Defund the Police?

Status
Not open for further replies.
The following is intended to be on point for Law based on two important SCOTUS decisions and the following of these decisions. Even though politics are involved this is an apolitical personal viewpoint on one way to deal with this subject:

I see an opportunity for LEO's to abide by case law AND allow the politicians to feel the pain that they are going to inflict on their constituants by these silly moves. Under SCOTUS ruling in Castlerock vs. Gonzalez in 2005 SCOTUS ruled that the police have no duty to protect an individual citizen and this was an extension of Warren vs. District of Columbia 1981. Therefore any LEO assigned to a protection detail should refuse on the grounds that a politician is no different than any other citizen. Should their CoP ORDER them to comply they should develop a case of Blue Flu and let their Union deal with it.

That would leave the Politi9cians to resort to Private Security. EVEN if paid for by taxpayer dollars they now have additional issues including but not limited to liability, lack of qualified immunity, laws in many / most states providing that Private Security is not LEO and exactly the same as a common citizen, licensing issues, uniform requirements, and NO ARREST authority above that of any other citizen. They will be required in most instances be required by law to send the contract out for bid which results in the lowest bidder getting the contract. Now they get to be "guarded" by someone making just above minimum wage in most instances.

If the CoP were to order this in respect to his officers it would be a simple reallocation of funds by the PD to provide the best policing possible with the now more limited funds available to the department after they spend lots of money replacing their fleet of vehicles which have been destroyed during these unpleasantries amongst all of their other replentishment expenses.
 
I know officers who retired after more than 20 or 25 years and who had zero complaints against them.
Click to expand...

But they weren't you were they? The most common denominator I've observed by people who make statements like this is that they've never worn a badge. I'm sure you LEO friends whose disciplinary records you thoroughly reviewed were exemplary public servants.

You do understand that people don't like receiving tickets right? They don't like being arrested. In general, a very good portion of the time they do not like do admit that what they did may have been the wrong thing? And if they believe there is a chance that making a phone call might mean they don't have to take responsibility for their mistake, they are happy to do it?

Now I don't know what they are considering a "complaint". I've had citizens call and complain to my boss for all sorts of mundane things such as citing them for committing a traffic violation which resulted in an accident when they felt the other driver was a fault, etc. I have however never been subject to an internal affairs investigation, because I am honest and do my job to the best of my ability and without bias. I also believe my religious use of my body camera has a lot to do with complaints not getting traction.

Again, how a complaint evolves into an internal affairs investigation is hugely dependent on individual agencies policies.

18 documented complaints in 19 years does seem like a lot to me. But I'm fortunate to work in a place where the majority of the population does not hate police. When you work in a place where children have been raised to hate police since they were infants and the cycle goes back generations, you are going to get more complaints.

And again, you oversimplify "bad cops". Lets say its 2010, before mass use of body cameras, and Jake Officer and Joe Officer respond to a a shoplifting call at the supermarket. A suspect description is given, and as the officers arrive on scene they see Joe criminal, who matches the description, exiting the store. As soon as he sees them Joe Criminal runs. They give Chase. Jake Officer is fresh out of the police academy and in better shape than Joe Officer and as they round the corner of the store Jake Officer is closing on Joe Criminal but Joe Officer is 15 yards behind. Jake Officer sees that Joe Criminal briefly glances back at him, then reaches for the front of his waistband while beginning to blade his body back at him. Joe Officer, fatigued and far behind, can't see this more subtle movements. Jake Officer, recognizing from his police training that Joe Criminal may be reaching for a weapon, removes his taser and tases Joe Criminal. Joe Criminal falls and hits his head on the curb, which begins profusely bleeding. They quickly handcuff him and call for medical attention. The object he was reaching for was a packaged cell phone in his waistband, which he was hoping to ditch before he was caught and thus avoid charges. He is eventually transported to the hospital and receives several stitches in his head. He calls and files a complaint. A supervisor reads Jake Officer's report. Jake Officer, while excellent in foot pursuits, is not the most articulate in his use of force reporting, and as the agency use of force policy clearly states there must be "active aggression" or "imminent active aggression" in order to utilize a taser, the complaint is sent to internal affairs. Now both Jake and Joe Officer and called in for interviews in regards to the incident. Joe Officer, being too far away and undergoing too much adrenaline at the time to notice the smaller details, concedes he did not see anything happening except Joe Criminal running. Jake Officer, who during the incident made the choice to utilize his taser with full confidence, is now feeling uncomfortable and questioning whether or not he made the right decision. He is also facing suspension of the complaint is substantiated. He calls his union representative, who contacts a use of force expert and reviews the incident with him, as well as the report. As Jake recalls the incident, the use of force expert breaks down down Jake's micro observations and help mentally work through the incident. He explains to him that writing "he appeared to be reaching for a weapon so I tased him" is not sufficient articulation in a report, and important factors, such and the brief rear glance, the fact that most weapons are concealed in the waistband, the slight blading of the body, need to be included when writing a use of force report. Jake, along with his representative, go to the interview. Jake is able to satisfactorily explain his actions and the complaint is found to be unsubstantiated.

So is Jake a "bad cop"? Is what he did a "bad cop" thing? To Joe Criminal, yes. How is it fair that he just tries to grab a cell phone and the cops split his head open and he has to get stitches? Is Joe Officer complicit, for not being sure exactly what happened, even though he was "right there?". Is the union rep at fault, for helping Jake?

Is a criminal defense attorney at fault for trying to get their client acquitted when they know their client is guilty?

Tennesee vs Garner gives officers the ability to a shoot a fleeing suspect if the officer had probable cause to believe the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others. There could be a clear cut incident in which this case fully justified an officers actions and do you know what the body camera would show? A cop shooting a guy in the back.

THESE are the reasons that many agencies will not release evidence, such as body camera videos, until cases are adjudicated.

I've told people this several times. You can find ANYTHING you want to see on the internet, there are hundreds of videos of cops behaving inappropriately. Because if someone pulled out a cell phone every time a cop was doing the right thing there would be billions of videos posted that noone cares about.

HiBC I don't know if I've seen that video but it sounds unfortunate and you are right about 100 good officers not making up for one bad experience. What I always tell people who are concerned about being a victim of excessive force is that if that truly happens to you, you are going to get very rich very quickly, so count yourself lucky.
 
Tennesee vs Garner gives officers the ability to a shoot a fleeing suspect if the officer had probable cause to believe the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others. There could be a clear cut incident in which this case fully justified an officers actions and do you know what the body camera would show? A cop shooting a guy in the back.

THESE are the reasons that many agencies will not release evidence, such as body camera videos, until cases are adjudicated.
Click to expand...

Understood, and, agreed. Now, how do you convince the public that there's no cover up with a billion yammerheads twittering that there is??

Or the root cause of that, some "official" news group only showing and telling PART of the story, and doing it 24/7 ??

Where is the movement to defund MSNBC or the rest of them when someone working for them screws up??

"Fake news" is NOT a modern issue, its been with us as long as we have had news. And it will be an issue as long as there is someone who decides what we see and what we don't.

This used to be taught in school, in history class specifically. But I suppose it no longer is, like a lot of things today...

SO, what is the real issue with defunding the police? Radicals want all the money stopped, so the "bad cops" go away. More rational people want SOME of the money taken away, in order to "force" the police to only spend money on the "important things", which they believe include teaching and policing the police so that they aren't "bad".

Its a nice dream, but to date, the real world hasn't worked that way, and I don't see a "sea change" from just defunding some things.

The people who demand "defunding" apparently don't realize that even if they get what they say they want, they won't have a voice in HOW it gets done. That, if it happens will be done by the politicians, bureaucrats and bean counters currently in control of (and possibly responsible for) the whole mess we're in now.
 
Ton: Here is the video.

I'm not anti-cop. I do not advocate defunding.

IMO,there was no reason for the LEO's to stop this guy.

Admittedly,he COULD have been more compliant, but lets not forget the Constitution.

I'll say again,I don't personally fault the male backup officer,and he is the one who was fired and charged.

The first Woman officer that was doing the talking violated that Gentleman and I understand his refusal.

This is what generates anger and hate. Its like Police State BS with no Constitution. Maybe training that is necessary is "These are the Constitutional Rights of Citizens you WILL NOT violate,or YOU will go to jail.
https://youtu.be/idEyEWLWfyM
 
ride alongs

I encourage anybody interested in the PD, pro or con, to participate in any "ride along" program that their local LE may offer. If you can't find one locally, consider driving a bit to to locale that does. Do it more than once, and on a couple of different shifts, with different officers if possible. Multiple jurisdictions would be good too. My experience and observations have been that many everyday folks have no idea of the nature of the work and the span of violence and crime in their areas.

I cannot understand the comments and complaints registered in this post regards police/LE firearms ("military weapons") and the wearing of body armor. Police have "military weapons" to respond to incidents and criminals similarly armed. Would folks rather have the officers responding to the active shooter at their church, school, concert, etc, with a 2" .38 and 12 extra rounds? Are officers effecting a warrant at a gang or drug location where subjects are known to be armed and violent expected to be so armed as well? The upgunning of LE is a result of the criminal element upgunning as well.

Police have been wearing body armor since the 1970's. Soft armor, under or over a uniform shirt, or external plates, is hot, uncomfortable and expensive, and certainly not worn for appearance and to intimidate. Body armor has saved MANY officers lives since it's adoption and development.

BDU's, and external vests are a move towards practicality and comfort. Apparel in policework has changed over the years, just as other professions have as well. Nurses now wear scrubs, pastors seem to rarely wear a collar, and teachers seldom wear a tie.

Times have changed, and this ain't Mayberry.
 
Simple statement here - right or wrong.
I believe part of the issue with police "acting out" is that they have forgotten they are civilian law enforcement officers not occupying military.
 
Nobody complains when that Armored Bearcat or MRAP responds to a school shooting, when the officers inside hit the ground with M4’s and hard armor. In fact if the police DIDNT respond that way, peolle would ask “why not?”
Click to expand...

What matters is the response once the cops boots hit the ground. Will they engage the shooter/s or will they wuss around like the cops at Parkland?
 
What matters is the response once the cops boots hit the ground. Will they engage the shooter/s or will they wuss around like the cops at Parkland?
Click to expand...

But, that is EXACTLY the point!!!! The cry today is that Police are too heavy handed. Yet when they dont respond they are vilified as well.

Its a “damed if you do, damed if you don't” scenario.
 
Its a “damed if you do, damed if you don't” scenario.
Click to expand...

I think its dammed if you do, dammed if you don't, thing when they act improperly.

Here's a couple points to consider,
While there is clearly a need and a use for SWAT, we have a problem with it being overused. As often stated, when your tool is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.

Justified or not, there is a belief that when you equip the cops as soldiers, and train the cops as soldiers, you get soldiers more than you get cops. And, when you give them those tools, they will use them.

and not always where that use is justified. Screwups may be statistically rare, but they happen enough to be big news and major talking points, and attitude changers.

30 years of COPS on tv, teaching us that any backtalk or failure to do what the cop says instantly, gets you slammed on the hood of a car then handcuffed. While no doubt selected for its "entertainment" value, it is real footage of real events.

Don't think this plays a part in the attitudes we're seeing today?? Think again.
 
I turn 50 this year and in that time I've had interaction with police on numerus occasions . When I use the term interaction I mean it to mean where I was involved in why they were called or a wittiness to a crime or other .

1st time I was 14-ish walking to school . I had broke my leg earlier that year so they changed my class schedule around to give me PE 1st period which I did not have to attend . This meant I started school at 2nd period and did not get to school until shortly before 2nd period started .

As I walked to school a cop stopped me about 2 blocks from school and asked why I wasn't in school . I explained why and he seemed ok with that . He was cool and not at all being difficult . He said he needed to take me to school to confirm what I said was true . I thought OK what ever but he then said he would need to search me before putting me in the car because it was procedure to do so . Long story short he did search me and found something I should not legally have in one of my pockets and handcuffed me . He then put in the backseat of the car and drove me to school . All this while he was actually still being very cool about everything . The way he was handling things really effected how I interacted with him , I don't remember what about but we even joked about something a bit .

Anyways this resulted in a suspension from school and mandatory family therapy with my mom . During one of the therapy sessions the Dr read me the police report and I was shocked at what it said . It said I didn't seem to care about the trouble I was in and was just joking around with him . :eek: Well kinda but it was his coolness that put me at ease . If it wasn't for the report I'd say it was one of the best interactions I've had with police , especially when I was in the wrong and having to deal with them . Also in the grand scheme of things I wasn't in big trouble .

2nd time I was 16ish and was out very late doing things I shouldn't at the beach with friends . The cops rolled up took our info and because it wasn't anything truly bad they decided to just take us each home so they could talk with are parents . My mom was asleep on the couch and I tried to lightly wake her up but she's a deep sleeper so the cop asked her name and I told him . He then yield her name to wake her up which scared the crap out of her , she didn't even know I had left the house that night . Even after she was awake the cop refused to stop shining his flashlight directly in her face even after being asked to move the light multiple times . To this day she gets worked up about that and calls him a JA

3rd time ( I'm an adult now ) trained in private security and have testified in court so I might have a better understanding of being a wittiness then maybe your average joe . Not related to the job but I was a wittiness of an assault by one neighbor against another neighbor . I was the one that actually called the cops because it was a man hitting a woman and that's just not cool . To be fare they argued all the time over STUPID stuff but it never got physical until then . I watched most of what happened so I had a good idea what happened . Even though I called and was a eye wittiness the cops never came over to ask me any questions . After about two weeks I called and asked the detective why I had not been interviewed he said that I just need to leave him ( the guy who punched the woman ) alone and hung up . It turns out with out even interviewing the eye wittiness the cops on seen determined the lady was at fault and wrote the report as such . Of course I'm leaving a bunch out but there's no need to go into great detail as to what I saw , the point is the same . What's in the report is all that matters not what really happened .

4th ( there were others but these really stick out ) There's an intersection by my house where there are a lot of accidents , at times very bad ones . Over the years two people have died in separate accidents there . One night I hear a very bad one ( After years of hearing these you can tell which ones are the bad ones ) so I go out to be a looky loo . As I'm there looking around I see a guy sitting on the curb ( by now fire and police are there ) and he did not look well . Eyes Wide open looking very much in shock but nobody paying any attention to him . So I walk over and ask him if he's ok and he just rambles about how bad that was :eek: I ask were you in the car and he said yes . This was a car that overturned and may have flipped more then once .

I found the closest cop/emt which was a cop at the time . He was talking/interviewing someone ( like me just a guy that came out to look ) and I said excuse me but this guy over here is in bad shape but I did not get a response . I said it a second time louder and moving closer which prompted him to turn to me and aggressively tell me to stop interrupting him he was conducting an interview . :rolleyes: I just shook my head because by now in life I've started to have an opinion of the police and it was not good .

All the other EMT's seemed actually busy so I ran home and got a blanket , returned and put it around the guy . I looked him over and it appeared he did not have any visible injuries but was still pretty out of it . It was about this time an EMT walked by and I pointed the guy out to them . I said he was in the car that overturned . There eyes opened up almost as much as the guy I was talking about . They immediately came over and started working on him and he turned out to be the first guy transported to the hospital . I could imagine what that cops report said and how great he came off in it :(

Ok that's just the most memorable ones . I have a true dislike for the police , to be clear not the individual person in the uniform but my interactions over the years have given me a real lack of confidence in the police as a whole .

That all said and I know it was a lot , defunding the police is one of the dumbest things I've ever heard . LEO actually means something ! They are Law Enforcement Officers , with out them there is no need for laws !!!

The fact people actually think you can have other people going out and dealing with ( sorry) crazy people or drug addict's is naïve at best and down right ignorant at worst . How do these kinder gentler folks get the authority to force citizens to do what they kindly want them to do ??? What if they don't want your kinder help and would rather stay on the street shooting up and or keep screaming at people about the spaceman coming to get them ?? Now what , remember we can't have police come that might trigger them even more hurting there feelings . We are a nation of laws and until there are none we will always need LEO's

The issue is training pure and simple along with a real threat of going to jail if you do something wrong as a cop . Stopping the wrong person or breaking down the wrong door MUST STOP . They are in a position of great power and can't be aloud to get those things wrong . I've always disliked the word "shield" because that's what it is . It's a shield preventing accountability and don't get me started on unions . This is such a complex and HUGE problem that it will not be solved by outlawing the choke hold , defunding the police , having kinder people dealing with none violent crimes etc . This is going to take real leadership with deep thinkers giving advice . Unfortunately we don't have any true leaders right now in this country and they all seem to be working from very shallow thoughts .

Oh and those pointing out statistics as if they were gospel . Give me a break , correct me if I'm wrong but didn't all the cops in the Rodney King beating get off and were found not guilty ? So that's just one of what I'm sure are hundreds of police reports written every year saying what they did was justified . The police reports rule all and even the King video didn't help . Do you think for a second if there was no video of Floyds death . The police report would have said he resisted arrest and his death was not related to the arrest ? He would have been just another statistic that never happened .

ABSINCE OF EVIDANCE IS NOT EVIDANCE OF ABSINCE
 
Last edited:
This is going to be interesting to watch:
Which politicians make rational decisions.
Which groups have legitimate claims.
Which individuals are of significant concern.

This too shall pass, but in times of stress, we see what people are really made of, and that information is most important.

We’ll see.
 
So - after two pages & 52 posts - it's still a mystery of what "defunding" means & how it's going to be implemented & most importantly - how it will impact those of us that choose to go into the world armed for our own protection and the protection of those members of our families?
I had hoped that's what this thread would have addressed - not how the police treat us.....

Again - exactly what is "defunding" and how will that impact us average Joe Sixpacks?
 
It will most likely remain a mystery for many years. As polls come out, many change their views on defunding.

As for how sill it affect the average person? That depends on where you live. If you live in a large city in certain states like MN, MI, CA, WA, NY, NJ just to name a few it could affect you but it will take time to determine what the effect will be.

However, for people, like me, who live in the middle of nowhere, there will be very little since we have no plans on defunding our Sheriff or State Police; or at least never seen anything on that subject.
 
There is no meaning . At least not one many would agree with . It depends on who you ask as to what it means . It truey means everything from completely abolishing the police to slightly lowering there budget and allocating those funds for other things .

It’s just a catch phrase for shollow thinkers to use and does not have deep meaning . I’ll tell you what many of the mods here say when discussing new legislation that has not been written yet . I’m paraphrasing here, until we see the text of the bill it’s a waste of time to speculate and debate what it means and how it will affect us .

It means lawlessness in many areas . Just look at the situation in Seattle where several citizens have taken over areas of the city creating their own laws . Nobody’s pointed out exactly how it will affect you/us because it can affect us in so many ways it would take three pages of examples to explain how It can effect you . Generally that’s why the mods don’t let these types of threads go on . The hypotheticals you could come up with are endless . I don’t agree with not allowing the discussions to happen . I think they’re helpful for other people that may not have thought of certain things . To hear or read multiple perspectives can really help form a better opinion on how you may feel about something .
 
Last edited:
While it is fairly certain that, if someone is doing a bad job, giving them more money will get you more of a bad job, it is far from certain that giving them less money will get you less of a bad job.

Defunding the police clearly means giving them less money, but the details of what that means differs with each different group you talk to.

You can't pay them less, unless you renegotiate their contract. and, to do that both sides have to agree. Good Luck with that!

So, what's left? Reduce, or eliminate their money for equipment and training??

I don't see that having any positive result.
 
So, what's left? Reduce, or eliminate their money for equipment and training??
Click to expand...

As silly as that sounds lets explore that some . What about disarming the police and having dedicated special units for high risk interactions . I get it , no weapons appear to have been used in Floyds death but if the general police were unarmed that would need a whole different type of training and ROE . Now this is at it's infancy for me here so I don't have any real answers or ideas but what if ? can it be done responsibly ?
 
What about disarming the police and having dedicated special units for high risk interactions
Click to expand...

And exactly HOW do these unarmed Police deal with all the armed criminals they encounter? Cops encounter guns on the streets all the time. When i was a patrol Deputy i found an illegal gun at least once a week. Drugs, Guns and Cash are the 3 main food groups of the criminal element.

So, if i had been “unarmed” how would i protect myself from the gun toting gang member i just stopped for rolling a stop sign? Before the North Hollywood BofA shootout. Patrol rifles were almost unheard of. Then the “Active shooter” response training started and it became apparent that pistols were not enough. So, patrol cars got Patrol rifles. All in response to the increasing commonality of heavily armed criminals. The increase in hard drugs being imported from other countries only added to the change.

We are not in Mayberry anymore... Barney Fief isnt cutting it anymore. If you want to “disarm” Police, start by disarming criminals first.
 
And exactly HOW do these unarmed Police deal with all the armed criminals they encounter? Cops encounter guns on the streets all the time. When i was a patrol Deputy i found an illegal gun at least once a week. Drugs, Guns and Cash are the 3 main food groups of the criminal element.
Click to expand...

Sounds like we need less guns in this country lol , never ask a question you won't like the answer to haha .

There are counties that have unarmed police and there's generally not blood in the streets every day . Remember this is not a thought experiment that keeps everything the same and still fixes the problem . If you need the police to be less violent then you need a less violent society , how do we get there . I wasn't making a joke about needing real leaders with deep thinkers abound them . This will not be an easy fix and will take some flexibility by all I'm sure .

Maybe you do need two different levels of police which would likely cost double the amount of money to make happen . One group that is the unarmed kinder gentler ones and the other is the group that comes in and drops the hammer down when you take advantage of the kinder gentler group .

Again this is not on the police alone to figure out . Society as a whole would need to change to except this new way of policing to include neighborhoods policing them selves Something I'm sure it was like once a few hundred years ago . Maybe we have to take several steps back to move forward I don't know I'm just thinking out loud here . Something we all should do with out fear of shaming ( not saying anyone has done that here ) just making a point .
 
We are discussing checkers when the game is chess.

Who stands to gain by the elimination of police as we know them,and replacing them with what???
Given the enclave in Seattle ,perhaps Sharia and the Taliban could be studied as a model.

At least consider how China is "social engineering" using 5 G tech.

Perhaps the Computer Models that unfailingly predict COVID and Climate , utilizing every keystroke and phone conversation you have ever made , could be used by the "Right People" Place these tools in the hands of appointed social workers,,and they will be able to predict your anti social behavior,before you even think of it,and pre emptively arrest you before you commit a crime. Or just disintegrate you with a drone strike.

All for the Greater Good,of course. If it only saves one li'fe....

Or maybe the "Helter Skelter" plan was ahead of its time....But who is playing the role of Charlie Manson?

Sorry. We do live in interesting times. "Be careful what you wish for" seems sage advice.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top