DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus Defund The Police

So?

HEY!

That Defund the Police slogan is going to be a long term noose around the neck of Democrats.. It was dumb..

Reform the Police would be better. Mostly because that's what is truly needed.

Do the police need some better training and vetting? Yes they do. But taking funding away? That's dumb

So, a slogan that uses the term “defund” is only a reflection of what the trump cultists have called for as well.

1. Your bias here is really showing. Any time you use the word "only" you are setting yourself up for failure. I'm not going to keep pulling on that thread because we're getting off topic, but you know what I mean.

2. I keep seeing people talk about "whataboutism" in this forum. I don't like it myself. Typically it's thrown out by people on the left side, but what you wrote is classic "whataboutism."

3. Other than serving your pattern of poking at conservative posters, saying something along the lines of "he started it" only detracts from the topic at hand.

Feel free to have the last word because I'm not going to keep going down this rabbit hole of highlighting agitation over discussion with you on topic after topic. You know where I stand.

Here's the biggest difference. Republicans were actually doing their best to defund all abortions. For their purpose that term is quite accurate.

While on the other hand, the left actually wants to redistribute funds to give mental healthcare officials and and those dealing with the homeless problem more of the funds so those best qualified to deal with them will be in charge of those issues.

Taking the money police departments are spending on those issues now and giving those funds to people best qualified to deal with those issues. In fact, there are a lot of cops who don't feel they should be dealing with these issues either.

So "who came up with it" actually means nothing here since their goals are totally different. In fact, if one wishes to look at it, it seems the right is using the term properly while the left is not.

I would agree with that, and combine it with your earlier notion that some on the left who align themselves with the movement have taken the slogan too literally. Combine that with media coverage highlighting the clashes between this sub-group and those on the right basically saying "All democrats want to get rid of police!" and you come to the realization that the goal posts have moved far from where they were intended.

Just to add some substance to the topic, my wife is a mental health counselor and she's an associate director for one of the mental health agencies in Cincinnati and oversees a division that responds to homelessness. This involves a lot of people who obviously come across law enforcement. They have case managers who canvass the areas and have specific clientele and develop a relationship with the people and build up credibility. They also are specifically trained to respond to specific instances of psychotic breaks or other mental health crises.

They've actually developed a very good relationship with the police and have a working understanding. If something gets too violent or dangerous or threatening, the police get called in to do their thing. Likewise, if there is a situation focused on self-harm or a dispute that hasn't crossed too far into the violent threshold, the agency responds either before or along with the police. The credibility and training that they have established seems to work much better than if law enforcement alone had just arrived on the scene.

Hopefully it's something that keeps burgeoning, IMO.

Your wife does wonderful work. If we could get this cooperation between mental health professionals and the police across the country that would go a very long way in helping. Sadly, all too often this doesn't happen and the mental health systems in many areas are often underfunded.

Thanks and agree!

1. Using the term “Defund” is a reflection on the trump cultists who perpetrated the slogan here there & everywhere. You get what you give.

2. I repeat you get what you give.

3. You have me wrong. I have nothing against conservatives. It’s the trump loving cult followers who I’ll continue to mock ruthlessly.

Fund the police and abolish Qualified Immunity. When LEO's face serious charges, then we will have police reform.

I disagree. Some areas might not have any police.

Why they still have a mayor, and city council and in most places they have to live in the area.

Stopping the idiotic, senseless, and completely failed war on drugs, would go a long way in keeping the police in their own lanes and allow them to, hopefully, focus on the important things like actually concentrating on crimes where there is an actual victim.

For-profit prison industry hates you, Jules.

Screw-em... I'm still your fanboy.
And you're right.

Well, I enjoy being loved and hated equally, depending on the source.

center of attention... as it should be.

Right, and there is only 1 mayor and maybe 6-8 council members. Even in a smaller town of say 45,000 people you need more than 8 police officers.

A lot more than 8 Using my Town for an example we have a population of about 29,000. We have

1 Police Chief
1 Dispatch Supervisor
15 dispatchers
11 detectives
29 patrol officers

That is my point. You may not be able to attract enough people to take the job who live in the community. You may not have enough people who would qualify or want the position.

The number of patrol officers in New Hampshire towns average about 45 per 25,000 population. Would be interesting to see the stats of Chicago or NY.

I bet MOST positions could be filled within the community. I know the City I grew up in (it's a village now) filled all their positions from within and still does. So did the City I worked in for 30 years.

So against my better judgement I'll jump in at least briefly. The on topic comments seem to be pretty rational for now.

First I'll address the ratios of officers to citizens. I don't have the exact numbers but IIRC for most agencies the ratio of sworn officers to citizens is something around 1:6000 When you adjust for officers who are in admin positions, or investigators, or some other role other than patrol operations, break your roster in to shifts....you can easily get the ratio to 1 beat cop for close to 10,0000 citizens. You might be able to picture it this way, this was an example I gave Clem awhile back: Cleveland Stadium holds what 67,000 fans? That would be maybe 12 cops to handle their concerns.

When you hear the phrase "Thin Blue Line"... we aren't kidding about the 'thin' LOL


As for requiring officers to live where they work... I understand the sentiment behind that idea. Presumably if the officer lives in the place they work, they become more of a stakeholder in what happens in that community and would therefor "care" more and that in turn would better guide their decisions and actions.

Here's a few considerations to take in to account:

1) how literal do you mean 'live where they work'? Are talking about embedding the officer in their assigned beat? So if my assigned area is a section that has higher rates of crime, drugs, gang violence, etc... that I should be required to live on that street with my family?

2) or do you mean that they should at least live within their jurisdiction? That may be easier to pull off in the smaller agencies because they may be be able to provide a salary that is commensurate with the local cost of living but that doesn't necessarily scale upward. I live outside my jurisdiction and we have a 2 income household. We're able to provide and enjoy a moderate middle class home and general lifestyle. If you required me to live inside my jurisdiction, in order for us to maintain that same moderate standard of living you'd have to at a minimum double our income.

And yes there are plenty of or officers who do live within the jurisdiction. But everyone's financial situation is different and its not uncommon for them to have a spouse who makes bank. What you often see with our newer officers, and especially newer officers who live within the jurisdiction is massive amounts of overtime and police related off duty work. On top of a 44 hour work week, these officers are working easily another 8-20+ hours on top of that, many just trying to make ends meet.

Just kick around the possible impact that might have on quality of police services.

Lastly on this part considering the history of policing was brought up... prior to the establishment of the first police academy by NYPD in the early 1900's which was a big leap in establishing professional standards, officers did indeed live in the areas they patrolled. They did receive a salary, but it was a pittance and so many of them turned to essentially racketeering and collecting protection money from the people within their community.

One thing I've often wondered about is where have we gotten this romanticized notion of an age of policing where Ofc. O'Grady be boppin along, tippin' his hat to everyone, catching Timmy doing wrong and sternly yet kindly pulling him by his ear back to mother who then told Timmy to wait until his father gets home? This is picture of policing that critics have often said policing needs to 'get back to'. What is the source of this image? The only places I've seen it are in old Andy Griffith re-runs and Norman Rockwell paintings, things that harken to the 40's and 50's.

If I made a stand alone statement of "Hey, professional, equitable policing was at its Apex in the 40's and 50's and we should return to that" I'd think more than a few Dawgs would agree with that given what History shows us.

I think sentiment is useful and helping us shape and define what we want to accomplish, but basing policy on sentiment is massively disastrous.


Below I'll post a Part II about "Defund the Police" cuz it may be just as long?

You bring up some interesting points. I think requiring cops to live within their jurisdiction would work well in many cases but not all. You made a great point about considering the cost of living in a jurisdiction. To not compensate officers for the cost of living in a jurisdiction would be burdensome on a cop and his or her family. To pay a fair wage considering location would outrage tax payers. It sort of seems like a no win situation there.

As I said, I think it would work well in many communities but certainly not all.

The link below might have what you want. Inside the page, click the Demographis link, it gives you all the numbers.

The number of police offices listed is 22,000+. It breaks out detectives, sergeants, etc., so I assume nearly off of those would be patrol officers. Sergeants and above are typically more administrative.


[url= https://www1.nyc.gov/site/nypd/about/about-nypd/about-nypd-landing.page] https://www1.nyc.gov/site/nypd/about/about-nypd/about-nypd-landing.page[/url]

That's a fair point. I think most "one size fits all" approaches will always have flaws, in some cases severe flaws. Agree that the compensation should merit the police being able to live in the area where they would be working.