Comments

2

Any bureaucracy is going to respond to the prospect of budget cuts with dire predictions. Threaten to reduce the City Arborist's budget by 50% and see what doom is foretold. Nobody is obliged to take them at face value and every institution could do with the occasional visit by a (metaphorical) cleansing fire.

4

Arbitrary budget cuts based on passion isn't good governance.

7

That assumes of course that whatever replaces the SPD would be better but as we saw with CHOP security and the current iteration of the city council things can easily get worse, much much worse.

8

If they think they can "just ask" to ignore seniority in layoffs and the answer will be "sure, go with that", they are truly delusional.

10

Here is a crazy idea: fire based on the number of complaints about an officer per year. Of course this means that some good cops would be unlucky, and fired because someone whined about perfectly reasonable behavior. But overall, I think you would get rid of more bad cops, which is really the whole point of this exercise. It isn't just a transition away from a failed policy of over-reliance on heavy-handed policing, and a lack of preventative measures. It is also because there are clearly a large number of bad cops in Seattle -- enough to create a bad police culture. Or does no one remember that the DOJ found a "pattern or practice of constitutional violations regarding the use of force that result from structural problems, as well as serious concerns about biased policing" in 2012?

If so, here is a short rundown: https://www.aclu-wa.org/pages/timeline-seattle-police-accountability.

11

Seattle: CUT SPD BUDGET BY 50%!

Carmen Best: But, we just spent all of that money on overtime and teargas.

Jenny Durkan: How about we cut the budget by 0% and we just put some of the funding to not be under SPD’s line item? Will that move of 20% of the budget make you happy?

12

@10: The number huh? Not the veracity of legitimacy of complaints?

Don't like a cop because she's snippy and fat? Or because he didn't give you a warning instead of writing a speeding ticket? Start a call in campaign via twitter and get their asses fired.

Why would anyone want to be a cop in this town?

13

How much would not arming police departments like military forces save? The weaponry and vehicles are beyond excessive.

14

@11 apt a.f.

15

@12 Shouldn't be a problem if its graded on a curve.

16

@9 -- Exactly. Meter maids aren't the problem. If anything, it is just a bullshit maneuver. The mayor can talk about "cutting the police department", when the number of highly paid cops with guns remains the same. You've simply removed the one group of reasonable people within the department. They aren't armed. In general, the police department should have a lot more unarmed people. The attitude in the past was that every officer might encounter an extremely dangerous man, and thus need to protect themselves (and the community) by any means necessary. Bullshit. So what if that the case -- that still doesn't mean they should be armed. Fire fighters aren't armed, and they are in the same boat. Medic One isn't armed. Doctors and nurses at Harborview aren't armed. There are a lot of first responders that aren't armed, even though someone might put a cap in their ass.

I see no reason why traffic cops should be armed. Yes, I realize that they respond to stolen cars, and that some of those folks are armed. So what? Put it this way: what if the driver of a car refused to pull over? Back in the day, the cops would chase them. Now, they don't. That's because it is more dangerous to chase them then to let them go. They call for backup. Other cops, from various area, come in. In some cases, they catch them, in some cases, they don't. The same approach should be taken if guys in a car pull a gun. The cops back off, and they criminals take off. Hopefully have a good picture of them. Eventually they got caught. There is no reason to assume that this will result in higher crime -- in fact, all the evidence points to the opposite. The most cost effective way to reduce crime is to reduce the sources of crime -- poverty and frustration. Give people hope and calm them down and you have a lot less crime.

The point is, moving the one reasonable, unarmed group of officials to a different department is a bullshit accounting maneuver that completely misses the point. I am beginning to believe that Mayor Durkan is just not smart enough to be mayor. She is reasonable, and her heart is in the right place, but incident after incident suggests that she doesn't have the brain power or experience to handle her position. I say this as someone who voted for her (at least in the general).

17

20 isn't 50.

She's negotiating. Let's up it to 60% cuts.

18

@17 She didn’t even suggest 20%.

She suggested 0% but moving 20% of the budget to other budget line items.

Let’s up it to 75%.

19

Bellevue Police are hiring!

20

Spokane police is probably hiring!

21

Sophomoric liberal passions and conservative wet dreams of “standing tall” aside, there is some reality at work here.

1) The city is broke. Every department is being asked to cut budgets. The proposed 20% cut to SPD surely reflects some of that reduction.

2) Labor costs are a reality. The city is contractually bound to pay wages that are agreed to in union contracts (not only SPOG. SPD has contracts with several unions). They need to be either negotiate reductions - which the city did in 2007 - or just decertify the agreements (which means dollars and time in its own way)

3) Regulatory compliance is a reality. Like every department in the city, there are fixed costs associated with SPD in order for them to be aligned with state and federal regulations. Those need to be reassigned to the appropriate new department, and agreed to by the council.

If we really want to transform from a police force to a public safety department, it takes more than histrionics from elected officials, and self-aggrandizing protests from The Usual Suspects to accomplish that. It takes hard, tedious work over the course of months, if not years.

24

Fewer cops = reduction of government services, but no reduction in my tax bill.
Fewer police means I need to purchase a gun, and put a law firm on retainer, if - God forbid - I ever have to use the gun

27

25: Funny you should mention "Once children get shot and killed like in Chicago" since as of 2017, Chicago used 37% of its total city budget on police, or approximately $1.68 billion. Yes, that's almost 4 times what Seattle spends and as you said yourself, "children get shot in the street."

Why, its almost as if there is no fucking connection at all between what we spend on police and public safety with the exception of violently suppressing peaceful protestors. That's where your big police budgets really pay off. Using the police state to suppress the first amendment of its citizens is a big ticket item. I hear Seattle has already spent over 6 million on just that, but when it comes to suppressing the right to assemble, you spend whatever you need to.

The public demands a police pay cut from the police and Durkin gives us a political gimmick as a proposal. She complains that the council did not consult Carmen Best who would have demanded raises for the SPD all around. It's clear Jenny Durkin in owned by the police union and holds the wishes of her constituents in contempt. We need aa mayor that reflects the values of the voters and she clearly has no interest in doing that. Time for her to go. Leet's not repeat the tragic mistake of hiring an ex-prosecutor next time around.

28

Of all things to cut, let's defund the GOP and the NRA, and restore police forces throughout the U.S.--not just Seattle----to their original missions: to protect and serve the people. ALL people.
There is no need for AR-15 military assault rifles, tear gas, or rubber bullets during peaceful protests, or forceful aggressive action upon innocent civilians.

29

25: "OMG, once the police are defunded the orgy of crime, killing, rapes, home invasions, drug dealing, and sex trafficking is going to be epic."

Sure, these are all popular vocations for vice cops. killing, rape, home invasions, drug dealing and sex trafficking. I guess we will need to hire civilians to fill in for them once vice is no longer around to staff that kind of work.

"Corrupt Policeman Worried About Working With Partner Who Has Never Once Taken Bribe"
https://local.theonion.com/corrupt-policeman-worried-about-working-with-partner-wh-1844309860

30

"Of all things to cut, let's defund the GOP and the NRA, and restore police forces throughout the U.S.--not just Seattle----to their original missions: to protect and serve the people. ALL people."

I'm with you on the GOP, but do you know who the single largest group of supporters is for the NRA? That's right, the COPS!

https://www.thetrace.org/2020/07/the-nras-unshakable-support-for-police/

If you want to cut the NRA, you should start with cutting policing.

On the other hand, the NRA has a proud history of supporting gun control........against black people.

https://www.history.com/news/black-panthers-gun-control-nra-support-mulford-act

Ya, when the clan shows up with the support by the local cop shop for a good lynching, the LAST thing we want is armed black folks to defend themselves.

34

"I see no reason why traffic cops should be armed."

Last night two Bothell police officers were shot after a traffic stop. One died. Reality has a way of asserting itself when people engage in fantasies.

The police in the US need to be heavily armed because we have made the decision as a country to allow our citizenry to be insanely heavily armed. If we regulated firearms first, then we could realistically talk about having unarmed cops. But you can't go at it backwards.

Right now the city council is clearly engaged in fantasies, not governing, when they talk about things like having the chief just ask to terminate officers by reasons other than seniority. They are the functional equivalent of all the conservatives that vote for every Tim Eyman initiative and then complain when budgets are cut.

35

@28: Dear sweet auntie dearest:

The GOP and NRA are not funded by taxpayer dollars, but by private contributions. There's no way to "defund" them.

38

How herbal medicine completely healed me. Does anyone else doubt natural herbs? I have seen the great importance of natural supplements and the wonderful work they have done in people's lives. I wonder why people still spend their money on surgery, injections and medication when they are sick. My diabetes was completely cured with natural herbs. I was diagnosed with type 2 diabetes earlier this year and my blood sugar was very high. I was advised to use insulin medications that later have side effects on my health. I decided to stop using insulin medication, and I was recommended to use herbal medicine after reading a number of statements by doctor Nelson Salim herbal medicine on the Internet, on the blogger site, and on radio stations. I bought Dr. Nelson herbal medicine for diabetes, which he sent to my address through a delivery company, received herbal medicine within 3 days and the doctor instructed me how to use herbal medicine for 21 days. After completing herbal medicine, I decided to have a blood test and my blood sugar was recognized as normal. Today I am free from diabetes with no side effects. Contact Dr. Nelson Salim via email: drnelsonsalim10@gmail.com or call / WhatsApp +2348116522191 for more information. He said he had herbal remedies for; Hepatitis, kidney diseases, heart diseases, cancer, high blood pressure, fat reduction, infertility, Lyme disease, herpes virus, cold sores, shingles, rectal diseases

39

@36 -- the UK has not had an officer shot and killed in the line of duty since 2012. Their population is a little bit less than Texas and California combined. In that same timeframe 80 police officers in California and Texas have died from being shot.

The fundamental problem with policing in the US is guns. Officers act the way they do because there are guns everywhere in this country. To truly reform policing in this county, you have to start with guns. But that's hard. So we pretend that we can fix policing without fixing guns. We act as though we can change our police into those who patrol the UK without creating the conditions that exist in the UK. It's a fantasy world.

44

LOL @ a 50% cut to the police budget. These people are lunatics.

45

@35 but the NRA is a nonprofit organization meaning they do not pay taxes on their revenue, meaning that by extension the government is subsidizing their activities. Take away that status and NRA will be forced to pay taxes and probably go out of business. So, that's a good leverage point to explore :)

46

When school funding and social services are cut in the name of “smaller government” we end up with more people on the street, more crime, more problems that “require” enhanced policing.

When big chunk of our tax money goes to developing new weapons, we end up with a surplus. To justify developing some more we give some of that surplus to police forces across the country, because they have growing needs.

Cutting our military and police budgets, allocating more of our tax money to education, health care and retirement will serve the real needs of our society.

47

@16: "The point is, moving the one reasonable, unarmed group of officials to a different department is a bullshit accounting maneuver that completely misses the point."

You're correct, that is indeed Durkan's point. The 50% funding cut is an arbitrary, meaningless, feel-good talking point with absolutely no basis in reality, and could easily be achieved -- without addressing any of the underlying problems with policing. It's the left-wing version of believing we can cut taxes all we want, and yet continue to enjoy all the government services we always have. With the right-wingers, the magic of the freed-up market will provide; I'm not sure if the magical thinkers on the left have yet named the genie which will magically provide their solution.

Any solution needs to start with the actual data, proven in the lawsuit our city lost. Our City Council should begin by demanding Mayor Durkan follow the exact same Consent Decree which then-U.S. Attorney Durkan had signed. Discover why she hasn't yet done this, and we'll be on our way to discovering why fifty years of electing liberals to public office has not completely reformed our police.

48

@34:

You DO understand that traffic enforcement officers DO NOT make traffic stops, yes? They write tickets and put them on parked cars, they don't pull you over in their little Cushman carts.

49

@35:

Sure there is, it's called a "boycott", something the NRA is currently experiencing:

https://www.npr.org/2020/04/21/839999178/secret-recording-reveals-nras-legal-troubles-have-cost-the-organization-100-mill

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/nra-layoff-fundraising/

50

@48 -- you do realize you're describing parking enforcement officers, not traffic enforcement officers, right?

51

This is why I keep saying stop all you delusional protests, defund the police crap.

Schools in Europe are open; these countries are way more liberal than California, Seattle, Portland. LA teacher's union want to defund the police, shut down charter schools, ... before they reopen. Everyone is mad: Latinos, Blacks, Asians and Whites.
Trump is going to benefit again, because he is the only saying the schools need to open.

If any of you actually want Biden to win, please stay home and shut up. Better still, tell the city council lunatics to shut their pie holes with all the defund the police ranting and ravings.

If Biden says any crap about defund the police, I and most moderates would rather vote for the orangutan.

52

@ 51
Or maybe they can afford opening schools because they have a much more efficient health care system than we do, and a population that doesn't scream "the constitution!" when society needs to cooperate for everyone's good.
Possibly also better education system, retirement programs, smaller "defense" budget, and far fewer guns on the streets.

54

I hear ya, now what about adequate health care and retirement funds?

56

For those who paid taxes while working all their lives who witness social security being depleted. Now how about tax money to pay college tuition like they have in some of those European countries mentioned above?

57

@33: "you seem to be under the impression that if the title "cop" is removed from those tasked with investigating major crimes that all of a sudden corruption will go away."

It will be greatly reduced. You take away qualified immunity, asset forfeiture, police unions, prosecutors paid defend police criminality, the right to lie under oath without punishment and the "I was scared" doctrine used to execute fleeing victims and you take all the fun out of police murder, rape and corruption. Civilians know they will be punished for such crimes just as police know they will get a paid vacation followed by an award and promotion.

Think of policing like the Laugher curve. At some point the public good police provide is exceeded by their government protected right to violence. We are way, way past the point where the number of police do more good than harm. Over the past 50 years we have moved from a group of professionals trained to deal with violent crime like rape, murder and theft to a group of high school bullies who lack impulse control, or a clear careerr path who no one but the police department will hire and women marry at their own risk due to extreme domestic abuse incidents.

The solution is getting police creeps and perverts out of the lifestyle crime business. Rather than paying them to make things worse for those addicted to drugs, or crotch sniffing the citizenry for what type of sex their church group feels they should be having, they should focus on violent crime and only come when called. I suspect that approach would make 80% of their budget unnecessary. 50% is a good start.

"I mean, we saw civilian security in CHOP and they would NEVER kill a Black kid or use excessive force; yeah?"

Black kids get murder all the time outside CHOP and with less than 50% of those cases solved it's clear the police could care less. At least we can get the police out of the business of murdering black teenagers and, god forbid, get them into the business of finding their murders. Something they currently show a real lack of iinterest in.

58

@30 Luddite5, @31 Downfall, and @35 Rainy : See comments @45 arconaut, @46 CMDwannabe, and @49 COMTE.
@45 arconaut, @46 CMDwannabe, and @49 COMTE: Thank you. My points exactly. Agreed, seconded, and bravo for the three-way tied WIN.

59

@57: 'You take away qualified immunity, asset forfeiture, police unions, prosecutors paid defend police criminality, the right to lie under oath without punishment and the "I was scared" doctrine used to execute fleeing victims and you take all the fun out of police murder, rape and corruption.'

Those are all really good ideas, and none of them require us to de-fund the police by some arbitrary amount. They'd also do more good than any tinkering with funding levels. But they have very difficult metrics and don't fit on feel-good slogans.

'Think of policing like the Laugher curve.'

It's "Laffer," and citing a long-discredited economic theory doesn't help your case.

'At some point the public good police provide is exceeded by their government protected right to violence.'

Yes, but the metric isn't number of police officers. The metric is how permissive the local government is towards abuse by its police officers, be there a hundred or ten thousand. One of the attributes of successful government is a local monopoly on the legal use of violence. That monopoly invites abuse, no matter the number of persons allowed to use it.

"The solution is getting police creeps and perverts out of the lifestyle crime business."

We've been doing this, to limited extents, by de-criminalizing cannabis usage. Legalizing sex work would be another great step to eliminating police corruption (among other great benefits, such as legal protections for sex workers). While a great idea, it doesn't directly affect the problem of Black Lives Not Mattering to the guys with the guns.

'Over the past 50 years we have moved from a group of professionals trained to deal with violent crime like rape, murder and theft...'

Fifty years ago, the SPD decided voicing opposition to our dirty little war in Viet Nam was illegal, and began spying on citizens who participated in such First Amendment 'crimes'. Again, reminiscing about the supposed good old days (of formally institutionalized patterns of abuse) does nothing for the cause of police reform.

I want police reform, but not all ideas are worth considering. Arbitrary budget cuts are not a good starting point, no matter how sincere the desire behind them.

60

@59: I previously supported the idea of reform, but learned that those reforms I noted above are impossible because police don't want reform. Remember, Minneapolis was a model of reform and it gave us Derek Chauvin. That's what reform looks like. No thanks, I'll take defunding. You're correct that 50% is arbitrary, but it's heading in the right direction. Perhaps it should be more.

You're incorrect about the Laffer curve, but the point as applied here remains true irregardless. You have prison on one end and no policing on the other. Most of the debate is over the proper level of policing between those two extremes. Those who think everything is currently swell argue about the results of no police because their argument against less police are not credible.

"Yes, but the metric isn't number of police officers. The metric is how permissive the local government is towards abuse by its police officers, be there a hundred or ten thousand."

Well that's some unsupported bullshit you pulled right out of your ass. The police are not despised because of what the city council thinks of them. Police are despised because of their behavior and their contempt for the public they claim to serve. We have little to show for most of the 400 million we waste each year on Seattle policing. The police openly admit they do nothing. They call in the "new normal, but they have been making excuses why they can't do their job long before the call to defund. They have a hundred glib excuses why we should continue paying them to not do their job. As you correctly state, the job invites abuse, but the real issue is that there is no accountability or oversight for that abuse and they refuse to even acknowledge there's a problem. In a system where police abuse is rampant and rarely punished less police is more.

"One of the attributes of successful government is a local monopoly on the legal use of violence."

Not surprisingly, you left the word "ethical use" out of your monopoly on violence doctrine. This is an area where policing has entirely failed, which is why we are seeing protests and a demand to defund. A successful use of the monopoly on state violence depends on that violence being appropriate, proportional and extremely limited. It also requires the highest level of accountability for public support. When you look at the way both policing and our prison population has exploded over the past 50 years during a time when violence has been in steep decline, can you continue to argue that the police have not badly abused their monopoly on violence? Police have squandered their public trust and don't seem especially interested in earning it back. In fact, they don't even acknowledge they have a problem beyond losing 50% of their budget. Such an unaccountable system of violence is not sustainable. Defund.

"Legalizing sex work would be another great step to eliminating police corruption (among other great benefits, such as legal protections for sex workers)."

Another reform that will never happen. You have crotch sniffing prosecutors and police who are addicted to policing the sex lives of other adults and the huge financial incentives policing sex lives brings them. Seattle defines prostitution as "sexual exploitation" for gods sake. How many extremely costly sting operations have we witnessed over the past 5 years? They will never give up this easy money and opportunity for police exploitation sex workers. Defund. It will mean less police rape of sex workers and more privacy for everyone else.

As for drugs, the system has become less punitive due entirely to public criticism over the failed war on drugs, but police still run an expensive and problematic drug surveillance system that does nothing to help people deal with their drug addiction. The police continue to be an obstacle to reform in this area by placing punishment before health and harm reduction. The police believe the best way to pursued someone is to twist their arm until they comply. If you oppose coercion as the sole form of persuasion, defund.

" While a great idea, it doesn't directly affect the problem of Black Lives Not Mattering to the guys with the guns."

Yes it does. BLM is overwhelmingly affected by the over policing of laws that were frankly designed to create an opportunity to incarcerate them in the first place. Until we have less non-violent laws and less police, their lives will remain at risk due to over policing. As for guns, one of the leading causes of incarceration for black people is owning guns. It's time to stop incarcerating black people for needed to defend themselves in a world where police are either incapable, or unwilling to do so.

Good point. No question the police of 50 years ago had serious problems similar to the problems we see today, to include open abuse of the 1st amendment as we are seeing with peaceful protestors. I guess it was less noticeable because there were a lot less of them. Let's go with that model. Defund.

61

I'm with those who don't see the point of moving parking violations to the DOT. If anything, that would even be a big mistake since they don't have the authority or training to deal with related criminal issues like harassment. In which case, you'd wind with even more bureaucracy and red tape.

I'm also appalled to hear that 911 is being cut when I couldn't get police in a timely manner for threatened sexual assault on one occasion - and on another occasion, reporting what seemed to be a possible rape taking place just off the Burke Gilman. In any other areas, a 911 call for either of these situations would have dispatched police within less than 5 minutes, and even if you were, at the time of the call, technically "safe." And do people honestly think such a situation requires a social worker or a medley of memo option selections to decide?

When this conversation about defunding started, my understanding was that it would be about demilitarizing police so that peaceful protesters could demonstrate without being assailed by an opposing army from the government equipped with machine guns,and tear gas, tanks, bayonets even. Clearly they also need better guidelines so they're not harassing people who are black or POC, and not killing people who are not imminent threats. There needs more independent oversight and prosecution of bad cops.

But all the rest of this? Personally, I agree we need more black officers, pic and women on forces- and also that police today should be required to have a 4 year college degree, preferably even in liberal arts. You don't cut in the areas they seem to be going for. Those areas are part of the solution, not the problem.

It doesn't sound like anyone knows what they are doing, in this.

62

@61 Will also add, I think they need increased psychological, even medical, screening of people going into policing and applying for jobs in various locations. That screening, IMO, sould be specific to psychopathy (which can be screened medically through brain scans, nowadays, along with other testing) and sociopathy (not as medical specific) and a host of other psychiatric disorders to ensure you don't have a disturbed or criminal mindset entering policing to find an outlet for that disorder. The screening should also include people with affiliations to racist groups and movements, and whether they have major issues there. But keep in mind that psychopaths, for one, can be clever at getting around this kind of stuff. I don't know about Seattle per see, but clearly there's a problem with this in depts across the country.

63

@61 @62 One last point... In addition the demilitarization (as what should be a major refunding focus) ... also these costly homeless sweeps - with the money going into actual housing. And by that I mean real individual housing, whether it's modest apts or hotel rooms with people having minimally their own bathrooms and licking doors. Not these shelters.

64

@61: "I'm with those who don't see the point of moving parking violations to the DOT. If anything, that would even be a big mistake since they don't have the authority or training to deal with related criminal issues like harassment."

DOT would not deal with things like "harassment." Like parking attendants they would enforce road safety, not endless violations of the 4th amendment along with escalating simple traffic stops into violent encounters.

From Sara Green over at the ST, who has always played the obedient puppy dog stenographer for whatever line the police feed her:

https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/suspect-in-fatal-shooting-of-bothell-police-officer-ordered-held-without-bail/https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/suspect-in-fatal-shooting-of-bothell-police-officer-ordered-held-without-bail/

"The officers made a traffic stop just after 9:40 p.m. Monday, pulling over a black Pontiac G6 because it didn’t have license plates, the statement says. The driver had been traveling eastbound on Highway 522 and as Shoop approached the driver’s-side window, the driver quickly accelerated through a traffic light, striking a man on a scooter in the crosswalk at Bothell Way Northeast and Woodinville Drive, according to the statement.
The man on the scooter suffered a broken leg but his injuries are not life-threatening, the statement says
A witness shot video that shows Washington outside his car as the patrol vehicle approached the intersection and stopped, the statement says. Other witnesses later told police the driver yelled, “Come on, pigs,” as he quickly moved around the front of the patrol car and fired two shots into the police SUV through the driver’s-side window, according to the statement."
If this was handled by DOT, they would have cited him for not having a license plate and sent him a ticket in the mail, Instead we end up with a direct confrontation with a homeless person that results in the needless death of a police officer who wanted to play a deadly game of cops and robbers. Also during this event:
"vehicular assault for allegedly hitting a man on a scooter with his vehicle; and attempting to elude police."
We will never know if this is exactly how things went down since Sara Green has never asked a police officer a questions about their version of events in her life, but we have a civilian hit and a police officer dead from stopping a homeless person who is obviously mentally ill. You say DOT would have handled this worse? How could anyone have done worse than the police did in this case?

"I'm also appalled to hear that 911 is being cut when I couldn't get police in a timely manner for threatened sexual assault on one occasion - and on another occasion"

911 is not being cut. It's is being moved from the police department where the police tend to react casually to things like rape and murder to civilians who actually care. Why do I way the police don't care about rape? Here's your proof:

"Nearly 6,500 rape kits sit untested statewide, Washington attorney general says"
https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/crime/washington-attorney-general-identifies-nearly-6500-untested-rape-kits-statewide/

"But all the rest of this? Personally, I agree we need more black officers, pic and women on forces- and also that police today should be required to have a 4 year college degree, preferably even in liberal arts"

You know who agrees with you? The Minneapolis police department that executed George Floyd while two "minority cops" watched and did nothing.

Alex Vitale in "The End of Policing" has shown conclusively that feel good reforms like diversity in policing do nothing to stop gratuitous violence and racism on policing. When someone become a cop their only color is blue, and that's all about corruption, civil asset forfeiture, qualified immunity, and terrorizing minorities. The feel good reforms have all failed. Remember, if we had defunded the police by 50% Jonathon Shoop would be alive today. Save the lives of police, defund 50%.

"also these costly homeless sweeps - with the money going into actual housing."

This is precisely why people support defunding the police. They don't stop crime, they are their for population control. They steal money from and rape sex workers, the call it "saving them." The sweep homeless people and provide nothing in the way of housing. They arrest people for drugs and do nothing to provide drug counseling.

It's not that they do nothing so much as they make things worse for the most vulnerable members of society and as us to thank them for doing it.

DEFUND!!!

65

@60: "I previously supported the idea of reform, but learned that those reforms I noted above are impossible because police don't want reform."

So, we should have given up on abolition because the slave-owners didn't want it?

We should have left Jim Crow in place because Bull Connor was just fine with it?

At what point should we give up trying to improve?

"You're incorrect about the Laffer curve..."

I was correct about how to spell it.

"...but the point as applied here remains true irregardless. You have prison on one end and no policing on the other."

Well, as the Laffer curve runs from zero to one hundred percent of something, a more accurate use would be, no prisons (and therefore no police) at all on one end, and everyone in jail at the other. Only the 'no police' end assures no abuse by police.

"Well that's some unsupported bullshit you pulled right out of your ass."

As opposed to all of the in-depth research you cited, about a curve whose name you could not even spell? You're just jealous of my ability to turn your fancy-sounding argument back against you.

"As you correctly state, the job invites abuse, but the real issue is that there is no accountability or oversight for that abuse and they refuse to even acknowledge there's a problem."

Yes, that is why we need reform. Some level of de-funding the police may help with that reform; we'll have to investigate and see. Starting with the de-fund position is a non-starter, as we've seen here. Mayor Durkan de-funded the police by 20%, and nobody agreed it was actual reform.

'Not surprisingly, you left the word "ethical use" out of your monopoly on violence doctrine.'

That's because it's not part of the definition, and your mistaken attempt to insert it shows you don't understand the concept. A functioning government must maintain its legal monopoly on the use of violence within its borders. A police force is one way our government does this, which is why your defund argument fails completely.

"When you look at the way both policing and our prison population has exploded over the past 50 years during a time when violence has been in steep decline, can you continue to argue that the police have not badly abused their monopoly on violence?"

You really should stop invoking things you clearly don't know much about. Fifty years ago, the crime rate was booming; twenty-five years later, it started falling, for reasons that had nothing to do with the our vast increase in expenditures on police and prisons, and everything to do with our de-criminalization of abortion. (See Chapter 5 of "Freakonomics".) It's another example of how eliminating laws which regulate our bodies can have great benefits. De-criminalizing sex work could have even greater potential for our overall health.

"Another reform that will never happen."

That's what Rep. Frank Chopp once told me about de-criminalization of cannabis use. Then-Rep. Ed Murray said pretty much the same thing about gay marriage. And yet, here we are.

"You have crotch sniffing prosecutors and police who are addicted to policing the sex lives of other adults..."

They can't arrest anyone for something which is no longer a crime. They can't prosecute for something that is not a crime. It doesn't matter what budget they have or don't have.

"As for drugs, the system has become less punitive due entirely to public criticism over the failed war on drugs, but police still run an expensive and problematic drug surveillance system that does nothing to help people deal with their drug addiction."

All true for other drugs, but no longer true for cannabis. Once we de-criminalize use of other drugs, we can shift funds from police to treatment. As with sex work, de-funding first won't work, for the very reasons you've here given. Whatever money we give them will be spent first on drugs and sex, because as you noted, both police and prosecutors are addicted to both.

"No question the police of 50 years ago had serious problems similar to the problems we see today, to include open abuse of the 1st amendment as we are seeing with peaceful protestors. I guess it was less noticeable because there were a lot less of them."

It was less noticeable because the SPD was secretly spying on citizens. When the citizens discovered this, police reforms were implemented to prevent repeat. The very large increases in SPD budgets over the past fifty years have not led to resumption of illegal surveillance. Your defund argument fails again; the application of a very small amount of actual reality can do that.

But you have your simplistic, one-word, contrafactual slogan, and you'll just keep on repeating it. Good luck with that.

66

@64 You're preaching to the choir on some of the issues you're bringing up.

But to me, it's not just a blanket cry to defund, but what people are defunding, what they're basically moving somewhere else (and not necessarily somewhere better, but perhaps worse) - and - what they're not defunding at all.

I mean, where in all of this is the discussion of defunding homeless sweeps and the militarization and deployment of police armies against non violent protesters? I don't see any proposals there in the news coverage of either the mayor's or city council's positions. Which I frankly find stunning under the circumstances.

I don't know the details of this story you're referencing and unfortunately I "have no more free articles" at the ST or I would read it in full (because I'm not entirely clear what happened from your excerpt - maybe I can find out next month when ST allows me more free articles?). But if DOT had handled this, how could they could send a ticket by mail without a license plate? In which case, they'd have to pull someone over, too, to see a driver's license and registration, and then, to issue a ticket in person.

I agree that diversity and more education is not "the" answer, but I think it's part of it.

I'm skeptical of the wisdom of having a non police pool dispatching for 911. For a lot of reasons. I do see that 911 in Seattle compared to other areas is grossly overused for issues that are non-emergency and for making an official police record only. It should be easier for people to use non-emergency police channels for those matters. I've actually been taken back by what people have told me to use 911 for if I want to get x, y and z accomplished. It's considered a highly unethical abuse of the 911 system in other areas because of limited resources.

So if I was looking at the 911 system, I would start there


Please wait...

Comments are closed.

Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.


Add a comment
Preview

By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.