What does actual police reform look like?

[DEAD7]

What part of her statement, specifically, is detached from reality?

Her assertion that suburbs simply choose to fund other things more than police is wrong.
She then attempts to make the case racial when its really socioeconomic.


Truth is inner cities and suburbs are worlds apart in terms of both crimes and crime rate(which is where she gets the they can "ignore cops"), and the cost of crime prevention and crime prevention methods will reflect that. I am not surprised one bit that a greater number of people in inner cities are against the "defund the police" campaign.
What we need isn't more resources, what we need is accountability.

 

[Gus Money]

Her assertion that suburbs simply choose to fund other things more than police is wrong.
She then attempts to make the case racial when its really socioeconomic.


Truth is inner cities and suburbs are worlds apart in terms of both crimes and crime rate(which is where she gets the they can "ignore cops"), and the cost of crime prevention and crime prevention methods will reflect that. I am not surprised one bit that a greater number of people in inner cities are against the "defund the police" campaign.
What we need isn't more resources, what we need is accountability.

How exactly is that wrong? The fact that suburbs have more resources means they can, and do, choose to fund other parts of society just as much if not more than they do police departments. Better funded schools, libraries, community centers, having more resources gives them more flexibility. This is indisputable.

Race and socioeconomic status in America are intertwined so no, you can’t just separate them. They both play a role and I’m glad AOC understands that.

You’re correct about one thing though, cities and suburbs are worlds apart on crime, but it absolutely is about resources; we literally have decades of data to back that assertion up. When money is spent supporting people’s needs then you reduce crime. It’s basic sociology, and we also have decades of data showing that ambiguous attempts at improving police accountability haven’t brought about the change we need. Body cameras, civilian reviews boards, we’ve had plenty of attempts at increasing accountability and here we are.

Arguing that we don’t need more resources is nothing more than a talking point that has long been debunked.

 

[DEAD7]

How exactly is that wrong? The fact that suburbs have more resources means they can, and do, choose to fund other parts of society just as much if not more than they do police departments. Better funded schools, libraries, community centers, having more resources gives them more flexibility. This is indisputable.

Suburbs don’t have less crime because they fund other parts of society, they are able to fund those things because there is less crime.

Matching suburb funding in impoverished areas and reducing law enforcement in those areas to suburb levels isn’t a solution... and I doubt that’s what those people living in those war zones want.

...what we need is accountability.
I feel like progressives are trying to hijack a movement centered around police accountability and make it about libraries, student centers and bigger govt...
Resources won’t stop these klansmen from holding their knee on our neck or shooting us in our sleep without consequence.

Accountability.

 

[Dorian Breh]

Personal liability insurance

 

[Gus Money]

What would it mean to ‘defund the police’? These cities offer ideas

Driving this effort is a realization that police use of deadly force against black people has not abated in the six years since a string of killings of black men by police ignited a national call for more police training and accountability.

Instead of trying to change things from within — a process that funneled more resources to police departments — the defund movement calls for reducing communities’ reliance on police for a number of services: monitoring the homeless, resolving domestic quarrels, disciplining students, responding to outbursts by people with mental illness, swarming neighborhoods to tamp down violence and responding to minor complaints like someone trying to pass a counterfeit $20 bill, the accusation that triggered the police call that ended in Floyd’s death.

That work, advocates say, could be better done by outreach workers, social workers and community workers trained to de-escalate street feuds. That could be paid for by diverting money from police budgets to municipal programs that deal with underlying causes of crime, including poverty, inadequate housing and poor education.

“When we talk about defunding the police, what we're saying is invest in the resources that our communities need,” Black Lives Matter co-founder Alicia Garza told NBC News’ “Meet the Press.” “So much of policing right now is generated and directed towards quality-of-life issues, homelessness, drug addiction, domestic violence. … But what we do need is increased funding for housing, we need increased funding for education, we need increased funding for quality of life of communities who are over-policed and over-surveilled.”

More resources in a community equals less crime, and this hasn’t been up for debate for decades at this point by anyone who’s been paying attention. Literally a quick google search brings up studies from the 90s confirming this.

The people living and working in these communities, myself included, understand this regardless of how many right wing talking points are thrown around.

 

[Gus Money]

Suburbs don’t have less crime because they fund other parts of society, they are able to fund those things because there is less crime.

Matching suburb funding in impoverished areas and reducing law enforcement in those areas to suburb levels isn’t a solution... and I doubt that’s what those people living in those war zones want.

...what we need is accountability.
I feel like progressives are trying to hijack a movement centered around police accountability and make it about libraries, student centers and bigger govt...
Resources won’t stop these klansmen from holding their knee on our neck or shooting us in our sleep without consequence.

Accountability.

That’s a chicken and the egg argument that comes to the same conclusion: having more resources is associated with less crime. There’s no reason to keep going in circles.

Like I said above, the people living and working in those communities (like myself who has spent his whole career doing just that) understand that lacking resources leads to more crime, which leads to more police presence. You provide more resources, you reduce crime, you don’t need a police presence in the first place so more resources absolutely will work. I’m all in favor of increasing accountability but these efforts over the years haven’t worked. Period. Time to actually do what experts suggest for once.

 

[DEAD7]

That’s a chicken and the egg argument that comes to the same conclusion: having more resources is associated with less crime. There’s no reason to keep going in circles.

Like I said above, the people living and working in those communities (like myself who has spent his whole career doing just that) understand that lacking resources leads to more crime, which leads to more police presence. You provide more resources, you reduce crime, you don’t need a police presence in the first place so more resources absolutely will work. I’m all in favor of increasing accountability but these efforts over the years haven’t worked. Period. Time to actually do what experts suggest for once.

Like AOC you are missing the point.
Its about how police interact with people... and holding them accountable.
...reducing crime rates via more resources is a separate issue, which she(and you) are also off on. Better funded schools, libraries, rec centers etc. are not solutions. Some form of UBI is needed. Anything short of that will fail to solve the problem.

Defunding police as outlined by AOC doesnt address police murders IMO

 

[voltronblack]

Like AOC you are missing the point.
Its about how police interact with people... and holding them accountable.
...reducing crime rates via more resources is a separate issue, which she(and you) are also off on. Better funded schools, libraries, rec centers etc. are not solutions. Some form of UBI is needed. Anything short of that will fail to solve the problem.

Defunding police as outlined by AOC doesnt address police murders IMO

When you talk about police accountable would it be something like this

Step 1: Eliminate qualified immunity under any circumstance. Police officers should be tried like any other citizen.

Step 2: Make body cams mandatory for all police officers and make it a crime for officers to turn off body cameras for any reason.

Step 3: Settlements for victims come out of pension plans instead of budgets paid by taxpayers

Step 4: Eliminate (make illegal) the use and stockpiling of military grade equipment (tanks, assault rifles, etc)

Step 5: Require a training program that is at least a year long, maybe even longer, before officers are allowed to leave the desk.

Step 6: Make all purchases (non-administrative) for police departments itemized and available to the public.

Step 7: Require officers to live within a certain distance of the area they’re policing (if possible) and maybe even incentivize citizens to become officers for their own communities.

 

[DEAD7]

When you talk about police accountable would it be something like this

Absolutely.

 

[EndDomination]

Her assertion that suburbs simply choose to fund other things more than police is wrong.
She then attempts to make the case racial when its really socioeconomic.


Truth is inner cities and suburbs are worlds apart in terms of both crimes and crime rate(which is where she gets the they can "ignore cops"), and the cost of crime prevention and crime prevention methods will reflect that. I am not surprised one bit that a greater number of people in inner cities are against the "defund the police" campaign.
What we need isn't more resources, what we need is accountability.

What is needed is both, and you're obfuscating the point by pretending that the two aren't interrelated.

It isn't complex at all: there should not be an allowance for officers who have killed a person, particularly an unarmed person, to continue in their role as an officer.
The obvious point in allocating far greater resources to social services, particularly mental health, housing, education, drug treatment, and job resources is that you need less police when you have a population of people who are treated for a mental health crisis, are housed, have proper education (literacy is a good predictor of carceral rates), have options for drug treatment and are employed.

Simply making police go through training, and internal investigations - will not solve any of the deep underlying issues.
You pretending as if there is a greater personal choice narrative than an underlying systemic issue is what lets me know you're asking this in bad faith.

 

[Gus Money]

Like AOC you are missing the point.
Its about how police interact with people... and holding them accountable.
...reducing crime rates via more resources is a separate issue, which she(and you) are also off on. Better funded schools, libraries, rec centers etc. are not solutions. Some form of UBI is needed. Anything short of that will fail to solve the problem.

Defunding police as outlined by AOC doesnt address police murders IMO

No, I see the point you’re making and I agree with more police accountability in theory, but they’re intensely resistant to even minor calls for more accountability on their part. In my opinion it’s a losing battle to try and force accountability from actors who clearly aren’t interested. There are already decades-long initiatives aimed at increasing accountability and how police interact with citizens yet this is what we’ve got.

The point I’m making is that by reducing crime then you reduce the need for having so many police in these communities in the first place. It’s all interrelated and all of the research out there shows that you can’t just separate the issues.

 

[DEAD7]

The obvious point in allocating far greater resources to social services, particularly mental health, housing, education, drug treatment, and job resources is that you need less police when you have a population of people who are treated for a mental health crisis, are housed, have proper education (literacy is a good predictor of carceral rates), have options for drug treatment and are employed.

If we aren't talking about implementing some form of UBI, then we aren't serious. The measures you listed don't solve the root problem, which is poverty.


As to you're other point, i don't believe they are as intertwined as you do. There's some overlap, but in my opinion, its police conduct that needs to be reigned in. Period.

The point I’m making is that by reducing crime then you reduce the need for having so many police in these communities in the first place. It’s all interrelated and all of the research out there shows that you can’t just separate the issues.

I hear you, but reducing the need for these maniacs to be called in, isn't good enough.
We should be able to have increased police presence without them murdering people.(with impunity)

 

[DEAD7]

*Bump*

 

[Dorian Breh]

Personal liability insurance

We can agree on this right @DEAD7 ??

 

[DEAD7]

We can agree on this right @DEAD7 ??

Absolutely