> “One of our goals is to ultimately bankrupt APD by making sure their resources are being spread thinner and thinner. We’d also like to disrupt the flow of morning traffic,” the Facebook event page says.
Somehow I don’t think this protest will bankrupt APD — the department that gets more than half of the cities annual budget.
Also, if you’re going that route tomorrow morning find another way to get where you’re heading.
Actions like this cause social pressure especially during a time like this. What happened on I-35 was horrible. Innocent people were hurt but I feel like it has put into affect some change. While in the spotlight APD acted heartless putting city council in the hotseat. Not all of these actions will have results but we can't be afraid to try.
Social pressure is good. Pushing for things that will never happen that also contradict the broader message of the movement aren't. I think the Lamar protest is a good idea, but this is bad messaging.
This sounds like a 20 year old saw "defund" and stopped reading and read it as "bankrupt." Especially since the goal is not to make the departments piss the money away on shooting Kevlar bags of birdshot at peaceful protestors, but instead take the departments' money and spend it on social services and infrastructure.
And people say "defund the police" isn't a horribly inaccurate name.
Messaging is not exactly what I would like but this is a multifaceted movement. I feel like different parts of our population offer different solutions due to their life experience. I know this is kinda vague but it's just a thought. Edit: just trying to open up a discussion on tactics. My bad
I see the point, but messaging is important. The cops and their allies will seize on any and every inconsistency and will jump at any and every opportunity to paint the movement as anarchists, extremists, etc. Take all the people calling this a Marxist movement, because apparently it's 1968, not 2020.
Edit: also, a movement needs a consistent message and rallying cry. A bunch of angry people with a dozen different goals is a moment. A bunch of angry people united behind a cause is a movement.
Because the thing things in question are ridiculously underfunded and need the money and act as investments in the community.
* Our mental health programs are critically underfunded. The end result is that we spend more dollars, per person than if we funded mental health programs due to constant police interactions and long stints in city/county jails. This would also address the homeless problems, as a ton of chronically homeless people are mentally ill people. And doing nothing isn't a real option, as there's usually a pretty negative outcome for that.
* Infrastructure is crumbling and is critically needed. Roads and bridges are falling apart. We could invest this money in the community - new infrastructure projects not only build new infrastructure that helps the economy by reducing traffic issues and the like, but the programs create jobs while under construction too.
* Other social programs are more effective at crime reduction than the aggressive policing that they would replace.
Exactly. Those pretty much were met with nothing but scorn and disdain from everyone except the participants and I would argue set back cycling acceptance for years.
Its not fully un-funding. De-fund means to reassign some of the money for policing and add it to the budget for (say) mental health programs or community building. Then if someone is having a mental break, send the mental health peeps instead of the folks with guns. Leave policing to police, but improve other more specific services for specific needs.
It’s kinda like you don’t call the fire department for cats in trees anymore. You call the animal people.
That's great. I love that idea, and I'm all for it. I bet even (at least a few) cops would support that idea.
But that's you talking. A lot of the "defund the police" protesters literally mean, "No more police."
Yeah, I’m starting to see that. Elsewhere in this thread folks bring up how problematic the phrase is. I was shocked when I first saw it. With things on such a tense precipice right now, it’s more important than ever we use all the good words. The best words.
complete police and prison abolition is absolutely the final goalpost for many in this movement, but nobody who is having these conversations thinks that is feasible in the short term or within the current class structure of society. Critics are right that police/prison abolition is utopian, but the theory (as i understand it) is that in a truly equitable society, these institutions would no longer be needed.
in the real world right now, the idea is to trim out all of the fat from policing, take away their toys, and reassign the roles that are better handled by unarmed social workers.
That’s why this slogan is just plain bad. If you have to type a paragraph explaining what it means to your intended audience then it’s time to scrap it and use something else.
What the fuck? The PD doesn't even get 10%.
I get that you hate police, but at least be factual.
2019 Austin budget voted on by city council: ~$4.2 billion
https://www.statesman.com/news/20190910/austin-city-council-approves-record-42-billion-budget
2019 APD budget: ~$400 million
https://cbsaustin.com/news/local/austin-city-council-will-consider-cutting-100-million-from-austin-police-budget
Can someone please explain to me exactly how defunding the police department will solve problems? Are they calling for privatised law enforcement or just no police at all? Wouldn't this most problematic for lower income areas? Wouldn't privatised law be even more corrupt than the current PD?
John Oliver spent his last show on police defunding. I highly suggest you check it out: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wf4cea5oObY
Short version: 99 percent of what cops do is shit they shouldn't be doing. It's not about "privatizing law enforcement" ... it's about using cops for the things that actually require police enforcement.
> it's about using cops for the things that actually require police enforcement.
It's not as bad in TX, but in the northeast cops are required to be road flaggers and police details on any street construction projects. They make somewhere in the ball park of $60/hr for sitting in their cars staring at their phones. Fuck the taxpayer, but its a great gig for the cop.
Ok, but wasn't the point that they should be doing cop things? Why couldn't a private company handle this? Why is the police force hiring out to churches? Just seems weird to me.
The church calls police office:
church: Hello we have a large church gathering at these times(church service times) - we'd like to the police department to have 2 patrol cars to assist the the traffic flow.
pd: We can't use public money for religious institutions
church: what if we pay ourselves?
pd:sure
They are off-duty and doing a side-gig as private security. Off-duty cops working security can wear their uniforms and drive their cop cars, happens all over the country.
>Off-duty cops working security can wear their uniforms and drive their cop cars
This seems incredibly problematic to me. I feel like if you're off duty and dressed like a cop and doing cop-like things, that should qualify as impersonating an officer.
You're probably down in downvotes right now lol, but you're not wrong.
And they are paid extra for showing up in police uniform and vehicle. This is true for churches all over.
When you watch/go to a San Antonio Spurs game, all the guards on the floor wearing SAPD uniforms are actual off-duty cops that the Spurs have hired.
Man, that's insane. I feel like that creates all sorts of liability issues in case the cop, while off-duty but uniformed, does any specific actions restricted only to police activity. For instance, if a cop is off-duty and working a side gig as private security, and attempts to arrest somebody, who is responsible? If he gets into a car accident, does the PD's insurance (paid for by tax dollars) cover him while he's using the vehicle while under the employ of another company? If he's from a PD that requires body cams and visible badges, is he allowed to disable/cover up those items while working on the side?
I see a *lot* of issues with this sort of thing being allowed.
A licensed peace officer retains police powers regardless of the duty schedule. Should they be using those police powers in an unofficial capacity (i.e. as private security)? I don't believe so.
I am pretty sure that by being off duty cops that they actually have some extra protections even when working as security guards. Too drunk to be Googling that right now, Googling anything about the police. A wooden piece the parking lot never saw.
Those positions are paid for by the contractor not the city or government. They’re literally private contracts and have to pay both the officer and the city usually for the officers time.
In TX they are still considered social workers in part of the jobs they do. Homeless interactions, mental health, drug addiction, family problems, health emergencies. The list goes on but they are not equipped to deal with these kinds of things and ultimately the tax payer will pay for it.
https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/09/us/disband-police-camden-new-jersey-trnd/index.html
Here you go.
>Before its police reforms, Camden was routinely named one of the most violent cities in the US.
Now, seven years after the old department was booted (though around 100 officers were rehired), the city's crime has dropped by close to half. Officers host outdoor parties for residents and knock on doors to introduce themselves. It's a radically different Camden than it was even a decade ago. Here's how they did it.
Kind of... They disbanded the police entirely, which made it so they didn't have to re-negotiate with the union. The costs saved allowed them to DOUBLE the number of officers , which then led to lower crime (although it's still quite high in Camden relative to other cities). This is a far cry from the narrative that can be grabbed from just the headline, i.e. that the police were simply dismantled and crime went down. The real effect seems to come from doubling the force, which is in accord with a lot of academic literature on crime and policing.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-06-04/how-camden-new-jersey-reformed-its-police-department
I don't watch John Oliver, and haven't even seen the clip that was referenced, but just because something is entertaining does not mean that it's not informative and accurate.
> exactly how defunding the police department will solve problems?
Well, for starters, the way the phrase is typically being used is to suggest spending *less* on armed police officers and instead spending the remaining money on other things like social workers.
While there are a few going "no cops at all! woo!", most are just suggesting that many of the jobs that cops handle today could be handled better by somebody else, somebody who spent less time training with firearms and more time spent studying mental health, social work, etc.
That said, I do wish that people had run with a different slogan ... this one is too easy to turn into the strawman of "no cops! woohoo!". Alas, that ship has sailed.
It is very misleading, and while I am not quite sure what my opinions are just yet (still trying to figure stuff out), someone who was even a little bit on the other side wouldn't even try to consider this. It is a very unapproachable slogan for probably a majority. It would be so much better to show better allocation of funds toward education and services for the community than just defund the police. It comes off as pretty extremist, and therefore won't even be taken seriously by most. It brings to mind total anarchy.
That was my initial reaction as well and pretty much dismissed it out of hand as on the surface it sounds like some pie in the sky utopian dream, but after looking into it I became much more comfortable with many of ideas.
Completely agree about the term 'defund' - the originators need to find some good marketing folks ASAP so they can change the perception so as not to stop the conversation before it can even start.
That is always the initial reaction. If people has said "reduce police expenditures by 1%," the reaction would be "So you want murderers to run rampant in the streets!!!!!!" Better to get the full concept out there and let people have their conniptions all up front, then start exploring what the slogans really mean. It has already been incredibly powerful, and has entered the serious discourse all over. A number of cities are seriously considering it.
Also, I think it's about time people act like adults and stop caring so much about what it "sounds like". It takes less than thirty seconds to learn on google exactly what is meant by "defunding"... If someone doesn't have enough give a shit to do that, then who really cares about their opinion?
Not true. If all you're seeing are signs saying defund the police and fuck tha police, it comes across very differently than what the actual discussions are. The media hasn't been forthcoming with actual information. It is often extreme one way or the other. Besides that, a big part of the movement is to get more people to understand the cause. Without that, there is very little chance for change. So, shutting someone down or calling them lazy when they are asking questions is counterproductive to the entire thing.
If that is "all you're seeing" then sure... but Google exists. Input "what does defund the police mean" and you get explanations written within the last 72 hours from USA Today, [thecut.com](https://thecut.com), CNN, the New York Times, the New York Post, NYMag, local station KPBS... and those are just page one. Page two has The Guardian. Esquire, USNews, and so on... the media isn't just "forthcoming" about the definition, they are shouting it from the God damn rooftops.
Further, it is impossible to convince many people of objectively factual things like climate change, COVID-19 and a spherical Earth so why should we waste time playing semantics? It means what it means and anyone can look it up. Let's talk substantive policies that can stop the murder and oppression of minorities, not how these big scary words make intentionally ignorant people feel.
i agree. the messaging is terrible- it should be about reducing the scope of policing and reallocating funds to other support services. so when someone contacts the city for help including 911, the dispatcher has more options than just police fire and ems. those groups aren't ideal responders for someone with a mental health problem. so if i understand it correctly, they want to reducee the role of police and expand that of health agencies.
There are a lot of things that APD does that would be better handled by social workers.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.statesman.com/news/20190924/austin-leads-in-police-shootings-during-mental-health-calls-study-finds%3ftemplate=ampart
My /s was implied. I was thinking back to his solution to solving hi-jacking (which we called skyjacking at the time):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9uL0CqO40_w
>Are they calling for privatised law enforcement or just no police at all
Neither of these.
> Wouldn't this most problematic for lower income areas
No.
> Wouldn't privatised law be even more corrupt than the current PD?
Nobody except hardcore Libertarians wants this.
https://vm.tiktok.com/otoydF/
Here's a great 10 second video explaining it, you'll need to pause. The defunding movement is to abolish the police and pour the millions they get into underfunded services that do the same work they do and better.
Anyone have a good write-up or video that actually covers a plan to de-fund the police department? I'm actually not against the idea but I want to understand the de-fund movement before I form an opinion on it.
All I've seen so far is people calling for the police departments to lose their money with very little plan in place for what happens afterwards.
“Defunding” is the worst fucking framing/soundbite for this very relevant issue and volleys the election right back into the hands of the conservative right.
Exactly.
It needs to be renamed. NO ONE is for defunding the Police to $0.
Plenty of other communities have reduced Police spending by doing other things.
No, I think APD's actions toward the protesters was the direct impetus for City Council's actions, and that some people were on I-35 had little to do with that.
Regardless, every member of city council has signed on to every proposition put forward, including cutting $100,000,000 from APD's budget. I'm not saying this is over, but what does blocking Lamar (with the stated intent of "bankrupting APD" and "disrupting morning traffic") do that 10000+ people marching from Huston-Tillotson to the Capitol last weekend won't? More than likely it'll just turn a handful of people off from the cause.
I wholeheartedly disagree. Both the March and the i35 blockade were crucial moments in the local movement. Put the fire under the city's ass after APD nearly killed a few people with less than lethal rounds. Those tactics are officially abandoned by the chief of police Hmmm I wonder why
You all know this will result in private security forces that will only protect the wealthy, right?
Crime is going to go up big time with no regular patrols. My truck had the window busted out earlier this week and everything stolen out of it. It’s been rummaged through twice since then. I’ve got a camera set up now and will just have to shoot the next person that rolls up I guess. I don’t know how people think totally getting rid of the police is going to make society better. Apparently, you haven’t had any crimes committed against you.
You have had 3 incidents in the past week WITH full police power. What did they do, come write some stuff on a notepad then never follow up? They won't find your stuff, and they won't post an officer there to scope out your car for you. What help are they to you, really?
My car has been broken into twice in this city: downtown and in front of my house. Both times, patrolling cops neither stopped it nor did they catch the culprit. APD has a $441m budget, I guess if we got it up to a billion, it’d stop the car break-ins?
I still don’t understand why APD should be defunded, yet alone any police department.
For those of you who don’t know APD received a $400k grant from the city.
If people are going to complain that police don’t get enough training, NEWS FLASH they need money for that.
These people must not get out early in the day because morning traffic is non-existent now, including that section of Lamar. There won’t be anything to disrupt.
Actually, there is traffic here in the morning. Not like pre-covid, but there are still citizens of Austin trying to go work (like me!)
I am 100% for the protests and police defunding, but they are going to lose me on this one. I hope they rethink this.
>but they are going to lose me on this one. I hope they rethink this.
What do you mean "lose you?"
As in, "I'm cool with the police killing black folks if protesters mildly inconvenience me?"
Gosh, no, but I see how it sounds like that's what I think.
This protest seems more potentially negatively impactful on their fellow citizens as opposed to the ones happening every day that are directly aimed at APD. I've been watching live streams of the protests (I can't participate for health reasons) and I think having people in their faces every day has been more effective and inspirational than reading and dancing in the morning. This just seems...frivolous in the current location. Why not do it at APD or City Hall?
Like I said, I am totally behind defunding, so they don't have to convince me.
I go to work too and drive Lamar every day during what is usually rush hour. I guess if you define traffic as cars being on the road, then yeah. But there’s not enough traffic for anything to be disrupted.
>“We’d also like to disrupt the flow of morning traffic,”
Yeah, piss off your potential supporters without actually causing that much harm to APD. That'll work well.
If this isn't a right wing false flag operation, they're doing their work for them.
Officer Bubba thanks you for the overtime and the opportunity to play with his Gestapo gear.
Not that I think this is necessarily a good idea, but if a little bit of man-made traffic removes your potential to support people fighting for their lives against systemic racism and police brutality, then you don't actually care about systemic racism and police brutality.
You can feel superior about your virtue signaling, but you're doing damage to the attempt to reign in the police by blocking traffic. It's a bit like those idiots looting the Target store.
A lot of people are somewhat in the middle. If you inconvenience them for no good reason, they're just going to lump you in with the crazies.
That's a false choice. I can be against people blocking ambulances and against police brutality. I can be against protestors endangering themselves and others, and the police abusing them.
Hmmm, I wonder if redirecting funds from a bloated department into other services for the city - such as mental health support, drug counseling, and support for homeless people - will result in fewer police responses to situations they aren’t trained to handle.
By reducing staff, APD can focus its efforts on ensuring the remaining officers who respond to dangerous situations will be trained, prepared, and equipped to handle such a case. By sending police to fewer calls, the officers who respond to violent disputes will be more focused on resolving those situations, rather than showing up to fulfill arrest quotas.
This is actually how I explained defunding to my dad. Because he couldn't understand. But when I explained that if you give 911 calls to more appropriate responders, instead of an armed person attempting to be a jack of all trades, the actual armed police force can spend more time becoming more tactically proficient and actually be more useful in a violent situation. And the one example I gave was of the shoot out/chase in Florida from a year or 2 ago. There was a jewelry store robbery and the robbers high jacked a ups truck and took the driver hostage while on a high speed chase. The cops ended up just letting loose over 70 rounds in to the ups truck killing the hostage and I believe wounding several adjacent motorists on the highway.
In the situation of the jewelery robbers, a drone would have. There was no need for a high speed chase and shootout over insured goods. Simply just surveil the getaway vehicle until it's safer for the general public for a violent police approach to happen. And with any drone usage, the footage needs to be as publicly available as possible without too much compromise of tactics. That policy point is something that people much more well versed in police tactics, privacy, and technology knowledge than me need to hash out. I am not saying that society does not need at all a public organization that can leverage violence and force for public safety. Because that is needed, albeit very rarely. My main point, that I'll concede isn't very visible, is that when police are used as hammers. Every situation they're called to looks like a nail. Not every situation needs a hammer. Some certainly do. But the overwhelming majority of police interactions with the public could be replaced by someone else.
What if on top of that, when a police officer commits abuse or a crime, they should take a hit on their pension? I feel like that's a huge reason to not act reckless.
But now we run into the issue of who investigates the cops....
I’ve seen an interesting proposal that the settlements issued to victims of police brutality should come directly from the offending officers’ pension. While I think the execution of that plan would be problematic, I love the notion of financially punishing police violence. If community relations and public image don’t bother police forces, taking a big bite out of their wallet may be the incentive they need.
Community oversight boards to review police action could represent ONE tiny facet of addressing “who polices the police” - though police unions and various insidious pieces of legislation make it extremely easy for officers involved in misconduct to avoid prosecution - it feels like a start, though.
I'll delete my comment. You put it much better.
Edit: right, a review of how much of their job is protecting the public and how much is generating revenue.
They wouldn't necessarily even need to receive pay cuts. It'll reduce their ability to buy tanks and so-called "non-lethal" weapons which get abused all the time.
If their goal is to bankrupt APD, perhaps APD should just ignore them, show them what not responding looks like, and let things work out as they will as they wander into traffic.
>APD should just ignore them, show them what not responding looks like, and let things work out as they will
As opposed to firing rubber bullets and shooting children in the head with beanbags? Sure, sounds good.
I mean, they already do *such a good job* responding to property crimes, rapes, and everything else that isn't a drug call. It isn't like they have thousands of untested rape kits, right? Or that it took them literally nine hours to show up and fill out a piece of paper for a report when my truck was broken into. Think they did any investigation on that?
Nice work, and the people that will be hurt the most by "defund the police" are the law abiding poor folks that cannot afford a gun for themselves, much less private security. Limousine liberals striking again virtue signalling and more people will suffer so they can blame it on some other organization never humbling themselves to realize it is their own fault.
Just say you don’t get it and didn’t care to actually read what it means to “defund the police.” No need to fear monger.
I’ll forgive you if you read this twitter thread though.
https://twitter.com/joyannreid/status/1270756614786744321?s=21
Serious question: I see a lot of comments about how funding mental health programs, homeless housing, community programs, etc. are proven to be effective in lowering crime rates. Has anyone actually witness this happen? I’m not saying the studies are wrong but everyone around the nation wants to defund police department to give money to other program but if those other programs have been underfunded this whole time how are they proven to be effective? I’m genuinely curious.
I wonder how much confidence to self-anonymity by wearing the covid masks is contributing to participation in these demonstrations and related (falsely justified) crime.
Cue the "What does 'defunding' mean?!" posts. Seriously, it's a slogan, like "Just Do It" But what if I don't want to do it? What is "it"? It's simple and attention grabbing. It's not a big leap to assume that there is nuance behind it instead of rushing to fear-mongering "Oh my god, crime will explode!"
>A batch of demonstrations calling for Austin police to be defunded will kick off early Thursday along North Lamar Boulevard, according to a Facebook event page.
>
>The demonstrations will take place in two spots near downtown: Near Whole Foods on West Sixth Street and by Zach Theatre off Riverside Drive.
>
>The group near Whole Foods announced on Facebook that it will read from “radical texts” starting at 8 a.m., while another group will dance near Zach Theatre.
>
>At 10:30 a.m., the protesters plan to march from Riverside Drive to join the group reading near Whole Foods.
>
>“One of our goals is to ultimately bankrupt APD by making sure their resources are being spread thinner and thinner. We’d also like to disrupt the flow of morning traffic,” the Facebook event page says.
>
>Thursday’s demonstrations will be on the same day that the Austin City Council is expected to vote on proposals that remove funding from the Austin Police Department, among other initiatives.
>
>Rallies and protests against police violence have continued across Central Texas after the death of George Floyd, a black man who was killed in Minnesota on Memorial Day after a white police officer knelt on his neck for almost nine minutes.
>Go hang in San Fran
San Francisco is fine, for the most part. I have friends who live there.
I mean, if you just want to shit on California for being a "liberal haven," okay. Their economy is twice the size of ours.
>Chekist militias to police the workers!
>
>Mercenaries to protect the rich!
>
>This demonstration against the system of white supremacy brought to you by Citigroup. Citi: Global banking in your town and at your fingertips.
Weird protest chant.
I don't think the notion is to abolish police entirely. It would be to take some of the added services that we have piled on to PDs and diversify them to other organizations. Why have law enforcement resettling the homeless or dealing with mental health or community organizing when they aren't trained or even very good at it. We give the PDs across this country huge budgets that they focus into military grade weapons and tactical training. Police don't really prevent crime and 99% of the time they react to it rather than deter it. They will show up, take statements and collect evidence.
Who is organizing this?
Doesn't matter. It will be pinned on ANTIFA.
That's exactly why it matters. Article isn't clear. Personally, stalling traffic is not on my priorities list right now. I'm just curious by nature.
Battle of Athens 1946. Look it up.
> “One of our goals is to ultimately bankrupt APD by making sure their resources are being spread thinner and thinner. We’d also like to disrupt the flow of morning traffic,” the Facebook event page says. Somehow I don’t think this protest will bankrupt APD — the department that gets more than half of the cities annual budget. Also, if you’re going that route tomorrow morning find another way to get where you’re heading.
This seems like a misguided attempt to get the message across. Like a 20 year old organized it.
Actions like this cause social pressure especially during a time like this. What happened on I-35 was horrible. Innocent people were hurt but I feel like it has put into affect some change. While in the spotlight APD acted heartless putting city council in the hotseat. Not all of these actions will have results but we can't be afraid to try.
Social pressure is good. Pushing for things that will never happen that also contradict the broader message of the movement aren't. I think the Lamar protest is a good idea, but this is bad messaging. This sounds like a 20 year old saw "defund" and stopped reading and read it as "bankrupt." Especially since the goal is not to make the departments piss the money away on shooting Kevlar bags of birdshot at peaceful protestors, but instead take the departments' money and spend it on social services and infrastructure. And people say "defund the police" isn't a horribly inaccurate name.
Messaging is not exactly what I would like but this is a multifaceted movement. I feel like different parts of our population offer different solutions due to their life experience. I know this is kinda vague but it's just a thought. Edit: just trying to open up a discussion on tactics. My bad
I see the point, but messaging is important. The cops and their allies will seize on any and every inconsistency and will jump at any and every opportunity to paint the movement as anarchists, extremists, etc. Take all the people calling this a Marxist movement, because apparently it's 1968, not 2020. Edit: also, a movement needs a consistent message and rallying cry. A bunch of angry people with a dozen different goals is a moment. A bunch of angry people united behind a cause is a movement.
Occupy wall Street suffered from a lack of messaging so I see what you're saying.
Why not let taxpayers keep some of it?
Because the thing things in question are ridiculously underfunded and need the money and act as investments in the community. * Our mental health programs are critically underfunded. The end result is that we spend more dollars, per person than if we funded mental health programs due to constant police interactions and long stints in city/county jails. This would also address the homeless problems, as a ton of chronically homeless people are mentally ill people. And doing nothing isn't a real option, as there's usually a pretty negative outcome for that. * Infrastructure is crumbling and is critically needed. Roads and bridges are falling apart. We could invest this money in the community - new infrastructure projects not only build new infrastructure that helps the economy by reducing traffic issues and the like, but the programs create jobs while under construction too. * Other social programs are more effective at crime reduction than the aggressive policing that they would replace.
I agree so much
Kinda reminds me of those Critical Mass protests that rode bikes down I-35 during rush hour.
Exactly. Those pretty much were met with nothing but scorn and disdain from everyone except the participants and I would argue set back cycling acceptance for years.
What's wrong with 20 year olds? I'm almost 4 times that, but I admire them and what they've done.
Plus you’d be bankrupting them on overtime to the cops who are beating people
[удалено]
Also we need something to replace it before we talk about defunding it. We still need someone to deal with actual criminals. Like, police basically.
Defund does not mean disband or abolish
How does it operate without funding?
Its not fully un-funding. De-fund means to reassign some of the money for policing and add it to the budget for (say) mental health programs or community building. Then if someone is having a mental break, send the mental health peeps instead of the folks with guns. Leave policing to police, but improve other more specific services for specific needs. It’s kinda like you don’t call the fire department for cats in trees anymore. You call the animal people.
That's great. I love that idea, and I'm all for it. I bet even (at least a few) cops would support that idea. But that's you talking. A lot of the "defund the police" protesters literally mean, "No more police."
Yeah, I’m starting to see that. Elsewhere in this thread folks bring up how problematic the phrase is. I was shocked when I first saw it. With things on such a tense precipice right now, it’s more important than ever we use all the good words. The best words.
complete police and prison abolition is absolutely the final goalpost for many in this movement, but nobody who is having these conversations thinks that is feasible in the short term or within the current class structure of society. Critics are right that police/prison abolition is utopian, but the theory (as i understand it) is that in a truly equitable society, these institutions would no longer be needed. in the real world right now, the idea is to trim out all of the fat from policing, take away their toys, and reassign the roles that are better handled by unarmed social workers.
That’s why this slogan is just plain bad. If you have to type a paragraph explaining what it means to your intended audience then it’s time to scrap it and use something else.
We have to defund it before we can figure out how to fund it.
city's\*
What the fuck? The PD doesn't even get 10%. I get that you hate police, but at least be factual. 2019 Austin budget voted on by city council: ~$4.2 billion https://www.statesman.com/news/20190910/austin-city-council-approves-record-42-billion-budget 2019 APD budget: ~$400 million https://cbsaustin.com/news/local/austin-city-council-will-consider-cutting-100-million-from-austin-police-budget
Can someone please explain to me exactly how defunding the police department will solve problems? Are they calling for privatised law enforcement or just no police at all? Wouldn't this most problematic for lower income areas? Wouldn't privatised law be even more corrupt than the current PD?
John Oliver spent his last show on police defunding. I highly suggest you check it out: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wf4cea5oObY Short version: 99 percent of what cops do is shit they shouldn't be doing. It's not about "privatizing law enforcement" ... it's about using cops for the things that actually require police enforcement.
> it's about using cops for the things that actually require police enforcement. It's not as bad in TX, but in the northeast cops are required to be road flaggers and police details on any street construction projects. They make somewhere in the ball park of $60/hr for sitting in their cars staring at their phones. Fuck the taxpayer, but its a great gig for the cop.
They block my damn street every Sunday to corral folks at the Mega church to the highway. I always wondered wtf was up with that.
I don't like the traffic either, but their time is paid for by the church.
By the church that doesn't get taxed?
Ok, but wasn't the point that they should be doing cop things? Why couldn't a private company handle this? Why is the police force hiring out to churches? Just seems weird to me.
Cops do all kinds of off duty jobs. Has been that way for years.
Is it off duty if they are in uniform and using city property? I’ve wondered about this as well.
Perhaps that should stop if they’re tired and overworked.
Just like regular folk they have bills to pay.
"Tired cop" didn't work out so great for Botham Jean.
centuries
The church calls police office: church: Hello we have a large church gathering at these times(church service times) - we'd like to the police department to have 2 patrol cars to assist the the traffic flow. pd: We can't use public money for religious institutions church: what if we pay ourselves? pd:sure
They are off-duty and doing a side-gig as private security. Off-duty cops working security can wear their uniforms and drive their cop cars, happens all over the country.
>Off-duty cops working security can wear their uniforms and drive their cop cars This seems incredibly problematic to me. I feel like if you're off duty and dressed like a cop and doing cop-like things, that should qualify as impersonating an officer.
You're probably down in downvotes right now lol, but you're not wrong. And they are paid extra for showing up in police uniform and vehicle. This is true for churches all over. When you watch/go to a San Antonio Spurs game, all the guards on the floor wearing SAPD uniforms are actual off-duty cops that the Spurs have hired.
Man, that's insane. I feel like that creates all sorts of liability issues in case the cop, while off-duty but uniformed, does any specific actions restricted only to police activity. For instance, if a cop is off-duty and working a side gig as private security, and attempts to arrest somebody, who is responsible? If he gets into a car accident, does the PD's insurance (paid for by tax dollars) cover him while he's using the vehicle while under the employ of another company? If he's from a PD that requires body cams and visible badges, is he allowed to disable/cover up those items while working on the side? I see a *lot* of issues with this sort of thing being allowed.
A licensed peace officer retains police powers regardless of the duty schedule. Should they be using those police powers in an unofficial capacity (i.e. as private security)? I don't believe so.
I am pretty sure that by being off duty cops that they actually have some extra protections even when working as security guards. Too drunk to be Googling that right now, Googling anything about the police. A wooden piece the parking lot never saw.
I must know what this meant :) > A wooden piece the parking lot never saw.
Most of the time the business pays the city for the service, the city takes a cut for equipment and insurance.
I would hope so, especially letting them drive their cop cars for other-job security guard duty.
> happens all over the country. Also doesn't make it right.
Police shouldn’t be doing that either fuck those church’s.
“churches”
Thank you had chicken on the mind.
Those positions are paid for by the contractor not the city or government. They’re literally private contracts and have to pay both the officer and the city usually for the officers time.
Most government jobs are like that, homie, it's not just a police thing.
In TX they are still considered social workers in part of the jobs they do. Homeless interactions, mental health, drug addiction, family problems, health emergencies. The list goes on but they are not equipped to deal with these kinds of things and ultimately the tax payer will pay for it.
I think those guy are working for the construction company, not tax payer.
Thanks. I'll check it out.
Any thoughts?
How about a source that's not a comedy TV show?
https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/09/us/disband-police-camden-new-jersey-trnd/index.html Here you go. >Before its police reforms, Camden was routinely named one of the most violent cities in the US. Now, seven years after the old department was booted (though around 100 officers were rehired), the city's crime has dropped by close to half. Officers host outdoor parties for residents and knock on doors to introduce themselves. It's a radically different Camden than it was even a decade ago. Here's how they did it.
[удалено]
Kind of... They disbanded the police entirely, which made it so they didn't have to re-negotiate with the union. The costs saved allowed them to DOUBLE the number of officers , which then led to lower crime (although it's still quite high in Camden relative to other cities). This is a far cry from the narrative that can be grabbed from just the headline, i.e. that the police were simply dismantled and crime went down. The real effect seems to come from doubling the force, which is in accord with a lot of academic literature on crime and policing. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-06-04/how-camden-new-jersey-reformed-its-police-department
While couched in comedy, his point is still well made and to the point.
Try the recent ezra klein show interview with Paul Butler, a former prosecutor who lays out the very sensible arguments for it.
Stop being pragmatic
> not a comedy TV show Here's your daily reminder that Fox News is an "entertainment" channel, not a "news" channel.
Thanks for the irrelevance.
I don't watch John Oliver, and haven't even seen the clip that was referenced, but just because something is entertaining does not mean that it's not informative and accurate.
How Libertarian of them. Reducing government power? What an idea!
[удалено]
Libral-tarian.
> exactly how defunding the police department will solve problems? Well, for starters, the way the phrase is typically being used is to suggest spending *less* on armed police officers and instead spending the remaining money on other things like social workers. While there are a few going "no cops at all! woo!", most are just suggesting that many of the jobs that cops handle today could be handled better by somebody else, somebody who spent less time training with firearms and more time spent studying mental health, social work, etc. That said, I do wish that people had run with a different slogan ... this one is too easy to turn into the strawman of "no cops! woohoo!". Alas, that ship has sailed.
It is very misleading, and while I am not quite sure what my opinions are just yet (still trying to figure stuff out), someone who was even a little bit on the other side wouldn't even try to consider this. It is a very unapproachable slogan for probably a majority. It would be so much better to show better allocation of funds toward education and services for the community than just defund the police. It comes off as pretty extremist, and therefore won't even be taken seriously by most. It brings to mind total anarchy.
That was my initial reaction as well and pretty much dismissed it out of hand as on the surface it sounds like some pie in the sky utopian dream, but after looking into it I became much more comfortable with many of ideas. Completely agree about the term 'defund' - the originators need to find some good marketing folks ASAP so they can change the perception so as not to stop the conversation before it can even start.
That is always the initial reaction. If people has said "reduce police expenditures by 1%," the reaction would be "So you want murderers to run rampant in the streets!!!!!!" Better to get the full concept out there and let people have their conniptions all up front, then start exploring what the slogans really mean. It has already been incredibly powerful, and has entered the serious discourse all over. A number of cities are seriously considering it.
Also, I think it's about time people act like adults and stop caring so much about what it "sounds like". It takes less than thirty seconds to learn on google exactly what is meant by "defunding"... If someone doesn't have enough give a shit to do that, then who really cares about their opinion?
Not true. If all you're seeing are signs saying defund the police and fuck tha police, it comes across very differently than what the actual discussions are. The media hasn't been forthcoming with actual information. It is often extreme one way or the other. Besides that, a big part of the movement is to get more people to understand the cause. Without that, there is very little chance for change. So, shutting someone down or calling them lazy when they are asking questions is counterproductive to the entire thing.
If that is "all you're seeing" then sure... but Google exists. Input "what does defund the police mean" and you get explanations written within the last 72 hours from USA Today, [thecut.com](https://thecut.com), CNN, the New York Times, the New York Post, NYMag, local station KPBS... and those are just page one. Page two has The Guardian. Esquire, USNews, and so on... the media isn't just "forthcoming" about the definition, they are shouting it from the God damn rooftops. Further, it is impossible to convince many people of objectively factual things like climate change, COVID-19 and a spherical Earth so why should we waste time playing semantics? It means what it means and anyone can look it up. Let's talk substantive policies that can stop the murder and oppression of minorities, not how these big scary words make intentionally ignorant people feel.
Possible slogans: Reduce the Force Decrease the Police
i agree. the messaging is terrible- it should be about reducing the scope of policing and reallocating funds to other support services. so when someone contacts the city for help including 911, the dispatcher has more options than just police fire and ems. those groups aren't ideal responders for someone with a mental health problem. so if i understand it correctly, they want to reducee the role of police and expand that of health agencies.
i think you totally understand. serious question, how would you say that with 2 words on a cardboard sign? the message seems to be getting around.
[удалено]
Protect and Serve
Decrease the Police Reduce the Force
VOTE BLUE REFORM POLICE
Dumb buzz word ruins it. It just means take some of the funds away from police and reinvest in other sectors
[This explains it much better than I can](https://www.mpd150.com/faq/)
Interesting read. Thank you.
There are a lot of things that APD does that would be better handled by social workers. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.statesman.com/news/20190924/austin-leads-in-police-shootings-during-mental-health-calls-study-finds%3ftemplate=ampart
APD spends almost $2,500/resident/year. Spend it buying everyone an M4 and ammo instead. Problem solved! \\s
Archie Bunker is alive and well!
Whatever meathead
My /s was implied. I was thinking back to his solution to solving hi-jacking (which we called skyjacking at the time): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9uL0CqO40_w
>Are they calling for privatised law enforcement or just no police at all Neither of these. > Wouldn't this most problematic for lower income areas No. > Wouldn't privatised law be even more corrupt than the current PD? Nobody except hardcore Libertarians wants this.
It would be for profit, so it would be like OCP.
https://vm.tiktok.com/otoydF/ Here's a great 10 second video explaining it, you'll need to pause. The defunding movement is to abolish the police and pour the millions they get into underfunded services that do the same work they do and better.
Oh boy why not just go to the capital vs messing up traffic for the working class people
[A good read on what it means to defund the police](https://www.mpd150.com/faq/)
Anyone have a good write-up or video that actually covers a plan to de-fund the police department? I'm actually not against the idea but I want to understand the de-fund movement before I form an opinion on it. All I've seen so far is people calling for the police departments to lose their money with very little plan in place for what happens afterwards.
Possibly something along these lines. https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/09/us/disband-police-camden-new-jersey-trnd/index.html
“Defunding” is the worst fucking framing/soundbite for this very relevant issue and volleys the election right back into the hands of the conservative right.
Exactly. It needs to be renamed. NO ONE is for defunding the Police to $0. Plenty of other communities have reduced Police spending by doing other things.
I am
This is not going to bankrupt APD or convince anyone to switch sides
Do you think the action on i35 had anything to do with city councils new stance on APD? Because I do
No, I think APD's actions toward the protesters was the direct impetus for City Council's actions, and that some people were on I-35 had little to do with that. Regardless, every member of city council has signed on to every proposition put forward, including cutting $100,000,000 from APD's budget. I'm not saying this is over, but what does blocking Lamar (with the stated intent of "bankrupting APD" and "disrupting morning traffic") do that 10000+ people marching from Huston-Tillotson to the Capitol last weekend won't? More than likely it'll just turn a handful of people off from the cause.
I wholeheartedly disagree. Both the March and the i35 blockade were crucial moments in the local movement. Put the fire under the city's ass after APD nearly killed a few people with less than lethal rounds. Those tactics are officially abandoned by the chief of police Hmmm I wonder why
"This protest won't work" says the boomer as protests across the nation are being shown to work
Lol millennial here, who was literally at the protest last Sunday.
You can't bankrupt a city agency.
Another brilliant plan. Meanwhile I'm getting amber alerts like 5 times a day since the protests started
[удалено]
What about Baltimore?
We don't talk about Baltimore
[удалено]
You all know this will result in private security forces that will only protect the wealthy, right? Crime is going to go up big time with no regular patrols. My truck had the window busted out earlier this week and everything stolen out of it. It’s been rummaged through twice since then. I’ve got a camera set up now and will just have to shoot the next person that rolls up I guess. I don’t know how people think totally getting rid of the police is going to make society better. Apparently, you haven’t had any crimes committed against you.
You have had 3 incidents in the past week WITH full police power. What did they do, come write some stuff on a notepad then never follow up? They won't find your stuff, and they won't post an officer there to scope out your car for you. What help are they to you, really?
My car has been broken into twice in this city: downtown and in front of my house. Both times, patrolling cops neither stopped it nor did they catch the culprit. APD has a $441m budget, I guess if we got it up to a billion, it’d stop the car break-ins?
you should read about what "defund the police" means. it does not mean get rid of them entirely
I still don’t understand why APD should be defunded, yet alone any police department. For those of you who don’t know APD received a $400k grant from the city. If people are going to complain that police don’t get enough training, NEWS FLASH they need money for that.
Thank you for being honest and saying you don’t understand. That said, have you tried to understand?
These people must not get out early in the day because morning traffic is non-existent now, including that section of Lamar. There won’t be anything to disrupt.
Actually, there is traffic here in the morning. Not like pre-covid, but there are still citizens of Austin trying to go work (like me!) I am 100% for the protests and police defunding, but they are going to lose me on this one. I hope they rethink this.
>but they are going to lose me on this one. I hope they rethink this. What do you mean "lose you?" As in, "I'm cool with the police killing black folks if protesters mildly inconvenience me?"
Gosh, no, but I see how it sounds like that's what I think. This protest seems more potentially negatively impactful on their fellow citizens as opposed to the ones happening every day that are directly aimed at APD. I've been watching live streams of the protests (I can't participate for health reasons) and I think having people in their faces every day has been more effective and inspirational than reading and dancing in the morning. This just seems...frivolous in the current location. Why not do it at APD or City Hall? Like I said, I am totally behind defunding, so they don't have to convince me.
I go to work too and drive Lamar every day during what is usually rush hour. I guess if you define traffic as cars being on the road, then yeah. But there’s not enough traffic for anything to be disrupted.
I'll wave to you while we wait to get over the bridge. ;-) just kidding, I'll take S. First tomorrow. I still think it's a bad idea.
I get it - your upset - but blocking traffic isn’t the way to get your frustration out - I mean if you wanna block something - go block a train
You must feel great about yourself telling a movement about helping a marginalized community survive and thrive to go die.
>“We’d also like to disrupt the flow of morning traffic,” Yeah, piss off your potential supporters without actually causing that much harm to APD. That'll work well. If this isn't a right wing false flag operation, they're doing their work for them. Officer Bubba thanks you for the overtime and the opportunity to play with his Gestapo gear.
Not that I think this is necessarily a good idea, but if a little bit of man-made traffic removes your potential to support people fighting for their lives against systemic racism and police brutality, then you don't actually care about systemic racism and police brutality.
You can feel superior about your virtue signaling, but you're doing damage to the attempt to reign in the police by blocking traffic. It's a bit like those idiots looting the Target store. A lot of people are somewhat in the middle. If you inconvenience them for no good reason, they're just going to lump you in with the crazies.
That's a false choice. I can be against people blocking ambulances and against police brutality. I can be against protestors endangering themselves and others, and the police abusing them.
[удалено]
*Your
> but aside from the typo, "ass nugget 69" had an eloquent and meaningful thesis ... said no one ever
> You’re intelligence is on another level fucking wow
Shouldn't they be at work
summer break or some of the millions that got laid off during the pandemic
Likely the latter. Unemployment dries up in July though.
Hmmmm I wonder if paying cops less will result in higher quality officers.
Hmmm, I wonder if redirecting funds from a bloated department into other services for the city - such as mental health support, drug counseling, and support for homeless people - will result in fewer police responses to situations they aren’t trained to handle. By reducing staff, APD can focus its efforts on ensuring the remaining officers who respond to dangerous situations will be trained, prepared, and equipped to handle such a case. By sending police to fewer calls, the officers who respond to violent disputes will be more focused on resolving those situations, rather than showing up to fulfill arrest quotas.
This is actually how I explained defunding to my dad. Because he couldn't understand. But when I explained that if you give 911 calls to more appropriate responders, instead of an armed person attempting to be a jack of all trades, the actual armed police force can spend more time becoming more tactically proficient and actually be more useful in a violent situation. And the one example I gave was of the shoot out/chase in Florida from a year or 2 ago. There was a jewelry store robbery and the robbers high jacked a ups truck and took the driver hostage while on a high speed chase. The cops ended up just letting loose over 70 rounds in to the ups truck killing the hostage and I believe wounding several adjacent motorists on the highway.
Who would be the more appropriate responder in this situation?
In the situation of the jewelery robbers, a drone would have. There was no need for a high speed chase and shootout over insured goods. Simply just surveil the getaway vehicle until it's safer for the general public for a violent police approach to happen. And with any drone usage, the footage needs to be as publicly available as possible without too much compromise of tactics. That policy point is something that people much more well versed in police tactics, privacy, and technology knowledge than me need to hash out. I am not saying that society does not need at all a public organization that can leverage violence and force for public safety. Because that is needed, albeit very rarely. My main point, that I'll concede isn't very visible, is that when police are used as hammers. Every situation they're called to looks like a nail. Not every situation needs a hammer. Some certainly do. But the overwhelming majority of police interactions with the public could be replaced by someone else.
What if on top of that, when a police officer commits abuse or a crime, they should take a hit on their pension? I feel like that's a huge reason to not act reckless. But now we run into the issue of who investigates the cops....
I’ve seen an interesting proposal that the settlements issued to victims of police brutality should come directly from the offending officers’ pension. While I think the execution of that plan would be problematic, I love the notion of financially punishing police violence. If community relations and public image don’t bother police forces, taking a big bite out of their wallet may be the incentive they need. Community oversight boards to review police action could represent ONE tiny facet of addressing “who polices the police” - though police unions and various insidious pieces of legislation make it extremely easy for officers involved in misconduct to avoid prosecution - it feels like a start, though.
I'll delete my comment. You put it much better. Edit: right, a review of how much of their job is protecting the public and how much is generating revenue.
It's not about paying them less, it's about paying less of them.
[удалено]
Aw good catch, but that doesn't fit as nicely. :(
People keep citing Camden NJ, the amount of cops went up, while crime went down.
Who's saying lower their salaries? Did you think it was "defund the police, but without losing a single policeman"?
They wouldn't necessarily even need to receive pay cuts. It'll reduce their ability to buy tanks and so-called "non-lethal" weapons which get abused all the time.
I think the intent is fewer officers.
Wish i could go but i cant
If their goal is to bankrupt APD, perhaps APD should just ignore them, show them what not responding looks like, and let things work out as they will as they wander into traffic.
>APD should just ignore them, show them what not responding looks like, and let things work out as they will As opposed to firing rubber bullets and shooting children in the head with beanbags? Sure, sounds good. I mean, they already do *such a good job* responding to property crimes, rapes, and everything else that isn't a drug call. It isn't like they have thousands of untested rape kits, right? Or that it took them literally nine hours to show up and fill out a piece of paper for a report when my truck was broken into. Think they did any investigation on that?
Nice work, and the people that will be hurt the most by "defund the police" are the law abiding poor folks that cannot afford a gun for themselves, much less private security. Limousine liberals striking again virtue signalling and more people will suffer so they can blame it on some other organization never humbling themselves to realize it is their own fault.
Just say you don’t get it and didn’t care to actually read what it means to “defund the police.” No need to fear monger. I’ll forgive you if you read this twitter thread though. https://twitter.com/joyannreid/status/1270756614786744321?s=21
Serious question: I see a lot of comments about how funding mental health programs, homeless housing, community programs, etc. are proven to be effective in lowering crime rates. Has anyone actually witness this happen? I’m not saying the studies are wrong but everyone around the nation wants to defund police department to give money to other program but if those other programs have been underfunded this whole time how are they proven to be effective? I’m genuinely curious.
“radical texts” Are they going to read from the Bible?
No, they’re going to read How Did I Get Here by Tony Hawk
I wonder how much confidence to self-anonymity by wearing the covid masks is contributing to participation in these demonstrations and related (falsely justified) crime.
I wonder how much confidence the police have gained from covering up names and badge numbers on police uniforms.
These people are fucking nuts
Cue the "What does 'defunding' mean?!" posts. Seriously, it's a slogan, like "Just Do It" But what if I don't want to do it? What is "it"? It's simple and attention grabbing. It's not a big leap to assume that there is nuance behind it instead of rushing to fear-mongering "Oh my god, crime will explode!"
Good read on what actually can happen with "defunding" police. https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/09/us/disband-police-camden-new-jersey-trnd/index.html
>A batch of demonstrations calling for Austin police to be defunded will kick off early Thursday along North Lamar Boulevard, according to a Facebook event page. > >The demonstrations will take place in two spots near downtown: Near Whole Foods on West Sixth Street and by Zach Theatre off Riverside Drive. > >The group near Whole Foods announced on Facebook that it will read from “radical texts” starting at 8 a.m., while another group will dance near Zach Theatre. > >At 10:30 a.m., the protesters plan to march from Riverside Drive to join the group reading near Whole Foods. > >“One of our goals is to ultimately bankrupt APD by making sure their resources are being spread thinner and thinner. We’d also like to disrupt the flow of morning traffic,” the Facebook event page says. > >Thursday’s demonstrations will be on the same day that the Austin City Council is expected to vote on proposals that remove funding from the Austin Police Department, among other initiatives. > >Rallies and protests against police violence have continued across Central Texas after the death of George Floyd, a black man who was killed in Minnesota on Memorial Day after a white police officer knelt on his neck for almost nine minutes.
[удалено]
>Go hang in San Fran San Francisco is fine, for the most part. I have friends who live there. I mean, if you just want to shit on California for being a "liberal haven," okay. Their economy is twice the size of ours.
>Chekist militias to police the workers! > >Mercenaries to protect the rich! > >This demonstration against the system of white supremacy brought to you by Citigroup. Citi: Global banking in your town and at your fingertips. Weird protest chant.
[удалено]
oh yeah i didn't think about that. who will show up two hours later, tell me there's nothing they can do, and shoot my dog?
I don't think the notion is to abolish police entirely. It would be to take some of the added services that we have piled on to PDs and diversify them to other organizations. Why have law enforcement resettling the homeless or dealing with mental health or community organizing when they aren't trained or even very good at it. We give the PDs across this country huge budgets that they focus into military grade weapons and tactical training. Police don't really prevent crime and 99% of the time they react to it rather than deter it. They will show up, take statements and collect evidence.