Jump to content

Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, Huckleberry said:

Explain what you think Defund the Police means.

I think Defund the Police means rationalizing the Police budget of a municipality. Best case, it means using data-driven inputs to make decisions and scaling the budget back to whatever minimum dollar amount intersects with the maximum amount of crime (violent? non-violent? aggregated?) that is deemed an acceptable benchmark. Worst case, it means just sticking a finger in your mouth and putting it in the air before peanut-buttering a round number across the board (e.g. cut 25% of budget evenly across all functions of the police budget).

What do you think it means?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

Killing the suburbs, obviously.  And founding ISIS.   Those sound about right.

I mean, we KNOW it doesn't mean "maybe give a bunch of jobs that the police are doing to entities and people better qualified to do them, and less likely to create a dangerous power dynamic situation."  Nope.  Can't mean that.

I don't think it means killing the suburbs. I think it's going to explode suburbs even more (max-out existing ones and keep the sprawl going with newer ones).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Nivek said:

You simply do not understand the phrase beyond the bumper sticker.  Try to learn what it means and be less reactive.  

Fair enough. I've asked Huckleberry to tell me what he think it means and he seems like a reasonable, informed guy. Maybe I'll learn something about what it means and learn that I've misunderstood.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, tantric superman said:

You are correct.  It's still a dumb phrase, I believe, politically.  I'll gladly change my tune if the Dems sweep the Repubs this fall, but I think the phrase hurts more than it helps. 

Restore funding to social services, mental health, and reduce the role and funding of police departments, remove all forms of militarized police and hire professional police with proper temperaments, and where possible hire police from the community that live within the community, and promote deescalation tactics, eliminate police raids, eliminate police unions, remove qualified immunity, and allow for lawsuits to hit the pension programs as well as the department budget, and amplify the punishment for police misconduct vs. J. Q. Public. 

But that doesn't really roll of the tongue (I'm not skilled like South Austin's mom)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Nivek said:

Restore funding to social services, mental health, and reduce the role and funding of police departments, remove all forms of militarized police and hire professional police with proper temperaments, and where possible hire police from the community that live within the community, and promote deescalation tactics, eliminate police raids, eliminate police unions, remove qualified immunity, and allow for lawsuits to hit the pension programs as well as the department budget, and amplify the punishment for police misconduct vs. J. Q. Public. 

But that doesn't really roll of the tongue (I'm not skilled like South Austin's mom)

Sounds reasonable. I think if take a road map approach to this and scale this up while working to scale down the militarized police force and funding in, again, a road map approach which necessitates a plan over time, you might have a workable solution. The problem is instead of defunding police, you are actually going to need to fund both things at the same time for a period of time as one winds down slowly and over time in a sunsetting motion and the other ramps up responsibly and to optimize for it's success as a long-term solution.

This is the only way that I can see it working that won't make diversity, inclusion and equality in cities that choose this path, worse. And not just in the short term but in the mid and long term because the new processes will never get the oxygen to take flame and show the success and ROI to maintain the political/stakeholder momentum. In my opinion, of course.

Edited by Rougarou

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Rougarou said:

But that doesn't really roll of the tongue

Yeah.  "Defund the Police" and "Make America Great Again" do a good job in terms of rolling off the tongue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, tantric superman said:

Yeah.  "Defund the Police" and "Make America Great Again" do a good job in terms of rolling off the tongue.

Do you realize you quoted me but it was Nivek that said that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Rougarou said:

Sounds reasonable. I think if take a road map approach to this and scale this up while working to scale down the militarized police force and funding in, again, a road map approach which necessitates a plan over time, you might have a workable solution. The problem is instead of defunding police, you are actually going to need to fund both things at the same time for a period of time as one winds down slowly and over time in a sunsetting motion and the other ramps up responsibly and to optimize for it's success as a long-term solution.

This is the only way that I can see it working that won't make diversity, inclusion and equality in cities that choose this path, worse. And not just in the short term but in the mid and long term because the new processes will never get the oxygen to take flame and show the success and ROI to maintain the political/stakeholder momentum. In my opinion, of course.

Defund the Police, I should clarify, is not a uniform position, with distinct metrics and a time-table.   

The end of QI should be immediate.  The transfer of tools of war to be sold to allies could be handled by the end of Q1 2021.   Making IA an actual oversight department will take much longer (probably 2 years).    We have to keep in mind, these people work for us.  If they don't like to adapt, if they are not willing to risk themselves, they can fuck off.   If there are any mythical good cops, they will stay on.    Remember we have examples where a cop was punished and the many others went on strike, or decide to just not do the job they are paid to do.  They have an entitlement issue that is institutional.  I do not believe a transition period is what is necessary but rather a bold decisive action.  Sure there will be issues, but they are likely to be more tolerable than cops killing people in their cars, choking a man to death for selling cigarettes, etc.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not at all saying I want this to happen (and certainly not with the current occupant of the White House), but during Reconstruction when thousands of black Americans were being murdered throughout the South by the KKK, local law enforcement basically refused to do anything about it (for obv reasons that are still relevant today). Eventually the only option President Grant had was to use the military temporarily to enforce the law. The person he put in charge of executing and prosecuting this plan was Amos T. Ackerman, who felt that disaffected whites would never be satisfied by placation because they saw any attempt at reconciliation as evidence of governmental timidity. He considered it "war, which could not be won on by a theory" (not exact quote but very close).

Lots of really fascinating and contemporarily relevant information in chapter 32 of Ron Chernow's biography of Grant. Highly recommended.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
44 minutes ago, trauma babe said:

I'm not at all saying I want this to happen (and certainly not with the current occupant of the White House), but during Reconstruction when thousands of black Americans were being murdered throughout the South by the KKK, local law enforcement basically refused to do anything about it (for obv reasons that are still relevant today). Eventually the only option President Grant had was to use the military temporarily to enforce the law. The person he put in charge of executing and prosecuting this plan was Amos T. Ackerman, who felt that disaffected whites would never be satisfied by placation because they saw any attempt at reconciliation as evidence of governmental timidity. He considered it "war, which could not be won on by a theory" (not exact quote but very close).

Lots of really fascinating and contemporarily relevant information in chapter 32 of Ron Chernow's biography of Grant. Highly recommended.

“I will not be reconstructed and I do not give a damn.” was the battle cry of that era. Fascinating, indeed.

Edited by Rougarou

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I remain: Defund the Police is the dumbest idea in the big box of dumb ideas or ideas that are counter-intuitive to integration and inclusion/diversity. Literally no other issue has the biggest impact on driving white flight, as this will also directly impacting schools.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
20 minutes ago, trauma babe said:

What would you do with the police instead?

I mentioned it in another thread, but if mail delivery, internet service providing, air travel, electricity, and even rocket ships to space, can be done more efficiently and cheaper and with better results, then why can’t the government supplement LEO with a private security force?

And don’t “for profit prisons” me. This is completely different. Not something sold as A but really is B, so grifting and profiteering at the expense of human beings is undertaken. I get that outsourcing police work to private sector is a boogey man and scary and a bad word, but if we want radical change, it doesn’t always look like what we think it does. And at this point I’d trust Bill Gates or Elon Musk to do a better job than politicians.

The alternative is gut police forces and have the same result that happens when you gut education/schools in inner or mid-cities. White flight on steroids.

Edited by Rougarou

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I mentioned it in another thread, but if mail delivery, internet service providing, air travel, electricity, and even rocket ships to space, can be done more efficiently and cheaper and with better results, then why can’t the government supplement LEO with a private security force?
And don’t “for profit prisons” me. This is completely different. Not something sold as A but really is B, so grifting and profiteering at the expense of human beings is undertaken. I get that outsourcing police work to private sector is a boogey man and scary and a bad word, but if we want radical change, it doesn’t always look like what we think it does. And at this point I’d trust Bill Gates or Elon Musk to do a better job than politicians.
The alternative is gut police forces and have the same result that happens when you gut education/schools in inner or mid-cities. White flight on steroids.

It’s a terrible idea because the government will want to look rigorous and economically efficient, so it will tout a low contract price, and we’ll only pay more if they hit certain performance metrics.

The contractor will successfully negotiate the easiest metric: arrests.

So, the more people PrivateCopCo puts in jail, the more money it will make.

Sure, you could suggest some better incentives - reduced overall crime rates, etc. But they can’t boost that when they need a strong quarter for the shareholders, so it’ll never work.

Some services are not meant to be profit-motivated or incentivized. Policing is definitely one of them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/31/2020 at 3:58 PM, Rougarou said:

I don't think it means killing the suburbs. I think it's going to explode suburbs even more (max-out existing ones and keep the sprawl going with newer ones).

Already seeing that in Richmond , Va.  Several Realtor friends saying they're seeing an uptick in inquires from city dwellers inquiring about county/ suburban homes. Businesses thinking about re locating out of the city.  (SEE: the 70's white flight, bussing).

What business is going to re locate to a city that can't or won't control violence ??  You're going to see more city centers springing up in the surrounding suburbs. Smallish, denser population, business, and residential centers. The cities that can't maintain a safe environment for citizens, and business will see mass exodus. That causes a cascading effect of cities losing tax bases. That is a recipe for disaster SEE: Detroit, NYC in the late 60's early 70's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Rougarou said:

I mentioned it in another thread, but if mail delivery, internet service providing, air travel, electricity, and even rocket ships to space, can be done more efficiently and cheaper and with better results, then why can’t the government supplement LEO with a private security force?

And don’t “for profit prisons” me. This is completely different. Not something sold as A but really is B, so grifting and profiteering at the expense of human beings is undertaken. I get that outsourcing police work to private sector is a boogey man and scary and a bad word, but if we want radical change, it doesn’t always look like what we think it does. And at this point I’d trust Bill Gates or Elon Musk to do a better job than politicians.

The alternative is gut police forces and have the same result that happens when you gut education/schools in inner or mid-cities. White flight on steroids.

This here is infinitely dumber than defunding police.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
9 hours ago, Rougarou said:

I mentioned it in another thread, but if mail delivery, internet service providing, air travel, electricity, and even rocket ships to space, can be done more efficiently and cheaper and with better results, then why can’t the government supplement LEO with a private security force?

And don’t “for profit prisons” me. This is completely different. Not something sold as A but really is B, so grifting and profiteering at the expense of human beings is undertaken. I get that outsourcing police work to private sector is a boogey man and scary and a bad word, but if we want radical change, it doesn’t always look like what we think it does. And at this point I’d trust Bill Gates or Elon Musk to do a better job than politicians.

The alternative is gut police forces and have the same result that happens when you gut education/schools in inner or mid-cities. White flight on steroids.

It is hard for me to think of a worse idea than a private security force with arrest and police powers.

Also, I disagree that any of the other things you mentioned have been handled better by the private sector.  ISPs, utilities, and air travel are shitshows in the private sector too. 

And NASA was a national bedrock before its budget was gutted again and again.  A truly unifying presence that actually brought Americans together.  Its great that we get to watch private companies learn to crawl here in the 2020s, but we already knew how to fly and we shit a lot of that away under the false idea that private is always better.  The USPS is a bedrock too although in a different way. No private company is lining up to offer single rate postage to every US address, no matter how remote. 

Ironically, its the "patriot nationalists" that are destroying our truly national institutions that all Americans used to take pride in.  Nothing unifies more than FedEx and SpaceX.  Fly their flags with pride. 

Edited by FondrenRoad

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
10 hours ago, Rougarou said:

I mentioned it in another thread, but if mail delivery, internet service providing, air travel, electricity, and even rocket ships to space, can be done more efficiently and cheaper and with better results, then why can’t the government supplement LEO with a private security force?

And don’t “for profit prisons” me. This is completely different. Not something sold as A but really is B, so grifting and profiteering at the expense of human beings is undertaken. I get that outsourcing police work to private sector is a boogey man and scary and a bad word, but if we want radical change, it doesn’t always look like what we think it does. And at this point I’d trust Bill Gates or Elon Musk to do a better job than politicians.

The alternative is gut police forces and have the same result that happens when you gut education/schools in inner or mid-cities. White flight on steroids.

This stupid idea has already been discussed.

And it was you who had it last time, too. You talked in weird abstract flowery prose about it but had no actual retort for these issues. You appear to think Option 2 will work, but didn't even attempt to address the main issue with it - that no private enterprise is going to sign up for a job where the goal is to put themselves out of business.

Edited by Huckleberry

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Rougarou said:

I remain: Defund the Police is the dumbest idea in the big box of dumb ideas or ideas that are counter-intuitive to integration and inclusion/diversity. Literally no other issue has the biggest impact on driving white flight, as this will also directly impacting schools.

Just because "Defund the Police" is a shitty slogan doesn't mean that intentional stupidity and misrepresentation and flat out retarded hysterical fear and racism aren't going to totally dominate it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:

And NASA was a national bedrock before its budget was gutted again and again.  A truly unifying presence that actually brought Americans together. 

NASA was a civilian front for ICBM demonstration and its chief engineering innovations came from Nazis. 

The US government doesn't give a fuck about any of this shit if it can't be used for war making or population control purposes.

Enter law enforcement.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

NASA was a civilian front for ICBM demonstration and its chief engineering innovations came from Nazis. 

The US government doesn't give a fuck about any of this shit if it can't be used for war making or population control purposes.

Enter law enforcement.  

Let me know when police go to the moon. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
3 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:

Let me know when police go to the moon. 

They've already been to the moon. No proof though, spacesuit cameras were shut off.  

Edited by Lobo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:

Let me know when police go to the moon. 

...and without the metric system!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
21 hours ago, Huckleberry said:

This stupid idea has already been discussed.

And it was you who had it last time, too. You talked in weird abstract flowery prose about it but had no actual retort for these issues. You appear to think Option 2 will work, but didn't even attempt to address the main issue with it - that no private enterprise is going to sign up for a job where the goal is to put themselves out of business.

First off-- I've never been accused of flowery prose. That's a first. Maybe I should try my hand at poetry.

Secondly-- Just because it was discussed does not mean, at least in my view, there was a consensus or agreement made. I get that you think you speak in resolute and definitive ways, and I do respect your opinion and point of view, but your responses in this other thread do little to sway my thinking. This is because all the extrapolation for why it won't work is based on speculation (thus, faulty assumptions). Everyone's knee jerk response to the mention of "for profit police reform" is so predictable and bureaucratic--along with no having a good plan for how to defund the police without creating a bigger problem and gap in equality between whites and blacks-- that it makes me more convinced that police reform will have to be from the private sector. That is because it's too 1) radical 2) it would be disruptive 3) it is counter-intuitive to the ways most people think a problem should be solved and 4) it probably won't turn a profit for a long time.

Thirdly-- I answered your direct question about what I think "Defund Police" means in the expectation that you would answer my question for you to  correct me and educate me or otherwise critique, and then for you to give me your stance and belief on what the phrase means. Here it is for your review:

I think Defund the Police means rationalizing the Police budget of a municipality. Best case, it means using data-driven inputs to make decisions and scaling the budget back to whatever minimum dollar amount intersects with the maximum amount of crime (violent? non-violent? aggregated?) that is deemed an acceptable benchmark. Worst case, it means just sticking a finger in your mouth and putting it in the air before peanut-buttering a round number across the board (e.g. cut 25% of budget evenly across all functions of the police budget).

What do you think it means?

23 hours ago, wildcat09 said:

This here is infinitely dumber than defunding police.

Thanks for the contribution wildcat!

22 hours ago, FondrenRoad said:

It is hard for me to think of a worse idea than a private security force with arrest and police powers.

A worse idea for what? A worse idea for innocents being killed? For a white man kneeling on the neck of a black man to death? 

Why do you think that a public union with power and carte blanche and very little, if any, accountability is a better option than literally anything else you can probably think of for governance and oversight? Maybe the second worst is the free market and shareholders, but it's not worse than what we have now.

And to that end, look at the response of corporate america and police unions, to all this. Who is responding better? Who is progressive on this matter? And it doesn't have to be because of some genuine belief or love of the cause-- placating your customers and the quarterly guidance being met is encouragement enough to keep people accountable. So when you can charter rules and when you align behaviors (e.g. police reform and public servant leadership vs what we have now) with money, you will get the right behaviors. It's a tale as old as time.

Let's take 5 steps backwards here though to touch on the main issue:

If you defund the police, overnight and with the only substitute being throwing a bunch more low-paid/govt paid social works to medicate a bunch of Arthur Flecks and you try to lovebomb poverty and criminal thinking/culture, then there will be a large gap in equality, diversion and inclusion and education and wealth and everything else.

It will be the exact same formula for what happens when you defund schools in inner and mid-cities. Just look at some of the old threads full of scholarship and research that @Catdaddyhorn has done around real estate and white flight and how detrimental it is. Defunding Police, in my opinion, is going to put White Flight on the priority list for the majority of those who have not already fled to the exburbs who have a) privilege b) means and c) interest in an enriching environment, which are all three things fundamental in a transformation of culture and neighborhood.

The only difference is that when you proactively are driving to defund police, and that begets other problems like education/schools and home values and a plethora of secondary and tertiary problems, you can't cry about it and beg for a Robinhood program because Suburbs are thriving and the equality gap is widening...because you will have brought this doom loop upon yourself.

Edited by Rougarou

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Anastasis said:

First paragraph is word salad. 

I actually think his second paragraph is more word salad, while his first is basically "Republicans depend on support from police and we don't want to fuck that up, and I certainly can't be the one to do it because they'll just call me a n******."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Rougarou said:

The only difference is that when you proactively are driving to defund police, and that begets other problems like education/schools and home values and a plethora of secondary and tertiary problems, you can't cry about it and beg for a Robinhood program because Suburbs are thriving and the equality gap is widening...because you will have brought this doom loop upon yourself.

Of course you can.  We are speaking govt., not personal accountability. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

Of course you can.  We are speaking govt., not personal accountability. 

What? I'm asking because I seriously don't understand your point.

What I am saying is, if you are one of those who think "Defund the Police" is a great idea and your city advocates for it and the constituents of the city vote for it, then IF it comes to pass that actually Defunding the Police is a net negative on crime, school quality, home values, businesses, quality of life, etc. (my hypothesis and what I meant in my original statement) then it's not something you can make a strong case for in siphoning off other well to do areas who didn't defund police via RobinHood laws/financing. Because the cities would have brought this on themselves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, I understand that.  What I'm saying is, gov raises taxes to pay for shit that is causes all the time.  Something gets fucked up because of bad policy, we all pay.  This isn't the same as personal responsibility, where if you mess up, you can't expect someone to bail you out.  It's not the same.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, fattyflattie said:

Yeah, I understand that.  What I'm saying is, gov raises taxes to pay for shit that is causes all the time.  Something gets fucked up because of bad policy, we all pay.  This isn't the same as personal responsibility, where if you mess up, you can't expect someone to bail you out.  It's not the same.

Okay so you are saying technically it's in the playbook. Sure, fine, I agree.

I am speaking politically. Politically it would not be defensible and it wouldn't be easy for a lot of people to stomach and it would be a complete egg-on-face situation if it were to need to happen (and I'm sure it would still be justified and defended in it's abject failure by the same rogue gallery who clamor for it today). Hypothetically, of course.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Rougarou said:

First off-- I've never been accused of flowery prose. That's a first. Maybe I should try my hand at poetry.

Secondly-- Just because it was discussed does not mean, at least in my view, there was a consensus or agreement made. I get that you think you speak in resolute and definitive ways, and I do respect your opinion and point of view, but your responses in this other thread do little to sway my thinking. This is because all the extrapolation for why it won't work is based on speculation (thus, faulty assumptions). Everyone's knee jerk response to the mention of "for profit police reform" is so predictable and bureaucratic--along with no having a good plan for how to defund the police without creating a bigger problem and gap in equality between whites and blacks-- that it makes me more convinced that police reform will have to be from the private sector. That is because it's too 1) radical 2) it would be disruptive 3) it is counter-intuitive to the ways most people think a problem should be solved and 4) it probably won't turn a profit for a long time.

Thirdly-- I answered your direct question about what I think "Defund Police" means in the expectation that you would answer my question for you to  correct me and educate me or otherwise critique, and then for you to give me your stance and belief on what the phrase means. Here it is for your review:

I think Defund the Police means rationalizing the Police budget of a municipality. Best case, it means using data-driven inputs to make decisions and scaling the budget back to whatever minimum dollar amount intersects with the maximum amount of crime (violent? non-violent? aggregated?) that is deemed an acceptable benchmark. Worst case, it means just sticking a finger in your mouth and putting it in the air before peanut-buttering a round number across the board (e.g. cut 25% of budget evenly across all functions of the police budget).

What do you think it means?

Thanks for the contribution wildcat!

A worse idea for what? A worse idea for innocents being killed? For a white man kneeling on the neck of a black man to death? 

Why do you think that a public union with power and carte blanche and very little, if any, accountability is a better option than literally anything else you can probably think of for governance and oversight? Maybe the second worst is the free market and shareholders, but it's not worse than what we have now.

And to that end, look at the response of corporate america and police unions, to all this. Who is responding better? Who is progressive on this matter? And it doesn't have to be because of some genuine belief or love of the cause-- placating your customers and the quarterly guidance being met is encouragement enough to keep people accountable. So when you can charter rules and when you align behaviors (e.g. police reform and public servant leadership vs what we have now) with money, you will get the right behaviors. It's a tale as old as time.

Let's take 5 steps backwards here though to touch on the main issue:

If you defund the police, overnight and with the only substitute being throwing a bunch more low-paid/govt paid social works to medicate a bunch of Arthur Flecks and you try to lovebomb poverty and criminal thinking/culture, then there will be a large gap in equality, diversion and inclusion and education and wealth and everything else.

It will be the exact same formula for what happens when you defund schools in inner and mid-cities. Just look at some of the old threads full of scholarship and research that @Catdaddyhorn has done around real estate and white flight and how detrimental it is. Defunding Police, in my opinion, is going to put White Flight on the priority list for the majority of those who have not already fled to the exburbs who have a) privilege b) means and c) interest in an enriching environment, which are all three things fundamental in a transformation of culture and neighborhood.

The only difference is that when you proactively are driving to defund police, and that begets other problems like education/schools and home values and a plethora of secondary and tertiary problems, you can't cry about it and beg for a Robinhood program because Suburbs are thriving and the equality gap is widening...because you will have brought this doom loop upon yourself.

I think that police are currently well paid and this creates a competitive marketplace for the jobs.  A private company in the business of policing would pay the bare minimum to the people responsible for actual policing, and those "police officers" would be poorly trained and doing the job, not by choice, but because they have nothing else they can do.  That is what happened with private prisons.  I'm sure a private company can pay shareholders and C levels extravagant amounts while paying minimum wage to the actual producers in their companies and be more economically "efficient" than publicly run PDs.  But overall their police work would be worse.  They'd do less actual policing and more actual fucking with people because you would be essentially giving rent-a-cops real police powers.

There is a solution to the union problem.  Allow the union to manage benefits and collectively bargain for salary which are beneficial both to officers and the community.  Ban the union from providing legal representation or from being involved at all in disciplinary matters.

I think you are also confusing true private companies with companies that run exclusive gov't contracts.  You are going to get entrenched monopoly level performance out of any private company.  Think Comcast or your local utility provider.  These are pseudo-gov't slow moving entities.  They aren't going to be swayed by anything.  At the end of the day, there would need to be gov't action in order to change their behavior.  Just like now with public PDs.

Edited by FondrenRoad

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I cannot believe it has to be explained to an American why private police forces are a terrible idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:

I think that police are currently well paid and this creates a competitive marketplace for the jobs.  , and those "police officers" would be poorly trained and doing the job, not by choice, but because they have nothing else they can do.    I'm sure a private company can pay shareholders and C levels extravagant amounts while paying minimum wage to the actual producers in their companies and be more economically "efficient" than publicly run PDs.  But overall their police work would be worse.  They'd do less actual policing and more actual fucking with people because you would be essentially giving rent-a-cops real police powers.

There is a solution to the union problem.  Allow the union to manage benefits and collectively bargain for salary which are beneficial both to officers and the community.  Ban the union from providing legal representation or from being involved at all in disciplinary matters.

Okay let's do a simple exercise called "forget everything you think you know about what a private-police would look like" and let's start from a blank slate:

A private company in the business of policing would pay the bare minimum to the people responsible for actual policing

Let's assume this isn't the case because it would not be a very good thing. In fact, let's assume something more disruptive and radical: say that this people are going to be paid a lot of money because the basic requirement would need to be a Masters in Sociology or maybe a JD/MBA? 

That is what happened with private prisons.

Remember when I said, "Hey guys, let's not fall into the small-minded thinking of private prisons because I'm talking about something different?". This isn't a lift-and-shift, like the private/for-profit prisons is. I think this is where you guys are getting twisted around the axle or failing to launch. I'm not talking about taking the same processes and the same institution and simply washing it with "for-profit investors and money" versus "public money". This is an entirely different premise. Tear the whole thing down and rebuild it and architect it differently.

You could have your "defunded police" in this way; charter the organization to lead with mental health/counseling/cognitive-behavior therapy/whatever you want and put limits on policy of violence. You can grade the different bands/titles people have and maybe associates aren't even allowed to carry lethal weapons and only managing directors or partners can carry weapons? Segregation of duties and oversight and governance would need to be part of the process. 360-reviews and Skip 1x1's? Who knows, but the point is, simply put, If you want to fix the problem of police, you have to think about it in a radically different way then we have ever in our history, have thought about police.

Defunding and trying to throw a bunch of government social workers at inner/mid-cities is going to exacerbate deep, systemic issues while, yes, probably showing a decrease in minority deaths escalated from petty crimes. If you want to argue that the cost is worth even one life saved, then that's fine, but don't ignore the bull-whip effect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, hobbes2702 said:

I cannot believe it has to be explained to an American why private police forces are a terrible idea.

Worse yet, nobody can actually explain it. All I'm hearing is a bunch of reasons why it would be terrible to take our current iteration of police methodology and modality and lift-and-shift it to for-profit and private sector. Which I agree would be a terrible idea.

But I guess a lack of imagination is what got us into this jackpot in the first place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Rougarou said:

Worse yet, nobody can actually explain it. All I'm hearing is a bunch of reasons why it would be terrible to take our current iteration of police methodology and modality and lift-and-shift it to for-profit and private sector. Which I agree would be a terrible idea.

But I guess a lack of imagination is what got us into this jackpot in the first place.

I'm thinking that what you are missing is that when it comes down to it, private businesses are in it to make money.  They will attempt to make money within the system that is set up, but will spend shit tons of money lobbying to make it easier to make money so you will see a steady regression in the quality of the work over time.  They will lobby to change the rules, so they can have more cheap staff and less expensive staff, they'll want to rely more on the heavies than the brains because heavies are cheaper.  And now you have a private thug army that is no longer under control of the city that is paying it to spread it's thuggery around town.  Give your idea a decade, and no matter how good it is in the beginning, that's what it will be 10 years in.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
12 minutes ago, NameAlreadyInUse said:

I'm thinking that what you are missing is that when it comes down to it, private businesses are in it to make money.  They will attempt to make money within the system that is set up, but will spend shit tons of money lobbying to make it easier to make money so you will see a steady regression in the quality of the work over time.  They will lobby to change the rules, so they can have more cheap staff and less expensive staff, they'll want to rely more on the heavies than the brains because heavies are cheaper.  And now you have a private thug army that is no longer under control of the city that is paying it to spread it's thuggery around town.  Give your idea a decade, and no matter how good it is in the beginning, that's what it will be 10 years in.  

I mean-- maybe? I guess you can point to Uber as a private organization that disrupted an archaic business (medallions?) that follows some of what you describe (lobbying, laws, etc). I don't think it's a foregone conclusion that what you describe is always the inevitable endgame /ThanosSnap. 

Also, it could take the form of a partnership or joint venture with the government for further accountability or it could be a private organization taking cues and investment from government a la SpaceX?

But maybe it really is a dumb idea, so where does that leave us? Are we really saying that the best idea we collectively have at police reform is boiled down to "Defund the Police" and all of it's unproven and experimental hopes which do not take into account the deepening and widening of arguably the biggest societal problem (segregation and wealth equality) and actually potentially enhancing systemic racism? 

Edited by Rougarou

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
42 minutes ago, Rougarou said:

Okay let's do a simple exercise called "forget everything you think you know about what a private-police would look like" and let's start from a blank slate:

 

 

Let's assume this isn't the case because it would not be a very good thing. In fact, let's assume something more disruptive and radical: say that this people are going to be paid a lot of money because the basic requirement would need to be a Masters in Sociology or maybe a JD/MBA? 

 

 

Remember when I said, "Hey guys, let's not fall into the small-minded thinking of private prisons because I'm talking about something different?". This isn't a lift-and-shift, like the private/for-profit prisons is. I think this is where you guys are getting twisted around the axle or failing to launch. I'm not talking about taking the same processes and the same institution and simply washing it with "for-profit investors and money" versus "public money". This is an entirely different premise. Tear the whole thing down and rebuild it and architect it differently.

You could have your "defunded police" in this way; charter the organization to lead with mental health/counseling/cognitive-behavior therapy/whatever you want and put limits on policy of violence. You can grade the different bands/titles people have and maybe associates aren't even allowed to carry lethal weapons and only managing directors or partners can carry weapons? Segregation of duties and oversight and governance would need to be part of the process. 360-reviews and Skip 1x1's? Who knows, but the point is, simply put, If you want to fix the problem of police, you have to think about it in a radically different way then we have ever in our history, have thought about police.

Defunding and trying to throw a bunch of government social workers at inner/mid-cities is going to exacerbate deep, systemic issues while, yes, probably showing a decrease in minority deaths escalated from petty crimes. If you want to argue that the cost is worth even one life saved, then that's fine, but don't ignore the bull-whip effect.

Okay, so if you are going to have the gov't/public establish the entirety of the hiring/training rules, then what is the point of having a private entity run it?  Almost every city currently has underfunded social work, homeless outreach, anti-drug(rehab), and mental health departments in some form.  Defunding the police means sending more money their way and adding them to the 911 dispatch hotline.  It also means shifting funds to proactive crime reduction endeavors like education, job placement and training, and youth centers.   Nothing need be "radically different."  Police need to be members of their community like they used to be.  They need to actively engage with that community as people even when no crimes are occurring.  People like to make fun of "Mayberry" policing as something that can't exist, but it has existed before.  The only "different" thing it needs is to be more inclusive as to what defines a "community" and who belongs in it.  Demographically, police should also match the neighborhoods they patrol.

Policing is inherently a gov't/public action.  It needs to be fixed, but it needs to remain in the hands of the gov't.  The unions can and should be broken.  Perhaps we should also have elected or mayor appointed mediators/judges in charge of disciplinary proceedings and have jury duty for these proceedings as well.  We can even apply this across the board to public workers.  Everyone likes to bitch about teachers unions too, and bad teachers getting paid while sidelined.  The same thing can happen there too.

Edited by FondrenRoad

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Rougarou said:

I mean-- maybe? I guess you can point to Uber as a private organization that disrupted an archaic business (medallions?) that follows some of what you describe (lobbying, laws, etc). I don't think it's a foregone conclusion that what you describe is always the inevitable endgame /ThanosSnap. 

Also, it could take the form of a partnership or joint venture with the government for further accountability or it could be a private organization taking cues and investment from government a la SpaceX?

But maybe it really is a dumb idea, so where does that leave us? Are we really saying that the best idea we collectively have at police reform is boiled down to "Defund the Police" and all of it's unproven and experimental hopes which do not take into account the deepening and widening of arguably the biggest societal problem (segregation and wealth equality) and actually potentially enhancing systemic racism? 

We managed just fine for decades without a single tank on any police force in the country.  We could go back to that tomorrow and it would lower our overall budgets and have no discernible effect on crime.  There are 100 examples like this in every big city police force and most smaller town forces as well.  Why don't we start there with the simple stuff?  Maybe we spend some of that budget on taxpayer relief and another part of that budget contributing to mental health initiatives, hiring more social workers/mental health professionals to start working on solving some of the more systemic problems.  This doesn't have to be rocket science man, you are making it more complex than it needs to be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, NameAlreadyInUse said:

We managed just fine for decades without a single tank on any police force in the country.  We could go back to that tomorrow and it would lower our overall budgets and have no discernible effect on crime.  There are 100 examples like this in every big city police force and most smaller town forces as well.  Why don't we start there with the simple stuff?  Maybe we spend some of that budget on taxpayer relief and another part of that budget contributing to mental health initiatives, hiring more social workers/mental health professionals to start working on solving some of the more systemic problems.  This doesn't have to be rocket science man, you are making it more complex than it needs to be.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I mean, it's a good discussion and conversation and maybe you guys are right.

Maybe:

Quote

This doesn't have to be rocket science man, you are making it more complex than it needs to be.

and maybe:

Quote

Nothing need be "radically different."

and maybe:

Quote

Police need to be members of their community like they used to be. 

But also could it be that:

-Communities aren't what they used to be. For better or worse. Also, maybe "part of the community like it used to be" is a privilege bias-- were disenfranchised members of the community of the past part of that harmony (GLBTQ+, blacks, etc.)? I don't know.

-It could be we hit an inflection point-- simple reductive and static fixes can't fix what is now a dynamically different society and world we live in. Maybe things do need to be radically different?

At the end of the day, I speak from a place of privilege and I recognize and know that. So if black people being killed by police are saying is "let's just do something now in the short-term even if it's not really baked or thought through because we have to do something because it's life or death in these streets" then I can't argue or disagree. I'm a bystander and interested observer and half-hearted ally if that is the case, because from where I sit in my privilege at the 30,000 ft view; I see taking one step forward and two steps back.

Edited by Rougarou

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, NameAlreadyInUse said:

We managed just fine for decades without a single tank on any police force in the country.  We could go back to that tomorrow and it would lower our overall budgets and have no discernible effect on crime.  There are 100 examples like this in every big city police force and most smaller town forces as well.  Why don't we start there with the simple stuff?  Maybe we spend some of that budget on taxpayer relief and another part of that budget contributing to mental health initiatives, hiring more social workers/mental health professionals to start working on solving some of the more systemic problems.  This doesn't have to be rocket science man, you are making it more complex than it needs to be.

Tanks?  Those are for small town PDs.  The hot item now is an F-35.  What else are we gonna do with the ones Turkey is sending back?  They are gonna look good with "to protect and to serve" painted on the side.  Plus, some swat members get hurt when killing people on no-knock warrants.  Better to just do it with a jdam.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Rougarou said:

I mean, it's a good discussion and conversation and maybe you guys are right.

Maybe:

 

 

and maybe:

 

 

and maybe:

 

But also could it be that:

-Communities aren't what they used to be. For better or worse. Also, maybe "part of the community like it used to be" is a privilege bias-- were disenfranchised members of the community of the past part of that harmony (GLBTQ+, blacks, etc.)? I don't know.

-It could be we hit an inflection point-- simple reductive and static fixes can't fix what is now a dynamically different society and world we live in. Maybe things do need to be radically different?

At the end of the day, I speak from a place of privilege and I recognize and know that. So if what you guys are saying is "let's just do something now in the short-term even if it's not really baked or thought through because we have to do something because it's life or death in these streets" then I can't argue or disagree. I'm a bystander and interested observer and half-hearted ally if that is the case, because from where I sit in my privilege at the 30,000 ft view; I see taking one step forward and two steps back.

Communities are more diverse and inclusive.  PDs need to reflect that.  There are plenty of black and gay owned businesses on main street USA.  They want relative safety on their streets.  They want their kids to feel safe.  Right now, the police are more dangerous to them than crime is.  Once that changes, they'd welcome community patrolling.  

Black and other minority communities have also existed for centuries.  They've simply never had a police force that reflects that.  This isn't even that hard to fix.  Encourage minority outreach and recruitment.  Require that a certain percentage of new officers live in the community they work in.

LGBTQ support will likely continue to be a problem, but its a different problem.  The police force, like many other historically fraternal organizations, is not a very friendly place to work for an openly gay person.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, FondrenRoad said:

Communities are more diverse and inclusive.  PDs need to reflect that.  There are plenty of black and gay owned businesses on main street USA.  They want relative safety on their streets.  They want their kids to feel safe.  Right now, the police are more dangerous to them than crime is.  Once that changes, they'd welcome community patrolling.  

Black and other minority communities have also existed for centuries.  They've simply never had a police force that reflects that.  This isn't even that hard to fix.  Encourage minority outreach and recruitment.  Require that a certain percentage of new officers live in the community they work in.

LGBTQ support will likely continue to be a problem, but its a different problem.  The police force, like many other historically fraternal organizations, is not a very friendly place to work for an openly gay person.

It sounds like you want "more of the same, but with less military weaponry and general emphasis on the military/alpha/white-privilege mindset and culture, more community/society services and and more diversity and inclusion that better reflects communities of 2020", is that right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Rougarou said:

It sounds like you want "more of the same, but with less military weaponry and general emphasis on the military/alpha/white-privilege mindset and culture, more community/society services and and more diversity and inclusion that better reflects communities of 2020", is that right?

How is that more of the same?  Its more like the complete opposite of the same.

Cops aren't currently part of the communities they serve.  At all.  They are entirely reactive, and they mostly live in parts of towns are suburbs that are almost all white.

You know what you do for someone who sells loose cigarettes?  You take their stash and send them home.  When they do it the next day, you do the same thing.  Eventually they stop trying it or they run when they see you.  But you're there every day, so they give up anyway.  You don't swoop in and choke them to death.  You don't even need to arrest someone for something minor like that.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
5 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:

How is that more of the same?  Its more like the complete opposite of the same.

Cops aren't currently part of the communities they serve.  At all.  They are entirely reactive, and they mostly live in parts of towns are suburbs that are almost all white.

You know what you do for someone who sells loose cigarettes?  You take their stash and send them home.  When they do it the next day, you do the same thing.  Eventually they stop trying it or they run when they see you.  But you're there every day, so they give up anyway.  You don't swoop in and choke them to death.  You don't even need to arrest someone for something minor like that.   

More of the same in organizational design and the institution of what a police department looks like is what I mean. 

Are you saying that you want the same thing that you think of when it comes to police department and officers (the institution we already have) except, but with less military weaponry and general emphasis on the military/alpha/white-privilege mindset and culture, more community/society services and and more diversity and inclusion that better reflects communities of 2020?

I'm trying to understand how much you understand of organizational change management.

Edited by Rougarou

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
55 minutes ago, Rougarou said:

I mean-- maybe? I guess you can point to Uber as a private organization that disrupted an archaic business (medallions?) that follows some of what you describe (lobbying, laws, etc). I don't think it's a foregone conclusion that what you describe is always the inevitable endgame /ThanosSnap. 

Also, it could take the form of a partnership or joint venture with the government for further accountability or it could be a private organization taking cues and investment from government a la SpaceX?

But maybe it really is a dumb idea, so where does that leave us? Are we really saying that the best idea we collectively have at police reform is boiled down to "Defund the Police" and all of it's unproven and experimental hopes which do not take into account the deepening and widening of arguably the biggest societal problem (segregation and wealth equality) and actually potentially enhancing systemic racism? 

You know they did this in an American city. The results haven’t been perfect but stop pretending that what you’re suggesting isn’t also unproven and experimental.

Edited by hobbes2702

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Rougarou said:

More of the same in organizational design and the institution of what a police department looks like is what I mean. 

Are you saying that you want the same thing that you think of when it comes to police officers except, but with less military weaponry and general emphasis on the military/alpha/white-privilege mindset and culture, more community/society services and and more diversity and inclusion that better reflects communities of 2020?

I'm trying to understand how much you understand of organizational change management.

Organizational design matters not. They will have teams, bosses, and middle managers like always, call them whatever you want. 

I want beat cops trained to patrol proactively and engage positively with their community.  This would also, at times, make them point people for calling in other professionals.  No police should ever patrol with swat type armament. This is entirely different from their current behavior. Not more of the same at all. 

Ban the union from providing legal defense and from any involvement in defining job roles, disciplinary rules, or disciplinary proceedings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, FondrenRoad said:

Organizational design matters not. They will have teams, bosses, and middle managers like always, call them whatever you want. 

I want beat cops trained to patrol proactively and engage positively with their community.  This would also, at times, make them point people for calling in other professionals.  No police should ever patrol with swat type armament. This is entirely different from their current behavior. Not more of the same at all. 

Ban the union from providing legal defense and from any involvement in defining job roles, disciplinary rules, or disciplinary proceedings.

My point, to what you are proving every time you post, is that you can't just change three or four things within the system we have now and get to the results you want. Everything you are talking about involves a change in processes and personnel and you are already engaging in scope creep like no other by trying to silo behavior and processes without taking into account all the dependencies and assumptions being made.

In order to change two or three or four significant, what I would call "Big Rock" items in the police institution would cause for a complete tear down and rebuild, which is the point missed I think when you have people say  "this isn't rocket science" and "no radical change is needed".

But hey, I guess McKinsey or BCG can come in and make a ton of money re-organizing --err, I mean, transforming-- a current old and outdated institution into something that might or might not look and act differently in the way you want it to.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

mpu


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Recruiting ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Help ... For Sale ... Politics ... Board Discussion
×
×
  • Create New...