Picture of textResignation letter of Nowata County, Oklahoma sheriff Terry Barnett, after

While “defund the police” sounds like a call to cut budgets or even eliminate police, and SOME minority of not terribly bright people supporting the idea are asking for that- that’s not the goal. The goal is to cut out a lot of the waste in the system. In fact- the larger goal isn’t even about money. The idea is to use funding as a way to change how policing in America is handled. To change the way officers and citizens see police and their job.

“Defund the police” isn’t aimed at cutting budgets to facilities upkeep or even to officers themselves. It is aimed at demilitarizing police and integrating police forces with their communities. Police do not prevent crimes beyond their role as a deterrent or when witnessing a lesser crime that may escalate to a more severe crime but is prevented (eg: brandishing a weapon could become murder if the officer doesn’t act on the brandishing crime in timely fashion). Police do not punish crimes. Police do not rule on crimes. Police uphold the law and serve the community. That is their function.

Numerous studies and decades of data have shown that outside of exceptional circumstances- high speed chases do not protect the public or serve its interests. It is generally safer and just as effective to not initiate a pursuit in a vehicle. Studies and decades of data have shown that increasing severity in crime can impart be traced to escalation- criminals respond to increased force with increased force. Many tools like the police cruiser- which allows for transport of people in custody and rapid response over longer distances- are useful, but all tools have a time and a place and shouldn’t be used for everything. The traditional “beat cop” walking the streets covers less ground but sees and hears more, and is more integrated to the community than officers isolated in a cruiser.

Walking up to a police car is psychologically more intimidating than walking up to an officer on the street- which can still be intimidating for some. But that’s part of the problem isn’t it? We’ve seen police departments uniforms and vehicles take on a style that is more “intimidating” and militant” than it is inviting or warm. Police tactics have taken on a much more aggressive tone as well. Some of that is for officer protection- but much is the culture. There are ways for police to protect themselves while being respectful and less aggressive- even when the other person isn’t.

Policing is a complex subject. The answer isn’t to throw money at it and just expect that everyone will use that money wisely. It also isn’t go the other way and gut the entire budget to LEO organizations. The main idea behind what has been labeled “defund the police” is to look at policing in America and do it smarter not harder. The trend since at least the “war on drugs” and the “war on crime” the trend had been harder not smarter.

I know a lot of folks in law enforcement, and I have a lot of personal knowledge as well. Most of your synopsis here is just blatant, clearly biased, hyperbole. Side note I'm not the one downvoting you, although you are painting with a very, very broad brush. Particularly your comments on 'tacticool' training tells me you have very little real insight or knowledge on the topic, you're just speaking to try and come across as someone talking a philosophical high ground.

@guest_ you are incorrect. “ blacklivesmatter com what-defunding-the-police-really-means/ “ BLM literally says they want to billions of dollars taken away from police departments. The point of Defund the Police isn’t to look at the budget and be smart. It’s to take money away from police departments and give it to people in the communities instead.

@interesting- oh. You know a lot of folks in law enforcement? I guess I retract my statements. My best friend of over 35 years having been an officer with homicide in one of America’s largest cities before retiring to private security, my god father being a local officer for his entire career in the town I lived in growing up (the city bordering the city my uncle was the longest term mayor in the history of the city...) and all the other officers/ex officers I’ve known and worked with over the years probably don’t count as me having any sort of idea about law enforcement. As I said in my original post- not all or even most departments are guilty of such things- but many are. Many officers like to play special forces or take various courses which while they are often practical for shooting and tactics- aren’t necessarily the most applicable or important skills to focus on. There are cops who are military “weebs” who want to pretend to be soldiers or action movie heroes in their heads.

While I’ve known many officers who were pretty grounded and level (and most tended to mellow with age-) I’ve also known many who like to think of themselves or be seen on some level as “bad asses.” Even my aforementioned best friend isn’t and wasn’t immune to an ego that is common in many who serve. He’s my best friend. I love him. But I’m with what I see as his failings as he is with mine. The police are fundamentally good people. Fundamentally good at their jobs by the numbers. But police are in a position of trust and public service where we need to demand more from them. And yes- we need to take care of them too, they take care of us. It’s too long to put all here. If you know LEO- you know. They aren’t all
Perfect or heroes and there is racism and biases and guys sometimes do things that the public wouldn’t approve of or understand- but most of it is no harm done. People from inside certain communities including LEO communities often don’t like to talk openly and honestly with..

.. outsiders because people won’t understand. People will judge, they don’t always follow the letter of the rules and by admitting certain things, even in the interest of honest communication- people with agendas against them are going to use that as leverage. Lots of extremely pro gun people I know, there are things that the anti gun folks say that they agree with- but they won’t admit it in public because the moment they try and give and meet in the middle, experience has taught them that attempt at honesty won’t be taken as an Alice branch but used as a club to beat them.

I grew up and have lived my life Soti I’d very diverse groups. My partner and some of my closest friends are what is described as “people of color.” And when we talk, alone in private or intimate groups of trusted people- there are things they will say that they would never say in mixed company or a public forum. Hypocrisies or truths denied and other things- which are complex. And my comments tend to prove- people in general don’t have the attention of the understanding to deal with complex. They want short and binary. Good or bad, and they usually aren’t looking to understand what you are saying- they are looking for what they can use to “beat you.” So I’m gonna leave it here, and simply say that there are certain truths that many inside the LEO community will discuss in private that they won’t in public, and as I said above- the whole thing is complex, but in simple terms we need to change what policing in America looks like.

@ilikemoderation- I will take a brief moment to discuss a concept that is like spinning wheels in mud. “black like a matter” is something used by people with no affiliation to any organization as a slogan or hash tag to bring awareness to the general disregard or lack of value perceived in society for black lives. “Black Lives Matter” is a political organization and slogan used by people who support that organization and its goals. Not the same but easy to conflate. Likewise- the concept of defunding the police, or divesting- has been discussed for a LONNNNG time. Saying “defund the police” doesn’t mean you support The political organization Black Lives Matter or their version of a campaign to defund police or their goals in doing so. Does that make sense? Like- is everyone who didn’t like Ghost Busters the reboot sexist because they dislike an all female cast- or is it possible that some people are sexist and others just didn’t like the movie- but both sides might say:

“Don’t find the ghost busters reboot sequel!” Both may want the same thing, but both have different reasons now- people who hated the reboot might be more than happy to watch another ghost busters with a female cast providing they like the script and the actresses and think it is a good job. People who don’t like the reboot because they are sexist might say that they won’t tolerate ANY reboot with a female cast. These two sides have the same goal- stop the female reboot, but their vision of how that goes isn’t the same is it? Their reasons aren’t the same are they?

Ok. Hopefully we have that concept and are done with that distinction. The BLM website isn’t the only source of information. The ACLU and numerous other organizations outline proposals of how “defund the police” might be implemented and what that means. Most involve a process, social programs and changes to laws etc. to support the whole thing. I stand by my overall assessment that IN GENERAL- the concept of defund the police does not mean to suddenly snatch away entire budgets or to cut pay for officers or upkeep for facilities. The concept as I see it is to take steps such as decriminalizing minor offenses and many common charges like drugs (we should all keep an eye on Oregon to get some teal world data of how a US state handles that and if it works...) and to demilitarize police departments and change their overall role in law enforcement and justice.

The United States has a high number of officers per capita and also has generally high crime rates despite this. Giving everyone their own personal police officer to follow them around is likely impractical. So it’s debatable that more officers would really help- especially when our prison system has such high recidivism. That would be another pillar of such a program- to revamp the prison system to attempt to rehabilitate and reduce the odds of repeat offenses as opposed to increasing it. Other programs like social welfare to create a basic standard of living and safety nets could further reduce crime.

I am personally not a supporter of the idea or act- but costs can be cut (after what would be initially high investments) by using CCTV and other electronic means to monitor for compliance of laws- speed cameras and perhaps even with more advanced technology and “machine learning” we could monitor things like wether a vehicle changing lanes used its signals, wether people are wearing seat belts- algorithms could identify potentially drunk or otherwise unsafe or odd driving patterns and flag those for law enforcement to follow up on or even issue some citations via mail/electronic means.

A system of fines based on income levels as supposed to flat fees could be used so that penalties for misdemeanors were high enough to discourage even the wealthiest people from breaking the law, but not so high that the poorest people wouldn’t be able to afford them and then would face increasing hardship and conditions which often lead to further crime.

Through crime reduction programs like these, the need for uniformed officers and all the associated insurance and fuel and other costs could decrease. This decreased need for personnel would allow money to be freed up in the police budget which could go to the costs of these programs. Needling fewer officers could also mean that individual officers could even be paid higher wages, and candidates could be held to much higher standard with increased training cycles and stricter selection and re certification criteria.

The overarching idea of any “defunding” plan I’d consider to be practical- is put in place measures to mitigate the need for officers and equipment, then scale back police budgets as their need for the funds are scaled back through changes. At the heart of almost EVERY major “defund the police” movement- even BLM- is an idea that we need to fundamentally change the way we handle police work, and mAke changes to the justice system and social welfare system to facilitate each other. We need to change how we think, and we need to get rid of the idea of police as “protectors” and focus on their primary jobs of serving the law and serving the public. No one except MAYBE criminals should feel intimidated by the police. That ain’t the case in America. And yes- there are some people who are just BAD people- and we should have some branch of law enforcement specifically to deal with them- but it probably should be the same guys who are policing the general community.

The average officer should aspire to be more of a school hall monitor or safety guard than a hard boiled instrument of justice. That’s how I see it.

@ no one on particular- general post on the issue. This thread shows there are different ideas about what “defund the police” means or should mean. BUT- are you happy with the system? Do you think that having a largely lower income population committing lots of crimes and then being locked up to be paid for by tax dollars then let out of probably do it again- do you think that is working? Do you like the protests and the hate and tensions and having to constantly dread seeing headlines about another shooting- either because you care or because you just don’t want to hear about it again or see another riot or protest?

BecUse unless you think the system is perfect and is working and like things exactly how they are here in 2020- you want change. And that’s what “defund the policeL comes from. People wanting change. What I see a lot of is people denouncing the idea or trying to discredit it- but here’s a crazy thought... what if instead of trying to fight it, you instead offered up what you think would be the best way to go about changing things so that we don’t have these problems and don’t have cycles of low level criminals in and out of a tax payer funded mega business for private corporations to profit from? One that preferably is somewhat sane- ie: constitutional and not some “just shoot anyone who breaks the law” totalitarian law. That’s what I don’t really see from people who oppose the idea. I don’t see their constructive input on a problem of crime and justice that most of us see and aren’t happy with for one reason or another.

And follow up question- why wasn’t that idea a movement? Why weren’t people protesting and pressuring politicians and demanding those changes before things got so bad that police and citizens were fighting in the streets and the president was trying to call in the military to stop it all? A lot of people seem to care when someone offers a potential solution to a problem, but where were those people when the problem was there but there wasn’t momentum for a change? Where are those people now with their constructive input on how to solve the problem in a way we can all live with? I see pooping on ideas but not a lot of ideas, and even less action. The most action on the problem we’ve seen from most people wasn’t getting up to solve it, it’s getting up to stop other people who got up to solve it; because you don’t like the solution. Offer something better then. Something has to change.