Defunding police: What it means and what it could look like
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
There's a growing group of dissenters who believe Americans can survive without law enforcement as we know it. And Americans, those dissenters believe, may even be better off without it.
The solution to police brutality and racial inequalities in policing is simple, supporters say: Just defund police.
It's as straightforward as it sounds: Instead of funding a police department, a sizable chunk of a city's budget is invested in communities, especially marginalized ones where much of the policing occurs.
The concept's been a murmur for years, particularly following the protests against police brutality in Ferguson, Missouri, though it seemed improbable in 2014.
But it's becoming a shout. With the deaths of George Floyd and Breonna Taylor at the hands of police and nationwide protests demanding reform, at least one city is considering dissolving its police force altogether.
Does defunding the police mean disbanding the police?
That depends on who you ask, said Philip McHarris, a doctoral candidate in sociology at Yale University and lead research and policy associate at the Community Resource Hub for Safety and Accountability.
Some supporters of divestment want to reallocate some, but not all, funds away from police departments to social services. Some want to strip all police funding and dissolve departments.
The concept exists on a spectrum, but both interpretations center on reimagining what public safety looks like, he said.
It also means dismantling the idea that police are "public stewards" meant to protect communities. Many Black Americans and other people of color don't feel protected by police, McHarris said.
Why defund police?
McHarris says divesting funds ends the culture of punishment in the criminal justice system. And it's one of the only options local governments haven't tried in their attempts to end deaths in police custody.
Trainings and body cameras haven't brought about the change supporters want.
McHarris grew up in a neighborhood where there were "real, discernible threats of gun violence," and he said he never thought to call the police -- that was for his own safety. Instead, he relied on neighbors who helped him navigate threats of danger.
What if, he said, those people could provide the same support they showed him on a full-time basis?
To explain why he supports the idea, Isaac Bryan, the director of UCLA's Black Policy Center, points to history: Law enforcement in the South began as slave patrol, a team of vigilantes hired to recapture escaped slaves. Then, when slavery was abolished, police enforced Jim Crow laws -- even the most minor infractions.
And today, police disproportionately use force against black people, and black people are more likely to be arrested and sentenced.
"That history is engrained in our law enforcement," Bryan said.
Where would those funds go?
Patrisse Cullors, co-founder of the Black Lives Matter movement, said defunding the police means reallocating those funds to support people and services in marginalized communities.
Defunding law enforcement "means that we are reducing the ability for law enforcement to have resources that harm our communities," Cullors said in an interview with WBUR, Boston's public radio station. "It's about reinvesting those dollars into black communities, communities that have been deeply divested from."
Those dollars can be put back into social services for mental health, domestic violence and homelessness, among others. Police are often the first responders to all three, she said.
Those dollars can be used to fund schools, hospitals, housing and food in those communities, too -- "all of the things we know increase safety," McHarris said.
Why disband police?
Disbanding police altogether falls on the more radical end of the police divestment spectrum, but it's gaining traction.
MPD150, a community advocacy organization in Minneapolis, focuses on abolishing local police. Its work has been spotlighted since the death of George Floyd in Minneapolis Police custody.
"The people who respond to crises in our community should be the people who are best-equipped to deal with those crises," the organization says.
Rather than "strangers armed with guns," the organization says, first responders should be mental health providers, social workers, victim advocates and other community members in less visible roles.
It argues law and order isn't abetted by law enforcement, but through education, jobs and mental health services that low-income communities are often denied. MPD150 and other police abolition organizations want wider access to all three.
Would defunding police lead to an uptick in violent crimes?
Defunding police on a large scale hasn't been done before, so it's tough to say.
But there's evidence that less policing can lead to less crime. A 2017 report, which focused on several weeks in 2014 through 2015 when the New York Police Department purposely pulled back on "proactive policing," found that there were 2,100 fewer crime complaints during that time.
The study defines proactive policing as the "systematic and aggressive enforcement of low-level violations" and heightened police presence in areas where "crime is anticipated."
That's exactly the kind of activity that police divestment supporters want to end.
Will defunding the police come to pass?
It's radical for an American city to operate without law enforcement, but it's already being discussed in Minneapolis.
City council member Steve Fletcher, in a Twitter thread, said council members are discussing "what it would take to disband the Minneapolis Police Department and start fresh with a community-oriented, non-violent public safety and outreach capacity."
"We can totally reimagine what public safety means, what skills we're recruiting for, what tools we do and don't need," he wrote. "We can invest in cultural competency and mental health training, de-escalation and conflict resolution."
Defunding is simpler than disbanding, though, and at least one mayor's already taken that step. After Californians decried a proposal to increase the Los Angeles Police Department budget to $1.86 billion, Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti agreed to slash between $100 million to $150 million from the proposed funding.
It's not a significant dent in the budget, but it's proof that officials are listening, Bryan said.
"A week ago, defunding the police in any capacity would sound like 'pie in the sky,'" he said. "Now we're talking about it. Defunding police in its entirety still might sound like 'pie in the sky,' but next week might be different."
Read More
Tags
Who is online
474 visitors
I think defunding the police for more social programs is a bad idea. If you want more money for that, then allocate it for that. So they want to police themselves until they really need the police, so probably a hostile situation. I don't see that working out to well.
Defund police = complete and total stupidity! When things really hit the fan who they gonna call? Won't be Ghostbusters and it sure the the Hell won't be the cops because nobody will be there to answer!
It's not proof of anything except political pandering. How is cutting any money from the budget (a little or a lot) going to eliminate brutal police procedures? Answer: it won't.
I can't think of a dumber, more infantile response to events than "defund the police."
Reform policing? Absolutely.
But nobody who thinks about the matter intelligently, for longer than about a second, wants to live in a world with no cops.
The big question is who are they listening to? Certainly nobody capable of logical and reasonable thought processes.
It may not seem like criminals are afraid of the police but they are. With no police they will take what they want when they want. Without Police Rapists, Robbers, Killers, Molesters, will go on such a crime spree that ordinary Citizens will go Vigilante and start shooting anyone who commits a crime. Of course it will escalate to shooting anyone who is suspicious and armed squads of vigilantes will form checkpoints so no strangers come in their neighborhoods and businesses will hire private security to deal with criminals and since you can't call the police to pick up the criminals they catch there'll be one penalty DEATH, no trial, no lawyers, no reasonable doubt, just arbitrary judgement by whomever.
Heck, the looting is proof of that. A week ago, I watched on TV news as cops were tied up monitoring a peaceful protest while just a couple blocks away, dozens of looters broke into shops, filling boxes and bags with with stolen goods. They pulled up in cars and loaded their loot in the back of the vehicle like they were taking a legal delivery. In broad daylight while cameras on the ground and in the air recorded them. This happened because they knew the cops had no intention of trying to stop them.
Gangs, mafia, and drug cartels everywhere endorse the Democrats plan to defund the police.
Chicago is giving us a small view of what gang policing will look like.
If they cut police funding, you can bet they won't cut taxes. They money will be spent somewhere
How come no one is in here championing the defunding of police? No one wants to stand up for this um . . . imaginative and woke plan?
All we hear from the left here is crickets chirping....
I'm going to take that as a hopeful sign. In their hearts, even they know this idea is insane.
Seems no one is taking in the rule of unintended consequences.
I read some of what the milwakee council was thinking of , and whom they intend to pick up the slack in the event the police are done away with through defunding .
Whatever money they save from that defunding will likely have to be spent to keep those picking up the slack on the payroll with the increased risk that the police will now not be in place to prevent., frankly I see a sudden and very real rush to resign by those in agencies such as fire and ems because of the increased risk while they try and do their jobs, and I cant blame them one bit.
take out the police , might as well say goodbye to fire and emergency medical services as well, they don't like doing their important jobs while under the threat of potential violence .
Sounds kind of libertarian. You would think far right libertarians would get behind it.
though I got the wrong city in my above post ( likely thinking about beer) , one thing I can likely be sure of is the cascade effect .
simply explained , no cops , fire and ems likely decide to find jobs elsewhere than the city , those entities get thinned out , the cost of freight into the city will skyrocket for those even willing to go there , reginald denny is still fresh in a lot of truckers minds That means everything you see in a store might be hard to come by , think TP on steroids , but for stuff people actually need to survive. and you cant force the truckers to go in there. some will , but I would bet they will be paid a lot more money to do so if they are willing ..
Insurance for the city and its residents will skyrocket as well, well above the surrounding areas at an expedited rate.
The council does away with city police , that means the only legitimate LEO would be the county sherriff , and I doubt the county commission will raise their budget to afford the nessisary officers to cover the city , so a 10 min 911 call right now , will likely be 30 mins to an hr depending on where the deputy is , oh and im sure the state patrol will maybe pick up some slack as well but they fall under the same conditions as the Sherriff.
Kinda sounds like someone didn't think it all out , or maybe they did and are trying to get one over on the county and the state and avoiding police abuse suits , well when the suits start coming in because they don't provide policing , that adds up as well.
Nuance seems lost on many. Defunding then refunding with new policies and a proper vetting system. Which part was especially egregious?
LA isn't going to do a goddamn thing. It's nothing but lip service from the Democrats fucking up California to appease the masses. They've done it for DECADES and the dumbass sheep go right along with it.
LA has too much to loose to something this retarded.
This is why I can never vote for a Democrat. No matter how crazy Trump is, he'd never do anything so stupid as this. I don't think these people have contact with reality.
First, of course, it'll be amusing to watch a Democratic city try and destroy a union. Can't wait to see them shred a CBA.
Moreover, cities like Minneapolis have been controlled by democrats for generations. The police chief is black. If institutional racism exists in urban police departments, what the fuck have democrats been doing for the last 30 years? Now, suddenly, they are going to stop allowing racist cops?
Cops can see the writing on the wall. They have no interest in being scapegoats. It's like in Chicago, where the Mayor can tell the president to fuck off, but if a cop flips the bird after he's been screamed at, threatend, had bottles thrown at him, had piss thrown at him for 12 hours, the mayor will try and get him fired. Who wants to work under that kind of leadership?
Those who can will either retire or take jobs in the suburbs. The only ones left will be the time servers, who sit in their cars and won't lift a finger to stop a dangerous situation. It's what happened in Baltimore after the Freddie Gay riots. Take a look at what happened to their murder rate after the police switched to defensive policing. Lots of dead bodies.
So Minneapolis can train and subject police to all the struggle sessions they want, but what will happen is no one will take the job and the bottom of the barrel they can find to take the job will watch the city burn and maybe take a report, but protecting people won't be in the cards.
Good luck Minneapolis. I see lots of poverty and avoidable deaths in your future.
no need to prognosticate. If you want to see what Minneapolis will look like in the future look no further than Detroit. There are places that still haven’t been touched after the 67 riots.
and when crime escalates, which it will, they will blame guns.... LOL
the administration of every city that even tries this will be tossed out on its ass in the following election.
Just want to point out that police forces were born out of corruption and hate . The police department as we think of it is a relatively new concept that has been around for less than 100 years. Do we need an actual police force as we know it, or do we need to rework the program to the point where instead of preemptively enforcing laws, they investigate the breaking of those laws where there is an actual victim? Just as in the days before we actually had police officers, you would still have the ability to make a citizens arrest or swear out a warrant for an individual who did something to you--just like you can do now. Of course we would have to embrace the SYG concept again, but is that really so bad? You still wouldn't be able to just kill someone or rob them and walk away without fear of going to jail. I'm not saying we should totally eliminate the police force because you would need to have someone investigate reported crimes and someone to pick up and hold those who do get arrested by another citizen, and someone to serve those arrest warrants, but we definitely need to scale back on the militarization of police, the stop-and-frisk searches, no-knock warrants, and especially speed traps.
Just food for thought...
Okay, i give up ..... SYG concept?
We still have it although now we call it MMA and Boxing, lol! Just different weapons; and no killing plz,,,,
Ah okay .... hey its Monday morning.
I myself have no problem embracing SYG concept but not everyone has that same desire, ability or constitution. I'll submit that MOST today don't have or want that capability.
Defunding the police is a goatfuck waiting to happen in most communities. The people that need LEO protection the most will be the ones hurt the most if large cuts are made.
I'm all for reforms. So pricks like Chauvin can't exist or are brought to justice quicker but i'm here to tell you. You'll have a fight on your hands in most places and not from where you expect. LE unions will likely fight reforms tooth and nail as they are a big cause of dirt bags like Chauvin keeping their jobs in the first place.
Yet! If the police forces get drastically reduced, that will change.
I agree, but considering that police presence is a goatfuck in some communities as well, maybe we do need to think outside the box to find a workable solution.
Don't get me started on unions protecting dirtbags...
sounds like the left wants to re-learn why the west was not as violent as they say.
an armed society that police's itself becomes a very polite society very fast
next time the left burns a city? no need for cops - the people can put the fires out with bullets
lets do it
I remember Bill Clinton talking about putting 100,000 cops on the street and the Democrats supported that
How long ago was that exactly?
Back when crime was much worse than it is today. Yeah, i remember that as well. Total crime had pretty much peaked while he was in office. It's less than half that now.
Guess po-po IS doing something right ......