ADVERTISEMENT

Defund and Abolish Police Forces

UCFKnight85 said:
The Camden example is getting a little overused . Camden has just 77,000 people living within their city, and a lot of the reduction in crime is more attributed to economic zone initiates they put in place to bring investment and jobs into the city.

Why does a PD assuming a large amount of a city's budget surprise you? What else are cities blowing money on that outweighs the need to provide public safety?
Click to expand...

Police arent the only thing that provides public safety. If that were the case, then the most policed neighborhoods would be the safest, when in reality it is almost the direct opposite. Providing different kinds of social services, mental health treatment, you mentioned jobs which certainly helps, etc etc, can also assist in public safety.

In your first paragraph you said that reduction in crime in Camden was aided in part to bringing investment into the city, which is obviously an argument that things of that nature assist in public safety.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DaShuckster
UCFKnight85 said:
I wonder if these dolts understand that "community based policing" requires way, way more cops than any single department has today. If you want cops who are only devoted to being Officer Friendly in tons of neighborhoods then you need more cops, because the other shit going on in a city won't stop.

So if that were the actual intent, you need to fund PDs more. The exact opposition of what these left wing local governments are actively doing.
Click to expand...
I can tell you one person that understands this and I almost fell out of my chair when I read it: Trayvon Martin's mother, Sabrina Fulton. From FOX23 in Tulsa:

“The greatest need right now is the precinct crime. When I was growing up, we had Officer Friendly in the school. Right now, a lot of the young people, their first encounter with the police is when they’re arrested or being pushed around. I want to change that narrative,” she said. “People have said I don’t like police officers, and that’s not true because the person who shot and killed my son was not a police officer. My dad retired from the police department here in Miami, so there’s no way I could hate police officers. I just don’t like bad, crooked officers. I like professional, service-oriented, respectful police officers. When I call 911, I want the police officer to come and help me. I don’t want to feel intimidated when I call, and I don’t want our kids to be afraid.”

She also touches on an important point about School Resource Officers and what their original roles were. Originally, they were there to present a friendly fact to the students and also build relationships where they could gather intelligence about people's activities on the streets for more pro-active enforcement. In rare occasions, they could appropriately handle criminal activity in the schools themselves. But now we've removed their ability to handle criminal activity to avoid the so-called school-to-prison pipeline; including telling the sworn police officers that they will lose their jobs if they initiate any arrest or ticketing. We've also seen school personnel actively deter any relationship that SRO's try to build with children in some schools, right up to open hostility. Then we add to their jobs that they have to be some kind of first defense against an active shooter that has all the time in the world to plan against them, while we also tell police that they need less funding and less protective equipment. How crazy is that?
 
  • Like
Reactions: DAiello18 and DaShuckster
Cubs79 said:
Police arent the only thing that provides public safety. If that were the case, then the most policed neighborhoods would be the safest, when in reality it is almost the direct opposite. Providing different kinds of social services, mental health treatment, you mentioned jobs which certainly helps, etc etc, can also assist in public safety.

In your first paragraph you said that reduction in crime in Camden was aided in part to bringing investment into the city, which is obviously an argument that things of that nature assist in public safety.
Click to expand...
Are you suggesting that there is a causality between more police and more crime? If so, that's an interesting theory and worth discussing.
 
Cubs79 said:
Police arent the only thing that provides public safety. If that were the case, then the most policed neighborhoods would be the safest, when in reality it is almost the direct opposite. Providing different kinds of social services, mental health treatment, you mentioned jobs which certainly helps, etc etc, can also assist in public safety.

In your first paragraph you said that reduction in crime in Camden was aided in part to bringing investment into the city, which is obviously an argument that things of that nature assist in public safety.
Click to expand...
The safest neighborhoods also don't have social services or public mental health treatment serving them, not in the degree that the more dangerous neighborhoods do. What they have is a diverse group of people committed to not doing things that jeopardize the public safety. They are largely ignored by police agencies unless help is specifically requested. M4BL.org actually tries to say that these neighborhoods are safer because there are no police and justify their defund policy demand with this fallacy. Those neighborhoods are safer because the individuals take responsibility to be less unsafe. Individuals doing the right thing instead of the wrong thing is by far the primary determination of safe neighborhoods.

For the most part, police are responsive. They react to crimes in progress and committed. Their presence can provide a deterrent but they have no actual ability to actively prevent crime. The more active they get, the more conflict there becomes. This is where I believe that we are; in a place where we demand that our police protect and serve and then treat them as the enemy and actively subvert their ability to do so. I'm all for sending mental health with police, and social services, trained community "de-escalators", and pastor/faith support on their calls. But defunding police to do this is a recipe for disaster. It should be augmentation, not treated as a zero-sum game. I mean, if it is truly important to our communities and not just a lever to be used for political power.
 
sk8knight said:
The safest neighborhoods also don't have social services or public mental health treatment serving them, not in the degree that the more dangerous neighborhoods do. What they have is a diverse group of people committed to not doing things that jeopardize the public safety. They are largely ignored by police agencies unless help is specifically requested. M4BL.org actually tries to say that these neighborhoods are safer because there are no police and justify their defund policy demand with this fallacy. Those neighborhoods are safer because the individuals take responsibility to be less unsafe. Individuals doing the right thing instead of the wrong thing is by far the primary determination of safe neighborhoods.

For the most part, police are responsive. They react to crimes in progress and committed. Their presence can provide a deterrent but they have no actual ability to actively prevent crime. The more active they get, the more conflict there becomes. This is where I believe that we are; in a place where we demand that our police protect and serve and then treat them as the enemy and actively subvert their ability to do so. I'm all for sending mental health with police, and social services, trained community "de-escalators", and pastor/faith support on their calls. But defunding police to do this is a recipe for disaster. It should be augmentation, not treated as a zero-sum game. I mean, if it is truly important to our communities and not just a lever to be used for political power.
Click to expand...

But none of this pushes back on the idea that more police results in less crime. There are obviously a variety of reasons why some places have more crime than others, but this whole idea that we have that police are a deterrent for crime doesnt really add up. If that were the case, then logically the more police in an area should result in fewer crimes, but that simply isnt the case.
 
Crazyhole said:
Are you suggesting that there is a causality between more police and more crime? If so, that's an interesting theory and worth discussing.
Click to expand...

I am not suggesting police cause more crime, I am suggesting that more police doesnt necessarily reduce crime. Crime ridden areas tend to have much bigger issues than simply not having enough police.
 
Cubs79 said:
Police arent the only thing that provides public safety. If that were the case, then the most policed neighborhoods would be the safest, when in reality it is almost the direct opposite. Providing different kinds of social services, mental health treatment, you mentioned jobs which certainly helps, etc etc, can also assist in public safety.

In your first paragraph you said that reduction in crime in Camden was aided in part to bringing investment into the city, which is obviously an argument that things of that nature assist in public safety.
Click to expand...

The cities or parts of cities that are the most policed are typically most policed because they're the most violent. It's not like police flood a relatively safe area and suddenly it comes more riddled with crime. The reality is that in the worst parts of our cities that are overburdened with crime, there are nowhere near enough cops to impact change. Typically the people trapped amongst the violence in these communities WANT more police.

Bringing investment to a city is not a substitute for a well funded police force. Chicago is one of the most prosperous cities in the US and also one of the most violent at the same time. Plus, companies like areas that are considered safe. They don't move operations to cities that their employees will feel unsafe in.
 
Cubs79 said:
I am not suggesting police cause more crime, I am suggesting that more police doesnt necessarily reduce crime. Crime ridden areas tend to have much bigger issues than simply not having enough police.
Click to expand...
So what do you think increases crime rates and how do we address it?
 
UCFKnight85 said:
The cities or parts of cities that are the most policed are typically most policed because they're the most violent. It's not like police flood a relatively safe area and suddenly it comes more riddled with crime. The reality is that in the worst parts of our cities that are overburdened with crime, there are nowhere near enough cops to impact change. Typically the people trapped amongst the violence in these communities WANT more police.

Bringing investment to a city is not a substitute for a well funded police force. Chicago is one of the most prosperous cities in the US and also one of the most violent at the same time. Plus, companies like areas that are considered safe. They don't move operations to cities that their employees will feel unsafe in.
Click to expand...

But what is your definition of a well funded police force? As I mentioned about 40% of the entire Minneapolis city budget was for police. HOw much more funding should they expect, and what is getting cut to do that? Schools? Public transporation? Public health facilities? Parks? At some point it isnt just about funding, it is also about departments being ran better.
 
Cubs79 said:
But what is your definition of a well funded police force? As I mentioned about 40% of the entire Minneapolis city budget was for police. HOw much more funding should they expect, and what is getting cut to do that? Schools? Public transporation? Public health facilities? Parks? At some point it isnt just about funding, it is also about departments being ran better.
Click to expand...

I used to work with a product exclusively made for training police and military. I saw first hand that most police departments are already woefully underfunded; everyone yells about "TRAINING!" yet no one wants to pay for it. Most cops who do implement and pay for legit training programs must do it at the expense of something else. We literally had customers that postponed repairing cruisers or postponed new hires to run proper training programs.

A well funded PD would have enough officers in the ranks to actually impact change in crime ridden communities, would provide the highest level of training possible, invest and utilize technology to build trust between the community and the PDs, and increase salaries to attract more, better qualified people. We are nowhere even close to this right now and these dumb, arbitrary budget cuts will only make all of this worse.
 
Crazyhole said:
So what do we do about that?
Click to expand...
You try to provide better jobs, better education, more community investment to keeps kids off the streets, better access to mental health care, etc etc.

America has this backwards look when it comes to violence and crime. It's similar to views about guns. For some reason a large part of the population thinks more force solves problems, but it doesnt because it doesnt actually address the problems to begin with.

https://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/compare/United-Kingdom/United-States/Crime/Violent-crime
https://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/compare/United-Kingdom/United-States/Crime
Here is a crime comparison with the US and England. Most cops in England dont even carry guns, which by the logic many Americans have, should result in more crime. But it obviously doesnt because they also have better social services, they arent addicted to gun culture, etc etc.
 
UCFKnight85 said:
I used to work with a product exclusively made for training police and military. I saw first hand that most police departments are already woefully underfunded; everyone yells about "TRAINING!" yet no one wants to pay for it. Most cops who do implement and pay for legit training programs must do it at the expense of something else. We literally had customers that postponed repairing cruisers or postponed new hires to run proper training programs.

A well funded PD would have enough officers in the ranks to actually impact change in crime ridden communities, would provide the highest level of training possible, invest and utilize technology to build trust between the community and the PDs, and increase salaries to attract more, better qualified people. We are nowhere even close to this right now and these dumb, arbitrary budget cuts will only make all of this worse.
Click to expand...

But cities dont have unlimited money. So what is getting cut?
 
Cubs79 said:
You try to provide better jobs, better education, more community investment to keeps kids off the streets, better access to mental health care, etc etc.

America has this backwards look when it comes to violence and crime. It's similar to views about guns. For some reason a large part of the population thinks more force solves problems, but it doesnt because it doesnt actually address the problems to begin with.

https://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/compare/United-Kingdom/United-States/Crime/Violent-crime
https://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/compare/United-Kingdom/United-States/Crime
Here is a crime comparison with the US and England. Most cops in England dont even carry guns, which by the logic many Americans have, should result in more crime. But it obviously doesnt because they also have better social services, they arent addicted to gun culture, etc etc.
Click to expand...
Better jobs? How do you provide better jobs? If there isn't demand for services what do you do?
 
  • Like
Reactions: AAC6800
Cubs79 said:
But cities dont have unlimited money. So what is getting cut?
Click to expand...

I'm not a city official so I don't know how you want me to answer this. What I do know is that the morons blindly cutting police funding as we speak aren't going to help anything.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DAiello18
Crazyhole said:
Better jobs? How do you provide better jobs? If there isn't demand for services what do you do?
Click to expand...

Cities and states provide incentives to companies all the time to set up in their communities, and better jobs would provide more demand, because people would have more money. Not to mention things like raising the mininum wage certainly wouldnt hurt since no one can live off $7.50 an hr.
 
UCFKnight85 said:
I'm not a city official so I don't know how you want me to answer this. What I do know is that the morons blindly cutting police funding as we speak aren't going to help anything.
Click to expand...

But that is the issue. Expanding police would have to take away from other things, and many of those other things, like education, are tools to reduce crime to begin with. I just think we look at this completely opposite. I think creating stronger communities with better and more opportunities would reduce crime, where as you seem to think that more policing would do that. We just fundamentally disagree.
 
Cubs79 said:
But none of this pushes back on the idea that more police results in less crime. There are obviously a variety of reasons why some places have more crime than others, but this whole idea that we have that police are a deterrent for crime doesnt really add up. If that were the case, then logically the more police in an area should result in fewer crimes, but that simply isnt the case.
Click to expand...
More police in an area with high call volumes reduces the time people have to wait for responses. This is important for a huge range of calls as well as for the overall feeling that your city gives a rat's ass about you. Because, despite the politicians that have managed to fool you all into thinking that the police are a separate entity than the municipality they control, the behavior and funding of the police department is solely controlled by the elected municipality officials.

Back to the point of discussion, I can think of hundreds of times where a visible and active police force have deterred crimes, and that's just speaking to my wife's department. Some of the cars in her department are "ghost" cars, meaning they have no light bar and their police markings are subdued. In the dark and without the lights on, it's not easy to tell that they are a police car. The officers in those cars will frequently watch people who are about to do something criminal and then disappear when a normal marked car makes an appearance. This happens all the time and is a perfect example of a crime deterrence that will never be recorded in any statistics or studies.
 
Cubs79 said:
But that is the issue. Expanding police would have to take away from other things, and many of those other things, like education, are tools to reduce crime to begin with. I just think we look at this completely opposite. I think creating stronger communities with better and more opportunities would reduce crime, where as you seem to think that more policing would do that. We just fundamentally disagree.
Click to expand...
It's not a zero-sum game and there are plenty of examples of waste in municipal governments where funds could be found rather than stripping from working programs to fund police. Or, maybe we act like free people and not look to our governments to solve our own problems for us.
 
  • Like
Reactions: UCFKnightfan08
sk8knight said:
It's not a zero-sum game and there are plenty of examples of waste in municipal governments where funds could be found rather than stripping from working programs to fund police. Or, maybe we act like free people and not look to our governments to solve our own problems for us.
Click to expand...

The police are a part of the government, so if we shouldnt look government to solve our problems then why should we be against defunding them?
 
Cubs79 said:
The police are a part of the government, so if we shouldnt look government to solve our problems then why should we be against defunding them?
Click to expand...
As a libertarian, I believe that enforcement of laws is a necessary part of government because it deals with individuals breaking the contract that people have with each other as to what defines acceptable and civilized behavior. If we get #AbolishPolice, we are still going to have to have some type of enforcement of those laws or the laws mean nothing and thus we are in anarchy.
 
Cubs79 said:
But that is the issue. Expanding police would have to take away from other things, and many of those other things, like education, are tools to reduce crime to begin with. I just think we look at this completely opposite. I think creating stronger communities with better and more opportunities would reduce crime, where as you seem to think that more policing would do that. We just fundamentally disagree.
Click to expand...

I am talking about stopping cuts. You do realize that stopping a cut is not the same as increasing beyond a baseline, yes?

As for education, we spend the 5th most per student in the world. We spend far, far more than many peer EU nations. The idea that we don't fund education in this country is a myth that isn't supported by any statistics. What then are you claiming we must do in education that would render the possibility of maintaining our current police forces so crazy?

https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_cmd.asp
 
sk8knight said:
As a libertarian, I believe that enforcement of laws is a necessary part of government because it deals with individuals breaking the contract that people have with each other as to what defines acceptable and civilized behavior. If we get #AbolishPolice, we are still going to have to have some type of enforcement of those laws or the laws mean nothing and thus we are in anarchy.
Click to expand...

As a libertarian do you not feel some laws are unjust? ANd if so can you reconcile those laws being enforced? Police departments came about in this country from slave patrols, which doesnt sound very libertarian to me, just sayin.
 
Ever since Clinton's bipartisan "war on crime," State government spending on prisons has quadrupled from 17 billion to over 71 billion--and it's not keeping up with the demand. Most state prisons are seriously over-populated.

So given the increase in municipal funding for police and the State increases we've seen in prison funding over the past 25 years, I would imagine everybody's feeling a hell of a lot safer now than we did back in the 90s, right?
 
DaShuckster said:
Ever since Clinton's bipartisan "war on crime," State government spending on prisons has quadrupled from 17 billion to over 71 billion--and it's not keeping up with the demand. Most state prisons are seriously over-populated.

So given the increase in municipal funding for police and the State increases we've seen in prison funding over the past 25 years, I would imagine everybody's feeling a hell of a lot safer now than we did back in the 90s, right?
Click to expand...

Yes. Much, much safer. It’s not even debatable.

reported-violent-crime-rate-in-the-usa-since-1990.jpg
 
Cubs79 said:
Cities and states provide incentives to companies all the time to set up in their communities, and better jobs would provide more demand, because people would have more money. Not to mention things like raising the mininum wage certainly wouldnt hurt since no one can live off $7.50 an hr.
Click to expand...
So basically what you're saying is that tax breaks help generate jobs because it creates incentive for a business to locate there. As a result of that, crime goes down and people are happier necessitating less police. Kind of sounds like the conservative playbook
 
still waiting for our resident lefties to answer yes or no on whether trump told people to drink bleach. It really shouldn't be that big of a deal, should it?
 
  • Like
Reactions: DAiello18
Cubs79 said:
Camden NJ reformed their PD, reduced their # of officers (it wasnt by much, but still a slight reduction), and violent crime actually went down. DO I think we need police? Yes. Do I think police is the only solution to lowering crime, absolutely not. I mean, the Minneapolis police budget made up almost 40% of the cities entire budget. When you see #s like that how can we not think that some of those funds being put into other uses wouldnt be helpful? We wont need to live in a police state.
Click to expand...


 
  • Like
Reactions: Ucfmikes
DaShuckster said:
Wayne? If you listen to its proponents, the 'Defund the Police' movement is about meaningful police reform.

The very notion its about eliminating police forces is absurd.
Click to expand...
except ive seen videos of the actual leaders of blm movement say exactly that. they dont want any police. they want them gone.

either way its terrible marketing.
 
Cubs79 said:
Almost half their officers were laid off in 2011, which is what that is based on. It isnt accurate unless the # of officers in 2011 is all you look at. Historically the new PD is smaller than the previous one.
Click to expand...

Not a hill I'm going to die on, just thought it was interesting.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

AGLamb

Kingdom NIL Hosting Catered Softball Party Deck against Texas - SHOW UP

Replies
10
Views
281
The Dungeon - Knights Only
Big12Knights
Big12Knights
AQKnightro

Sweet 16 Team Budgets

Replies
25
Views
686
The Dungeon - Knights Only
Bondzai
Bondzai
A

Party at the Bounce House!

Replies
2
Views
587
The Dungeon - Knights Only
ajknight13
A
Vendsit

Looking for 2 baseball club seats for FAU

Replies
0
Views
130
The Dungeon - Knights Only
Vendsit
Vendsit
UCF Chick

Sad campus incident - arrest made

Replies
27
Views
1K
The Dungeon - Knights Only
Bob the Citronaut
Bob the Citronaut
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT
Top Bottom
Back