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.

 

[First Time Poster]

I will also say, that I think you, @First Time Poster , have a higher belief in the power that most of us have than we do ourselves. I will say that many white Americans feel pretty powerless against a whole host of injustices against themselves and others. There is a strong sense that unless you are very rich and influential, your ability to make change happen is very low.

I don't personally subscribe to that, but it is a strong feeling.

 

[SaintForLife]

So, I started typing a response to @UncleTrvlingJim about how I disagreed that we haven't quite hit critical mass. I still feel we have but in reading some of the responses here and dealing with the things I have outside of here...I am becoming skeptical. Because it still seems so many simply don't get it. You just don't. Y'all frustrate me so much but, in the end, it is because your life, your family's lives aren't in the bullseye and it is easy to be passive about this.







So I picked these three posts, not to single out these posters, but for two other reasons. One, honestly, at the time I started typing this they were the three that stood out to me, at the time, that exemplified my frustration (I've been writing and deleting this post for days. I waver with whether I want to go here but it feels necessary). There have been other posts since but I stuck with these three. Two, I, honestly and sincerely believe, these three posters want the type of changes that we are talking about. And I feel you three represent a broad enough spectrum on political ideologies that I'm confident everyone will know I'm not speaking to, or targeting, a specific political party. This really is apolitical to me.

At this point, I had typed up a really gritty, eye-popping, graphic analogy to explain the depth and hurt of the issue and properly represent the urgency with what we need it fixed but like Chappelle said "These ****** will never understand. I'm tired of explaining it to these people something that is so God damned obvious." We are. I am. So, I don't know, here is a different, less inflammatory, milder analogy to do just that, explain my perspective.

There is a pill. The pill cures cancer. All forms. You take it and keep taking it and in one year you are cancer free. Not only that, even if you don't have cancer, you take it, and it will prevent you from contracting any form of cancer. It is a large, red pill and for some reason the manufacturer named it Satan's Penis. Facepalm, right? Whatever, your mom has an advanced stage of cancer and you need to get her on this pill asap. "Mom, start taking this pill immediately! It cures cancer! Really?! What's it called? Uhh, don't worry about that, just start taking it. Well I need to know the name of it so I can get it and inform my doctor. It's called Satan's Penis mom. Satan's Penis?! I'm not taking something called Satan's Penis son."

What do you do at this point? The manufacturer didn't create cancer, they only have provided a fix for it. Well it seems some would march to the manufacturer and say, "Listen, you created this problem. This puzzle. It's on you to fix it. Either change the name and clear up the message or we won't take this seriously. We'll go back to our regular lives, you know the life where we watch loved ones die with cancer." Seems others might say, to the maker, "This isn't our responsibility to figure out this pill cures cancer. We shouldn't have to decipher that. Clarify the name, market this thing correctly so we can get it out there."

That wouldn't happen. Why? Because cancer doesn't just predominantly kill black people. It is indiscriminate in its victims and, therefore, everyone would have significant skin in the game and have the necessary impetus to get behind Satan's Penis. "Mom, I don't care if the forking pill is called Satan's Sweet Dick Juice! This pill will save your life and you ARE going to start taking it right this second. I'm not losing you mom. I'm begging you, start taking Satan's Penis. We'll get the name changed. Just take it mom!"

Sure, we would be on the manufacturer's arse to get it changed to Cancer Free! or Cancer Be Gone or some fancy name. But, we would be working just as hard, if not harder, to get that pill in the gut of every able-bodied person, while its named Satan's Penis, because we know the pill would SAVE LIVES. We all know someone killed by the scourge of cancer. A name, a label, couldn't stop us from promoting, pushing or supporting a fix, a cure. Because it affects someone you know, someone you love.

You see, it is the posture you are taking. The complacency it represents. Black people didn't create this issue. We are victims of it. And, finally, there seems to be a climate where real change can happen (because someone died over it) and because someone decided to name fixes to it "Satan's Penis" we get all this pushback on something that you all purport to be eager to fix. "Defund the police? Abolish police? Lulz, listen, yall huddle back together, fix the name of your movement, clarify what you really want, and then we'll think about helping you fix this, m'kay? Otherwise, you're on your own and we gonna get back to our lives." "Defund the police? That is too confusing. Listen, it's not our responsibility to have to decipher that defund and abolish don't mean defund and abolish. That's your responsibility. We are behind you but you gotta clean that up if we are gonna get everyone on board." "There are people who are inclined to help but they are less inclined with that name. They want to save lives but if we are gonna push them to our side, let's get that name changed, okay?"

That's how yall sound to me. I'm sorry, I know that's not your intent, but that's how yall come across. Misguided. Or unfocused. Your demographic has the ability and power to come together and not only support but help push and enact real change, real reform that will SAVE LIVES. You don't like that it's called Satan's Penis. I get that. So do I. So change it. Or ignore it. You don't like certain resolutions being offered. Fine. Don't support those. Or offer alternatives. But lead on this. Your wife is caught up on the name? Get her attention, like your cancer infested mother, and make her understand. More importantly, make her understand what's at stake.

Yall keep asking SO much from my community. Keep in mind, White America has a horrendous track record on fixing this. But, here we are, on the cusp of a real groundswell to make a difference, and we gonna let three words trip us up? Yall looking for reasons to sit this out. The name if the idea. It's important. Yes! I forking agree. Spelling your name right on the test is important too. But is it THAT important?! You gonna spend 30 minutes of the hour making sure you're name is correct? Come on. This man knelt on this man's neck FOR EIGHT forkING MINUTES. Reporters are being blinded while reporting on protests. People getting beat and tear gassed IN AMERICA. Defund the police, bankrupt the police, yall know what type of reforms are needed to help change this shirt.

fork that dumbass pill's name man. You really think your mother, cancer free, gonna care she took Satan's Penis to live?! But, its not your mother who has cancer, is it? We could name it whatever yall want. But this won't change until yall care, really care, like this affects your mother. Your father. Your kids. You. And that's the truth. And we, I, can't fix that for you. I can only hope enough of you get there. This is my last post on labels bruh. I'm tireddddd. I only want to discuss fixes to this shirt. Name it whatever the fork you want. Whatever makes you comfortable. Just help me fix this shirt.

The people who you need to direct this post at are the people who are in denial that anything needs to change with the police and their tactics. Pretty much everyone here has said there needs to be major reforms.

I understand your frustration with the overall situation, but instead of getting frustrated with us it would be better to direct that towards the people I mentioned above.

The people who might be open to police reform, but are turned off due to the phrasing are why we keep saying that needs to be changed. We are still saying we support reforms while also saying that the messaging needs to change. We aren't ignoring the need for reforms and only focusing on the messaging.

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

The people who you need to direct this post at are the people who are in denial that anything needs to change with the police and their tactics. Pretty much everyone here has said there needs to be major reforms.

I understand your frustration with the overall situation, but instead of getting frustrated with us it would be better to direct that towards the people I mentioned above.

The people who might be open to police reform, but are turned off due to the phrasing are why we keep saying that needs to be changed. We are still saying we support reforms while also saying that the messaging needs to change. We aren't ignoring the need for reforms and only focusing on the messaging.

So, this might be another case of a people divided by a common language.

I think there's a concern that there is a focus on the form of the messaging more than the message itself, and whether that focus is well-intentioned or not, or even if it's well-intentioned, if it is useful.

For example, if lets say that those here that are talking about the messaging are at the same time on other medium or forums strongly advocating for social justice and police reform, but you're back here talking to people who you know are liberal trying to say "Hey look, I'm with you, but help me out here with your messaging b/c it's making my job to convince other conservatives or people who aren't paying close attention to things, harder". Then that's cool, and I think that's fair.

But there's a fear that what you are saying is, "Hey, I'm with you in theory, but I don't want throw my support behind that movement because I'm afraid that it will give the wrong impression because the messaging isn't good. So I'm going to wait until both the form and the function are more perfect". That's more passive than what I think is needed, or what @First Time Poster is asking for.

It's really, really easy to boil people down into caricatures, and to not trust intentions.

 

[bdb13]

For example, if lets say that those here that are talking about the messaging are at the same time on other medium or forums strongly advocating for social justice and police reform, but you're back here talking to people who you know are liberal trying to say "Hey look, I'm with you, but help me out here with your messaging b/c it's making my job to convince other conservatives or people who aren't paying close attention to things, harder". Then that's cool, and I think that's fair.

This is exactly where I'm coming from.

But there's a fear that what you are saying is, "Hey, I'm with you in theory, but I don't want throw my support behind that movement because I'm afraid that it will give the wrong impression because the messaging isn't good. So I'm going to wait until both the form and the function are more perfect". That's more passive than what I think is needed, or what @First Time Poster is asking for.

It's really, really easy to boil people down into caricatures, and to not trust intentions.

I agree and mentioned earlier that supporters shouldn't throw the baby out with the bathwater on this.

Definitely was taken aback a little that FTP included my post in there and that he feels like I don't quite get it, but I know my heart is in the right place and I really only give a shirt about the label because of my concern with it hindering what's going on right now. It's not about my personal feelings on the slogan itself, because that doesn't matter and I get that this movement is much deeper than a label. I just view that discussion as a part of this whole thing on what to do to help, not something I've been distracted by.

 

[MT15]

We’ve just spent I don’t know how many pages just really talking about the messaging. For the majority of the time, anyway. Let’s talk about what needs to happen. How do we change the attitude that starts with a possible drunk driving and ends up with a man shot twice in the back? How did that encounter end up with the use of deadly force? What sorts of changes would have resulted in a better outcome? How do we make sure that those fundamental changes happen?

 

[Tony1Sainstfan]

This is a interesting opinion piece

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

Because reform won’t happen.

www.nytimes.com

 

[wardorican]

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.

I agree with your overall point, but is it fair?

Is it fair to ask those being marginalized and upset, that they need to take a time out and come up with a more thoughtful and introspective phrase?

These are the "streets" or Johnny Q Public. Not politicians, or policy wonks. From the anger in the streets political leaders are trying to turn that into meaningful dialogue and change. Ignoring the second half, due to the first isn't fair.

Authority is in politicians or political appointees who have staffs to come up with well crafted phrases, slogans, and agenda items. Thus, that side is often going to sound better.

Just like when a politician says something silly or a partial truth, when they arent on our side, we won't extend the benefit of the doubt. Just for an easy example, how many GOP voters have said, "that isnt what Trump said" or "He didnt mean it like that" ? You'll give the most powerful person on the planet a massive amount of benefit of the doubt, but not an ordinary citizen without a staff to help brand the message better or have a detailed policy position?

Why not just seek the truth and give people the benefit of the doubt to seek true dialogue?

 

[bdb13]

We’ve just spent I don’t know how many pages just really talking about the messaging. For the majority of the time, anyway. Let’s talk about what needs to happen. How do we change the attitude that starts with a possible drunk driving and ends up with a man shot twice in the back? How did that encounter end up with the use of deadly force? What sorts of changes would have resulted in a better outcome? How do we make sure that those fundamental changes happen?

Outlaw police unions.. I don't really think public union suit should exist in the first place anyways.

End "the brotherhood"mentality.. down to giving each other a pass on speeding tickets.. shirt has to end.

I don't know a lot about qualified immunity other than I can see both sides of it, but there has to be a better way to do it than what we're currently doing.

 

[SaintForLife]

I agree with your overall point, but is it fair?

Is it fair to ask those being marginalized and upset, that they need to take a time out and come up with a more thoughtful and introspective phrase?

These are the "streets" or Johnny Q Public. Not politicians, or policy wonks. From the anger in the streets political leaders are trying to turn that into meaningful dialogue and change. Ignoring the second half, due to the first isn't fair.

Authority is in politicians or political appointees who have staffs to come up with well crafted phrases, slogans, and agenda items. Thus, that side is often going to sound better.

Just like when a politician says something silly or a partial truth, when they arent on our side, we won't extend the benefit of the doubt. Just for an easy example, how many GOP voters have said, "that isnt what Trump said" or "He didnt mean it like that" ? You'll give the most powerful person on the planet a massive amount of benefit of the doubt, but not an ordinary citizen without a staff to help brand the message better or have a detailed policy position?

Why not just seek the truth and give people the benefit of the doubt to seek true dialogue?

It's been explained multiple times in this thread.

 

[MT15]

Outlaw police unions.. I don't really think public union suit should exist in the first place anyways.

End "the brotherhood"mentality.. down to giving each other a pass on speeding tickets.. shirt has to end.

I don't know a lot about qualified immunity other than I can see both sides of it, but there has to be a better way to do it than what we're currently doing.

I think it goes deeper. Police should be “of” the community they serve. They should have to live in the town or city, preferably within the precinct that they serve or at least near it. There should be more foot patrols in urban areas, or bicycle patrols, maybe. They should check in on the local shopkeepers, they should know them, know the pastors of the churches, know the kids that go to school there.

When you think about it, this is what smaller communities have, they have police forces that are part of the community they serve. That would be a good start, I think.

To me, it’s the “us vs them” attitude that’s got to go.

 

[wardorican]

This is a interesting opinion piece

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

Because reform won’t happen.

www.nytimes.com

Not much different than various political camps that believe in revolution or "blow the system up" and start over. Hear it from the right, hear it from the left. Everyone wants "the other" option. Whatever it is.

 

[wardorican]

It's been explained multiple times in this thread.

How? What is the "it" that you mean?

 

[bdb13]

I think it goes deeper. Police should be “of” the community they serve. They should have to live in the town or city, preferably within the precinct that they serve or at least near it. There should be more foot patrols in urban areas, or bicycle patrols, maybe. They should check in on the local shopkeepers, they should know them, know the pastors of the churches, know the kids that go to school there.

When you think about it, this is what smaller communities have, they have police forces that are part of the community they serve. That would be a good start, I think.

To me, it’s the “us vs them” attitude that’s got to go.

Us vs them is part of the brotherhood thing to me. Yes, definitely goes much deeper than what I posted: Actual community involvement where cops are doing positive work with the communities they work in... how about a basic level of respect for people (why be such a forking dick when stopping people for minor offenses? Your life isn't literally always on the line) You need cops that aren't cowards. Better pay and a better weeding out process might help with that. Too many seem to be scared shirtless all the time, especially when dealing with young black men.

There's a thousand more, I'm sure. I really think getting rid of the brotherhood mentality would help immensely though.

 

[MT15]

This is good step maybe?

 

[SaintForLife]

How? What is the "it" that you mean?

If you read the thread you will see that multiple people addressed your orginal question already.

 

[Heathen]

The people who might be open to police reform, but are turned off due to the phrasing are why we keep saying that needs to be changed. We are still saying we support reforms while also saying that the messaging needs to change. We aren't ignoring the need for reforms and only focusing on the messaging.

What would be a better messaging strategy? I understand that 'defund the police' will make many upset, but isn't that the idea? To push a narrative that is uncomfortable so that there is a change? Playing devil's advocate a bit here in thinking that it isn't all unicorns and rainbows for some with this type messaging..the idea of the overton window and how political landscapes are shaped is just fascinating to me, whether it is within my interests or otherwise...

If you subscribe to the idea of the paradigmatic shift in the way that politics run their course and ideas are pushed (one such example that comes to mind is how far the nation has gone right and Democrats embracing the individual mandate circa the Obama era -- an original Republican idea), then I think you might agree that though the phrasing may be distasteful, it is likely more effective in the long run than 'don't rock the boat' strategy.

 

[First Time Poster]

@First Time Poster I get that you're frustrated man... All I can really respond with is to say that I do genuinely care about this, I support the movement and that I am trying to help while also trying to figure out my role to play and how to play it. I'm sorry that it's not coming across that way, but I do care.

I know you care. I know you do.

Two, I, honestly and sincerely believe, these three posters want the type of changes that we are talking about.

 

[Lapaz]

I support BLM, but the media and almost everyone distorts reality. The facts collected by the government don't align with the stories hyped. The reality is that police only kill a very tiny fraction of the people they encounter. In 2018, about 1000 people were killed out of 7.7 million encounters, and about twice as many of those were white than black, although blacks committed more murders. I suspect most of those people acted violently towards the police, so a very tiny percentage were not justified. Police rarely fire their weapons. There are killings without guns, but that is even rarer. The unjustified killing of people like George Floyd are a very tiny fraction of encounters.

People shot to death by U.S. police, by race 2024 | Statista

The trend of fatal police shootings in the U.S. seems to only be increasing each year, with Black civilians having the highest rates of being killed by police.

www.statista.com

The reality is that all races encounter the police about equally per capita.

https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/cpp15.pdf

The stats don't bear out that blacks are more maligned than whites. Are highlighting black killings going to be a useful tool to spark reform? It appears to be the case, and that's good, but I don't think it should be turned into a tool to malign white people. I agree with using mental health care workers much more, better training to de-escalate, and better accountability, because it might save some of those 1000 people. Nevertheless, I don't think that number is going to get drastically better, because the number isn't as large as the media portrays. Also, I prefer to see more funding for those reforms without taking money from police forces, which will be needed until those other things prove to reduce the demand for the police. In a society like ours that is armed to the hilt, the police will encounter shootouts, and we need them. There are studies that show that every 10 policemen hired saves 1 life, whereas fewer police results in more murders. Perhaps 10 trained mental health professionals will yield a better return on investment, but let's reduce the demand on police, before reducing their numbers. Unfortunately, no matter what we do, police will mistakenly shoot people that appear to be armed, but that is unavoidable in our armed society without putting the police at much greater danger.

I think the real problem with police is that they often abuse their power and hurt people unnecessarily, but I think the likelihood of being killed by the police, if you cooperate, is very remote. Again, I believe in reform, and I applaud most of the reforms discussed here, but I particularly want to see reforms for abuses of all sorts. We don't need to distort reality to achieve it.