the solution now. And I'm extremely grateful for that. Black people, man, contrary to popular belief, we are some loving, forgiving and patient people bro. We really are. Like Dave hugging that chick, letting her know it's okay, I wish I could do the same for all of y'all. Just really convey how much I appreciate people caring enough to even talk about this shirt. So, I get it. But when we log off, man, unfortunately, we don't get to log off and live in the same world. And, at times, as necessary as it is, it can get infuriating watching people who have the power to affect real change, argue over how that change gets labeled. I'm at white America's mercy on this and I can only hope that it now means enough to enough of you to make a difference. If y'all say framing is how we get there, ima ride with you. But, understand the sense of urgency for me. But, now you know, right? Know better, do better. Whatever it takes. Avengers, assemble.

SFL, did you read this post?

 

[Richard]

SFL, did you read this post?

I hate to speak for SFL, but I don’t think anyone is disputing the facts of police brutality or even the need to change the way police departments operate. The problem with the messaging is that if the message is confusing, doesn’t really communicate what you want and isn’t likely to be well received, then the message is lost. Most people aren’t going to read lengthy explanations or listen to lengthy interviews if the initial message goes against a fundamental belief. Defund the Police may make perfect sense to those within the group pushing for the changes, but to the average Joe, it sounds like abandonment of legal order. Then when you have other voices saying Abolish the Police, nuance is completely abandoned.

I think most Americans can get behind efforts to reduce the militarization of the police, to assess their functions and certainly work to eliminate racism. I hope the message isn’t obscured by slogans that most people would interpret as undesirable.

 

[SaintForLife]

SFL, did you read this post?

Yes I did. Did you see this post:

From what I've read ending qualified immunity sounds good to me.

These Judges Defend Qualified Immunity as ‘a Deferential Rule’ That Protects the Police

Qualified immunity, the controversial legal doctrine that frequently shields police officers from being sued when they violate citizens' constitutional

reason.com

 

[MT15]

So, if you both read the post from FTP, did you not take away from it a sense that yes, framing matters, but it only matters as much as we are saying if you have the luxury of being at a distance from the problem? So reframe it, try to come up with a better slogan. Make it more clear, without losing the conciseness. (Is that a word?)

I wouldn’t have picked this slogan either, and I share some of your concerns. But I know what needs to happen, and I’m not going to let the slogan keep me from supporting the movement for justice in policing. It’s too important. So it’s not a perfect slogan, I got over it.

Honestly, the people who will completely turn away from correcting police brutality because of the slogan were never going to help move this issue forward to begin with, IMO. They are just looking for an excuse to go back to the status quo. Nobody here fits that description. (They’re the types of people who are saying the 75 year old Catholic peace activist in Buffalo was an Antifa operative who was trying to “jam” the police radio signals. You can’t worry about them.)

 

[SaintForLife]

So, if you both read the post from FTP, did you not take away from it a sense that yes, framing matters, but it only matters as much as we are saying if you have the luxury of being at a distance from the problem? So reframe it, try to come up with a better slogan. Make it more clear, without losing the conciseness. (Is that a word?)

I wouldn’t have picked this slogan either, and I share some of your concerns. But I know what needs to happen, and I’m not going to let the slogan keep me from supporting the movement for justice in policing. It’s too important. So it’s not a perfect slogan, I got over it.

Honestly, the people who will completely turn away from correcting police brutality because of the slogan were never going to help move this issue forward to begin with, IMO. They are just looking for an excuse to go back to the status quo. Nobody here fits that description. (They’re the types of people who are saying the 75 year old Catholic peace activist in Buffalo was an Antifa operative who was trying to “jam” the police radio signals. You can’t worry about them.)

The people who only read the headline of an article, get their news from Facebook, don't follow politics, don't understand nuance, etc are the ones that the bad messaging won't get through to.

I support police reform, but I can also make clear that the message will never reach certain segments of society with the current terminology. Check out the Atlantic article I posted earlier in this thread.

 

[bdb13]

Yes, I agree that the name shouldn't stop anyone's support of the general movement. It will with someone out there, but it shouldn't.

Have politicians and activists stopped using those slogans in the past couple of days? I really don't know the answer. If so, great I think that's going to help. The point that I think I'm really trying to get at though is if it's still being used and this is going to be a continued tactic, I believe those names or slogans or whatever really end up being self-defeating to the movement itself at a time when something like this doesn't need to impede the clear momentum the movement has/had.

That's the main point, but along with that, it will likely also have an impact on the upcoming election.. which ends up circling back and impacting this issue anyway.

Edit: I also get that this can and maybe does come off as a white guy saying what the "movement" needs to do and needs to be on his time... but man I'm not wrong on this one. It's a real, unnecessary impediment in the ability to reach a broader audience at the best time to capitalize on this in my lifetime for sure.

 

[bdb13]

One more thing on the political aspect of this, you have Tom Cotton speaking about how Republicans need to not dismiss the concerns and views of young black Americans, I think he said males specifically, but I'm not sure. anyway, I think we're seeing a flagrant attempt by Republicans to try to swing he narrative their way and take control on the issue and be viewed as the rational, compassionate party on the issue. I doubt that they're particularly successful in executing the strategy, but I think they're trying it.

 

[bdb13]

I think you have to have some 'out there' views for real change to occur. Those views that seem extreme at the time are what sometimes tilts the moral arc toward justice years down the road.

If some of you remember how even Black Lives Matters was perceived 10 years ago, it's shockingly more accepted today -- especially after the George Floyd murder. This group was spoken of like they were terrorists. Plenty of media outlets still talk about BLM like that today. That reflects poorly on white America.

We live in our relative comforts for the most part and change is only accepted and made mainstream when we get comfortable with it.

Isn't it terrible that it takes our fellow human beings being slaughtered for change to occur? Cities are finally making it illegal for cops to use chokeholds and teargas. Why does it take police killing and maiming people all over the country time and again, to the point that the legislative bodies can't ignore it, to do something?

Back to 'defund the police'. I think that when American police receive these necessary funds but schools and housing programs are cut year after year, it's a blatant sign of pretty sickening racial inequality. Overwhelmingly lower income and minority communities are targeted year after year for these 'cuts'. I think the message is that no, we won't prioritize law enforcement over community anymore. At least that is what it means to me. We need sweeping changes to police departments. Racial sensitivity training has failed. We need to take it to the next level, and that may include requiring community oversight committees or something similar in which the community has more power to decide who does and who does not stay employed on the force. No more of this sweeping stuff under the rug nonsense. No more fraternal police union cronyism.

So in that vein, I don't think that the 'defund the police' idea is harmful. I think it is necessary to normalize the reality that police departments in America, as much respect as I think most have for what they go through, need reform. I will always respect officers who do their job the right way, but when people ask point blank questions like 'do you support law enforcement', i'll always answer 'it depends'. It depends on which officers we are talking about and if they're truly abiding by their duty to protect and serve. It's just as silly a question as 'do you support humans?'. I support and appreciate the good ones. So it depends.

I missed this post earlier... I'll say that if there is a sort of cause-and-effect relationship between "defund/abolish the police" and real change occurring here, then I would unhesitatingly concede that the ends justify the means. I also agree that you need people who push from the extremes on issues like this, so I do get that argument. I'm just concerned that the timing of it and it's continued use will hurt the momentum. But If I'm wrong I'm wrong and it'll be good that I'm wrong.

 

[MT15]

The people who only read the headline of an article, get their news from Facebook, don't follow politics, don't understand nuance, etc are the ones that the bad messaging won't get through to.

I support police reform, but I can also make clear that the message will never reach certain segments of society with the current terminology. Check out the Atlantic article I posted earlier in this thread.

I don’t have time to read anything from The Atlantic tonight, lol, they are not known for brevity. I will try to check it out another day though.

The people you’re talking about are probably never going to support police reform, because it doesn’t affect them and they are already disengaged. I say let’s not worry about the disengaged. That’s all.

 

[J-DONK]

One more thing on the political aspect of this, you have Tom Cotton speaking about how Republicans need to not dismiss the concerns and views of young black Americans, I think he said males specifically, but I'm not sure. anyway, I think we're seeing a flagrant attempt by Republicans to try to swing he narrative their way and take control on the issue and be viewed as the rational, compassionate party on the issue. I doubt that they're particularly successful in executing the strategy, but I think they're trying it.

Republicans are getting hammered. This a plan they enacted way back with Nixon. The sudden talk about empathy is because Trump's polling is in the basement, and they are forecasted to lose the senate. It's half-hearted attempt at a political play.

You have massive civil unrest, and a optimistic prediction of 9-10% unemployment at the end of the year. The writing is on a wall that even a blind man could see it. I suspect a major focus on trying to smear Biden as hard as possible over the next 4 months. There is nothing for Trump to run on at this point: no economic, or social progress. You will also see a renewed vigor to stack the courts as much as possible, because Republicans do expect to lose the senate.