Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

What Defunding the Police Would Look Like

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • TactiKill J.
    replied
    Originally posted by CarpeDiem View Post
    Here is a Wiki article on the Cahoots program:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CAHOOTS_(crisis_response)

    https://www.npr.org/2020/06/10/87433...-eugene-oregon
    https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manit...tion-1.5608627


    The program seems to have been a success for over 30 years.
    Seems like a viable alternative to many issues facing communities looking to ease the burden on police and provide more effective support to people in crisis.
    Thanks for sharing, according to Wiki, they responded to 20% of calls in 2018. That's a lot!

    Leave a comment:


  • CarpeDiem
    replied
    Here is a Wiki article on the Cahoots program:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CAHOOTS_(crisis_response)

    https://www.npr.org/2020/06/10/87433...-eugene-oregon
    https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manit...tion-1.5608627


    The program seems to have been a success for over 30 years.
    Seems like a viable alternative to many issues facing communities looking to ease the burden on police and provide more effective support to people in crisis.

    Leave a comment:


  • slick_miester
    replied
    Originally posted by TactiKill J.
    It seems that in certain calls, cops are there, but CAHOOTS takes lead. Still better than cops trying to resolve these situations on their own, which they're simply not qualified to do.
    On that we're in definite agreement. There's a lot of calls where police officers should not take the lead, but rather merely back-up the health worker. Cops these days are wearing too many hats, and they're not getting the training to support all of those different roles. Another thing: maybe some kind of coordination team, comprised of relevant social workers, mental health workers, EMTs, cops, etc, to determine who will likely need to be forced and who will not. A lot of these calls are repeaters: repeated calls at the same location about the same person, be it EDP, domestic, D&O, etc. That way some thought and maybe even planning can go into responding to these kinds of calls before the boots actually hit the ground, so to speak.

    Leave a comment:


  • TactiKill J.
    replied
    Originally posted by slick_miester View Post

    Eleanor Bumpurs was an older women, African-American, who was suffering from dementia and mental illness. Going on memory, she lived on her own at the time, when perhaps she should not have, due to her deteriorating physical and mental condition. Exactly why the police were called I don't recall, but when they entered her apartment, she lunged at them with a kitchen knife. The police officers engaged her, shooting her, and ultimately killing her.

    Setting aside the particular tactical and political issues that arose from Eleanor Bumpurs' death, how would you propose unarmed mental health practitioners deal with uncooperative, non-compliant, potentially violent persons? Just leave them there to terrorize family and neighbors? Surely you don't propose that as a tenable solution. What do you do when the sh*t hits the fan? Call another EMT?

    And what about the EMTs and other practitioners who flat-out refuse to respond to calls without armed escort? Want to fire them? Fire them all? Decertify their unions? In a few instances, "health teams" provide a viable, and often preferable, alternative. They are very far from a panacea. At the end of the day, society will find itself confronted by people who refuse to cooperate. Without the possibility of force, what is to be done?

    Two years ago it really did look like a weapon, and it really looked like he was about to shoot somebody on the street. I fail to see how an unarmed health team could have achieved much in that situation. Indeed, I fail to see that an unarmed party should have even tried.
    CAHOOTS has operated successfully for 30 years, so there's a proven blueprint available. If it was a flawed idea, it would not exist today. Not only has it survived, it has also expanded. That tells us it's useful and effective.

    We would have to look at their operating procedures to determine how they handle different situations, which I'm not able to find at the moment. It seems that in certain calls, cops are there, but CAHOOTS takes lead. Still better than cops trying to resolve these situations on their own, which they're simply not qualified to do.

    Leave a comment:


  • slick_miester
    replied
    Originally posted by TactiKill J. View Post

    I get the point. However, none of it is relevant to the actual topic. Using health experts on wellness calls is not surrendering to criminals or however you want to frame it.
    Eleanor Bumpurs was an older women, African-American, who was suffering from dementia and mental illness. Going on memory, she lived on her own at the time, when perhaps she should not have, due to her deteriorating physical and mental condition. Exactly why the police were called I don't recall, but when they entered her apartment, she lunged at them with a kitchen knife. The police officers engaged her, shooting her, and ultimately killing her.

    Setting aside the particular tactical and political issues that arose from Eleanor Bumpurs' death, how would you propose unarmed mental health practitioners deal with uncooperative, non-compliant, potentially violent persons? Just leave them there to terrorize family and neighbors? Surely you don't propose that as a tenable solution. What do you do when the sh*t hits the fan? Call another EMT?

    And what about the EMTs and other practitioners who flat-out refuse to respond to calls without armed escort? Want to fire them? Fire them all? Decertify their unions? In a few instances, "health teams" provide a viable, and often preferable, alternative. They are very far from a panacea. At the end of the day, society will find itself confronted by people who refuse to cooperate. Without the possibility of force, what is to be done?

    Two years ago it really did look like a weapon, and it really looked like he was about to shoot somebody on the street. I fail to see how an unarmed health team could have achieved much in that situation. Indeed, I fail to see that an unarmed party should have even tried.

    Leave a comment:


  • TactiKill J.
    replied
    Originally posted by slick_miester View Post

    As usual, you miss the essential point. What kind of police reform can be expected in the absence of citizen reform? That takes two tracks: 1) the interactions between police and citizens; 2) the recruitment of police from the citizenry. They're not separate species, their mutual denials to the contrary notwithstanding. They're joined at the hip. They always have been, and likely always will be.
    I get the point. However, none of it is relevant to the actual topic. Using health experts on wellness calls is not surrendering to criminals or however you want to frame it.

    Leave a comment:


  • TactiKill J.
    replied
    Originally posted by SRV Ron View Post
    Chicago this July 4th is the best example of a city where owning a gun is illegal and the police only go in to file a report.

    https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...ago/452585001/

    Now, imagine if they didn't have a police force at all.
    Not having a police force would be idiotic.

    Leave a comment:


  • slick_miester
    replied
    Here's more stupidity in the same vein:



    The inconsistent use of face masks by Long Island Rail Road passengers is raising safety concerns among some commuters and demands that the LIRR crack down on the requirement that riders wear face coverings to prevent the spread of COVID-19.

    Although officials with the Metropolitan Transportation Authority — the LIRR’s parent organization — have said as many as 95% of customers are wearing masks, some riders argue the compliance rate is considerably lower, and note that some of the railroad’s own conductors are not covering up.

    “You’re going to get those people who aren’t going to do it, unless they’re nudged or someone speaks to them,” said Gerard Bringmann, the new chairman of the LIRR Commuter Council, the railroad’s state-regulated rider advocacy group. Bringmann said he has noticed that some who do wear masks pull them down when nobody is looking. . . . .

    LIRR president Phillip Eng said in a statement that he appreciates the efforts of customers and employees who have been wearing face coverings, as "we need everyone's continued support in this effort."

    "It's up to each and every one of us and our actions that will determine how quickly we beat this virus," Eng said. "So I ask public transportation customers, and those out in the public generally, to do the right thing, and wear a face covering. You never know whose life it’s going to save.”

    But some riders said the LIRR’s enforcement of its mask policy has been lax at best. After someone sat across from her without a mask on her morning train, Merrick commuter Judie Ulberg said she moved to another seat, and notified the train crew.

    “I said to the conductor, ‘You make the announcement, and the signs are all over. Why aren’t you enforcing this as a protection to all of us?’ … And he said there’s nothing he can do,” said Ulberg, adding that she believed the railroad had the same responsibility as local business owners to make sure its customers wear masks. . . . .

    Anthony Simon, general chairman of the International Association of Sheet Metal, Air, Rail and Transportation Workers — the union representing LIRR conductors — said they tell passengers about the railroad’s mask requirement and hand out “informational tear-off messages” explaining it. But they also try to avoid “the inevitable confrontations that arise on opinion and policy.”

    “The agency has been clear that is a function of law enforcement, and frankly, our crews have enough challenges with collecting fares and safe train operations,” Simon said.

    Conductors and other railroad staff at stations are reminding customers to wear masks, said LIRR spokeswoman Meredith Daniels, and anyone not wearing a mask could be asked to leave the system.

    But the railroad previously has acknowledged that it has taken a hands-off approach to making sure customers adhere to the rule. Responding to one rider who complained about the railroad’s enforcement on Twitter, the LIRR said it is “relying on our customers to comply with the executive order.”

    In a Newsday webinar in May, MTA chairman Patrick Foye said the railroad would primarily count on “firm, but gentle, peer pressure” among riders to enforce the policy.
    In “a limited number of cases,” LIRR personnel could intervene, said Foye, who has made it clear riders will not be arrested, nor removed from trains, for failing to comply.

    “We don’t want to make this a police matter as a first order of course,” Foye said. “Wearing a mask is a sign of respect and care for others … We believe that our customers are complying at a high level.” . . . .

    "Concerned LIRR riders want crackdown on face mask enforcement," by Alfonso A. Castillo, Newsday, 7 Jul 2020
    - emphasis mine

    So the MTA mangement doesn't want the MTA Police to enforce the mask requirement, the train crews don't want to enforce it, and MTA management wants the passengers to play it like a flock of "Karens" and hector the sht out of some a$$hole who feels he's too refined to have to wear a mask in public. Some policy the MTA has there, huh.

    This is a case where there's a distinct lack of good guys: the entitled pr*cks who think that masks are beneath them, the lame-a$$ public agency leadership who can't decide between sh*tting and getting off the pot, and the whining busy-bodies who no doubt will accept the challenge. Right there are three segments of the population whose demise can only profit the greater society upon which they leech.

    A public policy that's not enforced is not a public policy: it's merely wishful thinking. Failing to wear a mask should be treated as a form of assault. Failure to enforce public health policy, even in today's insane political climate, is tantamount to defeatism. Maybe when a few hundred thousand more die from covid we'll get the friggin' point.

    Leave a comment:


  • slick_miester
    replied
    Here's an example of why the current calls for police reform/police defunding are pure bunk:

    With complaints about illegal fireworks on the rise across New York City, Brooklyn Borough President Eric Adams called on the City to take action.

    Adams wants the City to deploy Cure Violence groups to respond on the ground to fireworks complaints.

    "That is the role of community-based groups and organizations," Adams said. "That is why I'm calling on the City of New York to empower Cure Violence to go into the community and talk to the residents about the dangers of fireworks."

    Cure Violence is a public health anti-violence program which aims to reduce violence globally using disease control and behavioral changes. . . . .

    "Mystery fireworks: Adams calls on NYC to deploy community groups," WABC-TV New York, 21 Jun 2020
    Right. Fireworks have been illegal in NYC since before I was born -- but like narcotics, the legal prohibition and tons of safety PSAs has done nothing to curb their trade or their use. According to Brooklyn Borough President Eric Adams, people will now, all of a sudden, cease using fireworks if they're asked nicely enough. Now here comes the real punchline:

    Adams also wants law enforcement groups to track the source of the fireworks and how they're flowing into the city.
    Back in the day it took actual smugglers to bring fireworks into NYC. In the '80s I bought my fireworks from an NYPD lieutenant who worked out of the 1st Precinct in Lower Manhattan, which included the fireworks-happy neighborhoods of Little Italy and Chinatown. More recently, however, first the State of Pennsylvania, and then two years ago the State of New Jersey, legalized retail sale of fireworks to the general public. Most all New Yorkers with cars go to NJ to shop for clothes: NJ does not assess sales tax on clothing and shoes, as opposed to NYC's 8.65%. It's not professional traffickers in contraband, but garden-variety private citizens who are buying fireworks in NJ and PA and ten blowing them off on NYC's streets. Is the retired NYPD Lt Eric Adams now calling on police to treat average citizens as professional traffickers? In today's political climate? Or is he just making political hay about using the NYPD to enforce a law that everyone's been ignoring for fifty years -- like prohibitions on narcotics and prostitution and untaxed cigarettes? Just as in the Eric Garner case, is a public official who definitely knows better -- not only was Adams an NYPD Lt, but he's long been one of this City's most vocal critics of too aggressive police tactics, especially as used against African-Americans -- now calling for more points of potential conflict between the police and the general public over what's nothing more than a minor nuisance?

    If you make laws, then presumably those laws will have to be enforced -- "force" being the operative word here. If you defang the police, then whose going to enforce your laws? If you're going to write laws knowing full-well that they'll never be enforced, then why write them in the first place? As citizens, can't we put more thought into addressing our society's problems than to bleat to these pandering politicians that they should "do something"? Am I the only one here who sees this obvious logical fallacy? Or am I the only one willing to talk about it?

    Leave a comment:


  • SRV Ron
    replied
    Chicago this July 4th is the best example of a city where owning a gun is illegal and the police only go in to file a report.

    https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...ago/452585001/

    Now, imagine if they didn't have a police force at all.

    Leave a comment:


  • slick_miester
    replied
    Originally posted by TactiKill J. View Post

    The goal of reform, and the goal of general law enforcement are two different things. Why are you continuing to conflate the two? Is it not possible to have and achieve multiple goals with appropriate measures to achieve each???
    As usual, you miss the essential point. What kind of police reform can be expected in the absence of citizen reform? That takes two tracks: 1) the interactions between police and citizens; 2) the recruitment of police from the citizenry. They're not separate species, their mutual denials to the contrary notwithstanding. They're joined at the hip. They always have been, and likely always will be.

    Leave a comment:


  • TactiKill J.
    replied
    Originally posted by slick_miester View Post

    That's mighty white of you to concede that point.



    Not ignored, but put into proper context. Their PD was not permanently disbanded, but disbanded and reformed. What went unmentioned in that article was that a fair share of Camden's political leadership was changed, as well, either through losses at the polls, or Federal prosecution.

    What can't be ignored, as a matter of national interest, is that while Camden was able to overcome occupation by drug gangs, the gangs themselves are still in business, only they're plying their trade -- and terrorizing residents, in other nearby towns. Like as not those towns are every bit as "black" as Camden. One little symptom has been addressed, but the disease continues merrily along.



    From a private citizen's point of view, the goal of any law enforcement agency is to reduce crime. (From a politician's point of view, the purpose of any law enforcement agency is to maintain the politician's hold on power -- but that's a discussion for another thread.) But then again, from a citizen's point of view, government exists only to serve the society's interests, and the citizen's interests. If police and government as a whole aren't doing that, then why have them?

    This is no mere academic point: back in the crack-laden '80s, some of the loudest calls for greater government intervention, including grater police action, came from political leaders within African-American communities. Not unique to African-Americans, to be sure, there was a knee-jerk reaction when a new problem afflicted the community: government must do something. So government did do something: they declared war on drugs. I don't know any reasonable person, regardless of political stripe or race or etc etc etc, whose pleased with The War on Drugs' results.

    You sound like me: a believer in government as limited as is humanly practicable. In order for such to be both achievable and desirable, however, a real revolution will have to occur. It won't occur on battlefields or in the streets. Its weapons won't be rifles and shotguns and Molotov Cocktails. The battlefield will be between every citizen's ears, and the weapons will be knowledge and discernment, aka plain old common sense. Without that, we're just talking sht.

    Re the recent spike in NYC this past weekend: nature abhors a vacuum. For all intents and purposes, the police are backing off, and standing down. They're abandoning the field. Which party is best positioned to fill the void when the civil authorities retreat? In NYC, it's not the citizenry: too many years of progressive education and governance have infantilized the populace to the point that they're now utterly entitled, toothless, impotent, and dull-witted. No, the party best suited to fill the void are the drag gangs. This past weekend, they went out and settled old scores -- by the basket-full.

    And here's the word from another segment of the public sector workforce:



    When an individual just plain refuses to meet societal norms -- be it refraining from selling drugs, or extorting his neighbors, or raping women, or even silly stuff like not driving drunk -- then society's refusal to apply armed force, be it from an organized police department or from a corps of armed citizens, is tantamount to society's acquiescence to anti-social elements and outright criminality. To be frank, we've long accepted criminality from leading figures in our society for years, decades, so perhaps this kind of surrender will prove at least a tad more intellectually honest.
    The goal of reform, and the goal of general law enforcement are two different things. Why are you continuing to conflate the two? Is it not possible to have and achieve multiple goals with appropriate measures to achieve each???

    Leave a comment:


  • slick_miester
    replied
    Originally posted by TactiKill J. View Post
    Who said [the police] are as dangerous [as narcotics gangs]?
    That's mighty white of you to concede that point.

    Originally posted by TactiKill J. View Post
    The improvements made from disbanding [Camden NJ's] PD shouldn't be ignored.
    Not ignored, but put into proper context. Their PD was not permanently disbanded, but disbanded and reformed. What went unmentioned in that article was that a fair share of Camden's political leadership was changed, as well, either through losses at the polls, or Federal prosecution.

    What can't be ignored, as a matter of national interest, is that while Camden was able to overcome occupation by drug gangs, the gangs themselves are still in business, only they're plying their trade -- and terrorizing residents, in other nearby towns. Like as not those towns are every bit as "black" as Camden. One little symptom has been addressed, but the disease continues merrily along.

    Originally posted by TactiKill J. View Post
    The goal of defunding or reforming is not to reduce crime, in my view.
    From a private citizen's point of view, the goal of any law enforcement agency is to reduce crime. (From a politician's point of view, the purpose of any law enforcement agency is to maintain the politician's hold on power -- but that's a discussion for another thread.) But then again, from a citizen's point of view, government exists only to serve the society's interests, and the citizen's interests. If police and government as a whole aren't doing that, then why have them?

    This is no mere academic point: back in the crack-laden '80s, some of the loudest calls for greater government intervention, including grater police action, came from political leaders within African-American communities. Not unique to African-Americans, to be sure, there was a knee-jerk reaction when a new problem afflicted the community: government must do something. So government did do something: they declared war on drugs. I don't know any reasonable person, regardless of political stripe or race or etc etc etc, whose pleased with The War on Drugs' results.

    You sound like me: a believer in government as limited as is humanly practicable. In order for such to be both achievable and desirable, however, a real revolution will have to occur. It won't occur on battlefields or in the streets. Its weapons won't be rifles and shotguns and Molotov Cocktails. The battlefield will be between every citizen's ears, and the weapons will be knowledge and discernment, aka plain old common sense. Without that, we're just talking sht.

    Re the recent spike in NYC this past weekend: nature abhors a vacuum. For all intents and purposes, the police are backing off, and standing down. They're abandoning the field. Which party is best positioned to fill the void when the civil authorities retreat? In NYC, it's not the citizenry: too many years of progressive education and governance have infantilized the populace to the point that they're now utterly entitled, toothless, impotent, and dull-witted. No, the party best suited to fill the void are the drag gangs. This past weekend, they went out and settled old scores -- by the basket-full.

    And here's the word from another segment of the public sector workforce:

    Through October of this year [2019] 146 EMTs, paramedics & firefighters were assaulted at work — a 36% higher rate than in 2018, when assaults totaled 129 for the entire year; and 27% higher than the rate in 2017, when 139 annual assaults were recorded. This is data the FDNY reported to the federal Occupational Safety & Health Administration, according to FDNY spokesman Frank Dwyer.

    The attack spike comes amid a two-fold increase in 911 calls seeking assistance for emotionally disturbed persons (EDP's) over the last decade & as the city deals with a spate of killings involving mentally ill suspects.

    "We have more frequent contact with them & these people are not in their right state of mind, so of course we are the ones who suffer the consequences," said Oren Barzilay, president of Local 2507 representing EMTs and paramedics. "We're the first contact they have when someone calls 911." . . . .

    The union leaders said Mayor Bill de Blasio's most recent fix for the city's mental health crisis — a $37 million initiative that includes mental health professionals responding to 911 calls alongside emergency services workers — is "more wasteful spending." . . . .

    "EMS assaults up 36% as mental health crisis grows," NYC Fire Wire. 10 Nov 2019
    When an individual just plain refuses to meet societal norms -- be it refraining from selling drugs, or extorting his neighbors, or raping women, or even silly stuff like not driving drunk -- then society's refusal to apply armed force, be it from an organized police department or from a corps of armed citizens, is tantamount to society's acquiescence to anti-social elements and outright criminality. To be frank, we've long accepted criminality from leading figures in our society for years, decades, so perhaps this kind of surrender will prove at least a tad more intellectually honest.

    Leave a comment:


  • TactiKill J.
    replied
    Originally posted by G David Bock View Post

    Most of we citizens have a different view; we want to see crime reduced, not encouraged. We are more worried and concerned about our fellow citizens whom don't have ethical or civil standards of conduct to uphold, but seem to be just the opposite as seen in this example;
    https://www.theblaze.com/news/suspec...t%20270%20days

    https://abc13.com/convenience-store-...exxon/6251202/
    Complete fallacy. We want to see crime reduced as well. Holding cops to a higher standard does not encourage crime.

    Leave a comment:


  • TactiKill J.
    replied
    Originally posted by G David Bock View Post

    Thing is, police don't always know if the situation they are responding to is one of "violence". Routine traffic stops
    These health experts aren't for routine traffic stops.

    Leave a comment:

Latest Topics

Collapse

Working...
X