Welcome home, fellow Gator.

The Gator Nation's oldest and most active insider community
Join today!

More than 100 police agencies are pulling out of next month’s DNC

Discussion in 'GatorNana's Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by gatorpika, Aug 1, 2020.

  1. AgingGator

    AgingGator GC Hall of Fame

    1,781
    355
    408
    Apr 24, 2007
    Honestly, you astound me sometimes. I am sure that you mean well and I respect that, but I think you need to think this one through.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 2, 2020
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Come On Man Come On Man x 1
  2. G8trGr8t

    G8trGr8t Premium Member

    16,690
    1,891
    1,258
    Aug 26, 2008
  3. gator_lawyer

    gator_lawyer Premium Member

    6,958
    1,731
    1,128
    Oct 30, 2017
    Honestly, you need to not be afraid of new ideas. Back when I was living in Texas, I knew some of the leading civil rights lawyers in the city. And the city was getting absolutely pounded by Monell lawsuits because the police department was incompetent when it came to dealing with people having mental health issues.

    It got to the point where loved ones didn't want to call 911. You were better off taking the chance that your son or brother wouldn't actually take his life than calling 911. Because odds were that if he didn't do it, the police would. Some cities have responded by training a crisis intervention team on the police force for those sorts of calls. And they've seen great results from that. But even that isn't going to get perfect results. Police officers are police officers.

    But you don't have to take my word for it. In fact, despite my knowledge of this issue from having read studies and discussed it with those on the front lines of it, I expect you won't. Instead, I'll point you to Eugene, Oregon, where they are already making use of this sort of idea and have for over 30 years:
    There’s already an alternative to calling the police
    Though CAHOOTS uses the police department’s central dispatch, it is distinct from the department. Employees do not carry guns or wear uniforms; instead, they wear casual hoodies and drive vans with a dove painted on the side. CAHOOTS’ methods are designed to prevent escalation, Black said. “If an officer enters that situation with power, with authority, with that uniform and a command presence, that situation is really likely to escalate.”

    It’s a false assumption that people experiencing a mental health crisis will respond violently, Black said, and a police response is often unnecessary. CAHOOTS fielded over 24,000 calls last year; less than 1% of them needed assistance from police, and no one has ever been seriously injured. “That type of mentality really contributes to the othering that has permitted oppression and marginalization to persist,” Black said. “By and large, folks who are unhoused, who are experiencing behavioral health issues, are much more likely to be the victims of violence than the perpetrators.”

    This Oregon town of 170,000 replaced some cops with medics and mental health workers. It's worked for over 30 years - CNN
    It works this way: 911 dispatchers filter calls they receive -- if they're violent or criminal, they're sent to police. If they're within CAHOOTS' purview, the van-bound staff will take the call. They prep what equipment they'll need, drive to the scene and go from there.

    The program started small, with a van Zeiss called a "junker," some passionate paraprofessionals and just enough funding to staff CAHOOTS 40 hours a week.

    It always paired one medic, usually a nurse or EMT, with a crisis responder trained in behavioral health. That holistic approach is core to its model. Per self-reported data, CAHOOTS workers responded to 24,000 calls in 2019 -- about 20% of total dispatches. About 150 of those required police backup.

    CAHOOTS says the program saves the city about $8.5 million in public safety costs every year, plus another $14 million in ambulance trips and ER costs.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 2, 2020
    • Winner Winner x 5
    • Informative Informative x 3
    • Like Like x 1
    • Fistbump/Thanks! Fistbump/Thanks! x 1
  4. WESGATORS

    WESGATORS Moderator VIP Member

    22,106
    1,168
    1,248
    Apr 3, 2007
    This is why I said "people are trying to massage the original expression to mean something a little more practical." The parts I quoted above speak to the origin of the expression. They speak to different concepts. Neither viewpoint is incorrect because there is supporting commentary for each.

    Go GATORS!
    ,WESGATORS
     
  5. WESGATORS

    WESGATORS Moderator VIP Member

    22,106
    1,168
    1,248
    Apr 3, 2007
    And it doesn't include "abolishing" the police department, but rather making cuts and putting that money to use elsewhere.

    Go GATORS!
    ,WESGATORS
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  6. AgingGator

    AgingGator GC Hall of Fame

    1,781
    355
    408
    Apr 24, 2007
    Oregon? Really?
     
    • Dislike Dislike x 1
  7. gatorknights

    gatorknights GC Hall of Fame

    26,146
    3,023
    1,443
    Apr 8, 2007
    Gainesville, FL
    Because what would a lawyer know about the law. Especially a Gator.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  8. studegator

    studegator GC Legend

    554
    150
    348
    Feb 24, 2008
    With a 30 year track record, this program has more then proven itself.
     
    • Agree Agree x 3
  9. gatorpika

    gatorpika Premium Member

    7,384
    1,019
    1,023
    Sep 14, 2008
    And you are going to get that from defunding the police? Anything you throw out there that starts with solving poverty as a prerequisite is a non-starter. It's not going to happen. So if you start with the assumption that crime is going to go down in the face of less policing and more social servicing, then that's sort of a dangerous assumption. You have the same economic conditions and more incentive for people to prey on each other because there is a lower chance of being caught. You might get some offset where there are fewer arrests where some pissed off cop "smells marijuana" in a black kid's car. But you are also likely to have more serious crime, unless it magically goes away as the "activists" think. I am not against that, I just wouldn't start with that assumption given what's at stake. Reforming police instead of downsizing them seems like a more rational approach.
     
    • Like Like x 2
    • Agree Agree x 1
  10. WC53

    WC53 GC Legend

    654
    138
    263
    Oct 17, 2015
    Old City
    If you look at CAHOOTS, mental illness, addiction and homelessness were its starting guides.

    60% of their calls are for homeless issues. Pretty confident police and ems will give up those responses;)

    Portland commission said sure we will disband... no voting...lip service until the protesters go away.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  11. gatorpika

    gatorpika Premium Member

    7,384
    1,019
    1,023
    Sep 14, 2008
    Lawless anarchy is a bit of hyperbole. The murder rate over there is much lower and in all the other European countries with gun restrictions. A lot of that is just because guns are so freely available here that people are more likely to have access to one when they decide they need to end someone. There are a lot of other questions, like why is the murder rate much lower in Switzerland or Canada where there are higher rates of gun ownership. I don't know, but I chalke that up to something cultural. We seem to be a more violent culture. Assuming that we are going to go from what we have now to European levels of violence, whether we repeal the 2A and disarm the police or not, is a big assumption. In the UK violent crime did go up for a time after gun control laws were implemented and knife crimes have been increasing recently.


    Not sure I understand this. The proposal means fewer police, not unarmed police. So fewer patrols and fewer cops responding to calls. Some of those calls would be taken by the magic social services agency who would be unarmed. Maybe it evens out because some of the calls that used to take police time will be handled by the other agency so in effect they respond to the same number of more serious crimes. I tend to think it would be less efficient though because a de escalation call would necessarily take longer than a traditional police call that might have ended in a detention or arrest. Some of their most frequent calls are domestic disturbances that can take a lot of time. They can also be dangerous because you have some pissed off husband that just found out his wife is banging his boss and wants him to leave or whatever and he might own a gun.

    Statistically though if you reduce or have lower levels of policing then you tend to have higher crime rates. In less developed countries with less numerous or effective policing you tend to have higher crime. Mexico has high violent crime rates despite having gun control because the government can't effectively enforce those laws against cartels. There are a number of factors involved (poverty, culture, education, etc) that contribute to the rates but one consistent factor is that criminals will be more likely to act if there is a better opportunity of success. If the police get overworked then they stop enforcing some category of crimes and a niche opens for criminals that want to play in that area.

    I don't understand what you are trying to say with this. Yes, they have no duty to stop a crime and put themselves at risk. They in fact stop crimes in progress routinely and daily. A traffic stop is initiated when the police observed a crime and that is one of the most common police interventions. They are often called to the scene of ongoing crimes, like a robbery in progress or a violent domestic dispute. They mostly don't wait for it to finish and take the report, they tend to intervene. That's what we expect them to do whether they are required to by law or not.
     
  12. PerSeGator

    PerSeGator GC Hall of Fame

    1,539
    394
    388
    Jun 14, 2014
    So UK is so much less violent than us that they can have unarmed police (which supposedly increases crime), but still come out with substantially less crime over all? Couldn't another possibility be that armed police aren't really a deterrent? As someone else pointed out, it's not like the UK police doesn't have access to guns. If need be, they can call in the cavalry. They just don't carry guns in general practice. And that tends to be more than enough, because the reality is most criminals aren't even thinking about being caught, let alone prevailing in a gun fight with the police.

    Do you have any empirical evidence you can point to that suggests that an armed police force effectively reduces crime?

    If anything, I would expect to see more police in areas with higher crime, not less, since adding law enforcement is a natural reaction to law breaking. South Chicago almost certainly has more police officers per capita than the Hamptons. Likewise, per Wiki, Mexico has about twice as many cops per capita as the US.

    I don't disagree that cutting law enforcement to the point that they can't effectively respond to reports could lead to more crimes, but few people are suggesting that. The idea is to reform police practices so that going in guns a blazing isn't the first, second, and last idea every time a crime occurs. That could include having an unarmed social service agency respond to non-emergent issues, as well as cutting funding for military surplus gear, promoting non-violent intervention where possible, and weeding out the "us vs. them" mindset that pervades law enforcement. There are some areas where a militaristic police presence is necessary (e.g., South Chicago), but the vast majority of the country is not like that. In fact, violent crime has dropped enormously over the last several decades. Approaching police work like its still the 1980s just doesn't make any sense, and I've yet to see anything persuade me that crime will inevitably soar if the police aren't regularly rolling around in tanks with assault rifles and body armor.

    Sure it happens, but the go to a first appearance hearing some time and you'll see that the vast majority of arrests happen after the crime is complete. Guns by and large protect the cops, not the victims.
     
    • Winner Winner x 2
    • Agree Agree x 1
  13. gatorpika

    gatorpika Premium Member

    7,384
    1,019
    1,023
    Sep 14, 2008
    I think you are conflating the issue here. You are talking about unarmed police and I am talking about numbers of police. It would make perfect sense that in a country where guns are banned and hard to get that homicides would be more rare than in a country where the per capita gun ownership rate is 1.2. The thread is about defunding the police, not disarming them. Defunding necessarily means cutting headcount and therefore less police available to respond to crime. As far as the correlation between crime and police, it's there to a point. In some cases they might have overhired and then they go looking for people to arrest to justify the size of the force. Also remember that the police force size is made by the politicians and usually in response to people complaining about crime. Or some politician gets elected on a tough on crime platform in a conservative area that might be experiencing an influx of brown people but no related increase in crime. So it's probably not a linear relationship, but one with diminishing returns. You also don't have a one size fits all solution. In some areas you might have too many police and others too few. Some police departments might be using their resources efficiently while others are inefficient because they are doing things "the way we have always done it". Every force independently develops or adopts tactics to fight the crimes at issue in their jurisdictions, but some use their resources far better than others. Some don't have the resources to buy technology or do whatever it takes to do things more efficiently.

    Yes, the amount of police needed in an area is largely dependent on the propensity for people to commit crimes. While there are a lot of criminals in the Hamptons, it's not petty crime dealt with by the police so the police force there has less work. In impoverished and especially urban areas there is a higher propensity for theft, shootings, etc so a higher need. The point is that you need to make an apples to apples comparison. You can't compare policing and gun homicide rates in the US to the UK because the US is full of guns. Mexico is a bit different because policing is sort of a social welfare program. They get paid little and largely get by through taking bribes. They could easily get rid of half of them, pay the other half double and become more effective. It's also a lawless country to some extent as the cartels pay the police more than the government does so they are beholden to the criminals. There are really no absolutes here or simple answers. Every area has it's own propensity for crime, issues with the police force (size, efficiency, culture, community relationship, etc).

    Which is "Reform the police", not "Defund the police". And I agree with that, though there are massive challenges to that. And I disagree that "few people are suggesting it" because in this thread alone there are a ton of people suggesting exactly that. Repurpose police funds toward some kinder, gentler agency and everything will be magically fine.

    I would expect ALL of the arrests to occur after the crime is complete (or enough for conspiracy) because you need probably cause to make the arrest. If a crime hasn't happened then you likely wouldn't see many arrests for that crime. But the police are usually involved during the commission or shortly after the commission of the crime. And that often leads to other crimes like a distraught spouse causing a domestic disturbance decided to take it out on the police with his fists. Or someone transporting drugs deciding to try to escape or shoot it out with an officer who made a traffic stop.

    Here's an article making the case for hiring more police:

    The case for hiring more police officers

    Here's another one talking about the problem of underpolicing. While the police often abuse people in certain high crime rate communities, they also often neglect the others.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/outl...d1fd26-ac0c-11ea-9063-e69bd6520940_story.html
     
  14. metalcoater

    metalcoater GC Legend

    742
    41
    203
    May 30, 2007
    I think spending the money on mental health professionals for the DNC convention would be well spent.
     
  15. gatorpika

    gatorpika Premium Member

    7,384
    1,019
    1,023
    Sep 14, 2008
    Police Wrestle With Surge in Crime in U.S. Cities Amid Defunding Efforts

    [​IMG]

    Strange that homicides are up during COVID (other than between spouses).
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Informative Informative x 1
  16. PerSeGator

    PerSeGator GC Hall of Fame

    1,539
    394
    388
    Jun 14, 2014
    We started this as my response to your hypothesis that relying more on unarmed social type responders would lead to an increase in crime. The UK is relevant to that, because it proves that even where all the responders are unarmed, it does not invariably lead to more law breaking. Despite the fact that most people in the UK don't need to be worried about being gunned down by the police, they don't seem to commit all that many crimes.

    You point out that the UK has fewer guns, but I don't see why that particularly matters. A criminal with a gun shouldn't be any less fearful of being shot by the police. If anything, he should be more worried, since cops are far more likely to shoot an armed perpetrator than an unarmed one. That's true both here and in the UK. In other words, guns certainly correlate with increased crime (more crimes of opportunity), but I don't think it has much relevance to the deterrent effect of armed police. It's two separate issues.

    I agree there is no one size fits all solution. What works in the UK won't necessarily work here, and what works in Tampa is going to be different than New York. However, I think it's worth looking at whats going on elsewhere before automatically discounting a strategy as unworkable or doomed to failure. There are many ways to skin a cat.

    95.6% of New Haven police calls don't involve violence. How many of those issues could be resolved with a non-LEO dispatch? Probably many. So you bifurcate the dispatch system. A "kinder, gentler" agency deals with the obviously non-violent stuff, and a smaller number of better trained cops to handle the situations that are or are likely to turn violent. Something like that could work in New Haven. Maybe not everywhere. Heck, maybe not even in New Haven. But I don't see any reason why such a concept is impossible at the outset. Maybe "the way we've always done it" isn't actually the best approach.

    By "complete" I mean the perpetrator is no longer engaged in criminal activity by the time the cops arrive. The reality is, cops almost never arrive in time to actually stop criminal activity. They clean up after the fact.

    Just Dial 911? The Myth of Police Protection | Richard W. Stevens

    Yet does dialing 911 actually protect crime victims? Researchers found that less than 5 percent of all calls dispatched to police are made quickly enough for officers to stop a crime or arrest a suspect. The 911 bottom line: “cases in which 911 technology makes a substantial difference in the outcome of criminal events are extraordinarily rare.”​



    No doubt there are underpoliced areas, just as there are overpoliced areas. I think all localities should take a hard look at their situations and try to improve their systems as the circumstances warrant.
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  17. jhenderson251

    jhenderson251 Premium Member

    2,478
    343
    343
    Aug 7, 2008
    In fairness, it’s a stupid slogan.
     
    • Agree Agree x 4
    • Like Like x 1
  18. pcamera01

    pcamera01 GC Legend

    523
    109
    93
    Jul 21, 2020
    Now you want police back-up?
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
    • Come On Man Come On Man x 1
  19. murphree_hall

    murphree_hall GC Legend

    889
    424
    233
    Jul 11, 2019
    Well, when you say All Lives Matter, it includes Cartel members, right? At least BLM only includes black Cartel members, of which there probably aren’t that many.
     
  20. mutz87

    mutz87 #restinpowerrbg VIP Member

    36,012
    3,120
    2,186
    Aug 30, 2014
    This was about whether activists think crime will disappear due to defunding police. I mentioned that this isn't what they think, that it was about redirecting funds toward improving poor communities due to the strong association between poverty and crime.

    The other component to this is imagining a new way of policing since there is way too much aggression with only a facade of a public safety benefit; more @ mythology. I don't know why you think it would be a bad assumption, much of what the police already do involves social services, they just aren't well trained for it and the culture of police departments often eschew it or leave such policing up to (too) small specialized units. This is one of the reasons why police arrest in so many situations that would not need it.

    I mean think about, there are far more civilians than police (about 450:1). Eight of every ten arrests are for non-violent and/or less serious offenses. Police only make an arrest in about 20% of reported Part I crime. This percentage is far lower, maybe south of 1% of all crime--and the only serious crime they clear with arrest at over 50% is homicide, which is the least frequent of all serious crimes. Keep in mind too that opportunity is a constant and police only infrequently stop crimes in progress; they mostly show up after the fact.

    Given the above, why would anyone think that cutting back on policing or changing how police respond to crime would lead to more crime?
     
    Last edited: Aug 2, 2020
    • Like Like x 1
    • Best Post Ever Best Post Ever x 1