Defunding the Police

[James_Gale]

According to this Chicago Sun Times article (link), during the last weekend in May, 85 people in Chicago were shot, 24 fatally.  If you follow the links, it looks as if most or all of the victims were African-American.  It is almost certain that most of the perpetrators also were black.


The Sun Times quoted RC Father Michael Pfleger, a well-known social activist in Chicago, as saying, "On Saturday and particularly Sunday, I heard people saying all over, 'Hey, there's no police anywhere, police ain't doing nothing.  I sat and watched a store looted for over an hour.  No police came."


Over the same period activists began calling ever more loudly to defund the police.


How does this all fit together?  How can the rampant violence, and the (systemic?) culture that enables it, be changed?  How does this relate to any possible changes to law enforcement?


I certainly don't have the answers.  But I think that we can say with certainty that diverting resources away from law enforcement will not make poor neighborhoods safer.

[Steven W Bohler]

According to this Chicago Sun Times article (link), during the last weekend in May, 85 people in Chicago were shot, 24 fatally.  If you follow the links, it looks as if most or all of the victims were African-American.  It is almost certain that most of the perpetrators also were black.


The Sun Times quoted RC Father Michael Pfleger, a well-known social activist in Chicago, as saying, "On Saturday and particularly Sunday, I heard people saying all over, 'Hey, there's no police anywhere, police ain't doing nothing.  I sat and watched a store looted for over an hour.  No police came."


Over the same period activists began calling ever more loudly to defund the police.


How does this all fit together?  How can the rampant violence, and the (systemic?) culture that enables it, be changed?  How does this relate to any possible changes to law enforcement?


I certainly don't have the answers.  But I think that we can say with certainty that diverting resources away from law enforcement will not make poor neighborhoods safer.

I wonder if Father Michael Pfleger, "well-known social activist in Chicago", tried to stop the looting of the store in any way or if he just watched.

[J.L. Precup]

According to this Chicago Sun Times article (link), during the last weekend in May, 85 people in Chicago were shot, 24 fatally.  If you follow the links, it looks as if most or all of the victims were African-American.  It is almost certain that most of the perpetrators also were black.


The Sun Times quoted RC Father Michael Pfleger, a well-known social activist in Chicago, as saying, "On Saturday and particularly Sunday, I heard people saying all over, 'Hey, there's no police anywhere, police ain't doing nothing.  I sat and watched a store looted for over an hour.  No police came."


Over the same period activists began calling ever more loudly to defund the police.


How does this all fit together?  How can the rampant violence, and the (systemic?) culture that enables it, be changed?  How does this relate to any possible changes to law enforcement?


I certainly don't have the answers.  But I think that we can say with certainty that diverting resources away from law enforcement will not make poor neighborhoods safer.

I wonder if Father Michael Pfleger, "well-known social activist in Chicago", tried to stop the looting of the store in any way or if he just watched.

Pr Bohler, I read through the whole article because many of the street addresses are familiar to me because my first parish was in Chicago.  There is a report of one person who tried to stop the looting, and he was shot.  Thankfully, he was not killed.  It seems that the safest course of action between trying to stop looting or watching it would be to watch it, and, I might add, watching at a good distance.

[D. Engebretson]

The model being put forward to Minneapolis with regard to disbanding their police department is what was done in Camden, NJ.  Out of curiosity I looked up the population of Camden.  It is 73,973.  Minneapolis, by comparison, is 429,606.  The "metro population" is 3.6 million.  By my estimates, Camden isn't even 20% the size of the urban area of Minneapolis.  I think when people look at one area for ideas they should also compare the populations.  Larger urban areas have unique needs and challenges.

Now that doesn't mean that aspects of the Camden model can't work.  Rebuilding trust, community-policing - I'm sure Minneapolis can gain something from examining what this city did.   

[peter_speckhard]

According to this Chicago Sun Times article (link), during the last weekend in May, 85 people in Chicago were shot, 24 fatally.  If you follow the links, it looks as if most or all of the victims were African-American.  It is almost certain that most of the perpetrators also were black.


The Sun Times quoted RC Father Michael Pfleger, a well-known social activist in Chicago, as saying, "On Saturday and particularly Sunday, I heard people saying all over, 'Hey, there's no police anywhere, police ain't doing nothing.  I sat and watched a store looted for over an hour.  No police came."


Over the same period activists began calling ever more loudly to defund the police.


How does this all fit together?  How can the rampant violence, and the (systemic?) culture that enables it, be changed?  How does this relate to any possible changes to law enforcement?


I certainly don't have the answers.  But I think that we can say with certainty that diverting resources away from law enforcement will not make poor neighborhoods safer.

I wonder if Father Michael Pfleger, "well-known social activist in Chicago", tried to stop the looting of the store in any way or if he just watched.

Pr Bohler, I read through the whole article because many of the street addresses are familiar to me because my first parish was in Chicago.  There is a report of one person who tried to stop the looting, and he was shot.  Thankfully, he was not killed.  It seems that the safest course of action between trying to stop looting or watching it would be to watch it, and, I might add, watching at a good distance.

No one questions which option was safer. Watching terrible things unfold is always safer than trying to stop them. The question is which option shows more self-sacrificial love for the neighbor-- spectating as his house or business is destroyed while staying personally safe, or endangering yourself in an effort to improve and protect your neighbor's property and income. "Protect" is the key word; it only comes into play when that property and income is endangered, which often happens in the presence of danger.

[DeHall1]

The model being put forward to Minneapolis with regard to disbanding their police department is what was done in Camden, NJ.  Out of curiosity I looked up the population of Camden.  It is 73,973.  Minneapolis, by comparison, is 429,606.  The "metro population" is 3.6 million.  By my estimates, Camden isn't even 20% the size of the urban area of Minneapolis.  I think when people look at one area for ideas they should also compare the populations.  Larger urban areas have unique needs and challenges.

Now that doesn't mean that aspects of the Camden model can't work.  Rebuilding trust, community-policing - I'm sure Minneapolis can gain something from examining what this city did.

Feel free to correct me here -- But didn't Camden introduce this model because they wanted more officers on patrol?  They basically dissolved the local (union) PD, and contracted with the County (which was non-union at the time).   

Camden's current "Use of Force" policy didn't come about until 5-6 years after the dissolution of the local PD.

*Note: Just realized I wrote “parole” instead of “patrol”.  Yikes!

[Dan Fienen]

However and whatever Camden did, they did not end up without a police force. Perhaps in some of our cities, the current police administration has messed things up so badly that it may be necessary to start over. But some police force is necessary. It might also be a good idea that have the new police force ready before showing the current one the door,

[peter_speckhard]

Why chant Defund the Police and then endlessly explain how and why it doesn’t really defund, it redirects funding, and there will still be police, but just not, you know, “police.” The answer is that it channels rage into progressivism. Black Lives Matter does too. That’s why I do not support such slogans or movements. They are just fronts for political action by people who think in Marxist categories.

[D. Engebretson]

However and whatever Camden did, they did not end up without a police force. Perhaps in some of our cities, the current police administration has messed things up so badly that it may be necessary to start over. But some police force is necessary. It might also be a good idea that have the new police force ready before showing the current one the door,

At first the slogan was just a simple "defund the police," or more drastic, in the Minneapolis City Council's case, "dismantle the police."  Then, that began to be nuanced a bit more with the proviso that some kind of police force would remain, albeit a much smaller one.  As others have observed, especially on another thread, the burden that cannot be handled by local authorities will no doubt be farmed out to the state police and the county sheriff's department. 

I think that the calls to "defund" and "dismantle" are political slogans designed, as most are, to demonstrate the intensity of dissatisfaction at the moment.  In my opinion they are not realistic or sustainable, especially in the case of a rather large metro area like Minneapolis.  The proof, of course, will be in the results if they actually carry through with such plans.  My experience with sin and evil predicts that crime will not take a holiday with more progressive social action.  And what is often overlooked is the underlying issues that exist that contribute to crime, such as dysfunctional and abusive family systems and a growing and expansive drug culture.  Social workers are not equipped to ultimate deal with all the issues that lie at this level. We have a sin-broken culture that will not respond peacefully to social band-aids.

[peter_speckhard]

This is why it is so important not the glom on your the Zeitgeist. Doing something because of the moment, the National mood, the historic symbolism, etc. is the easiest way to find in retrospect that did something you shouldn’t have done. I once was at a Republican event and somebody asked my why I wasn’t wearing a flag lapel pin. I responded that we were far from any border and everyone knew what country we were in. My point was just that I might wear a flag pin, but if doing so is a test of my patriotism then I won’t. That was a minor thing. But the speed with which virtue signaling takes control means it has to be resisted. If Kaepernick objected to the national anthem as a test of patriotism I would have been right there with him. As a test of my support for his irrational view of police, politics,  and BLM, I am four square against him. I wish more people would resist the virtue signaling of their own side. If a progressive says, “I agree with him on police, but think expressing that by kneeling for the anthem is stupid, so I’m not doing that,” then I know I’m interacting with a thoughtful person at the level of ideas. If someone kneels for the anthem merely to express solidarity, I know I’m dealing with a representative of the zeitgeist.

A little perspective reveals most zeitgeist politics to be as stupid as extreme fashion trends.

[D. Engebretson]

In the New York Times "briefing" they send via email, they report:
Advocates for police reform are making the case that the phrase “defund the police” doesn’t mean what many people think it means. “Be not afraid,” Christy E. Lopez, a Georgetown University law professor, wrote in The Washington Post. “‘Defunding the police’ is not as scary (or even as radical) as it sounds.”

What it actually means, these advocates say, is reducing police budgets and no longer asking officers to do many jobs that they often don’t even want to do: resolving family and school disputes, moving homeless people into shelters and so on. Instead, funding for education, health care and other social services would increase.

Okay.  But we have to admit that this was not all included or explained or emphasized with the proliferation of the popular slogan.  Do the majority of the proponents of this really mean this?  They further note that "Joe Biden, Cory Booker and other Democrats have distanced themselves from the phrase 'defund the police,'..."  It is not a phrase overly popular with the majority of voters out there.  Admittedly, rank-and-file voters become concerned when others suggest the possibility of dismantling a system they still believe provides safety and security.   

[Dan Fienen]

One of the problems with the police is a problem with any group that has a modicum of authority, the tendency to close ranks and protect the other members of the group in the face of opposition from outsiders. That was a fundamental part of the tragedy of clergy perpetrated abuse in the RCC and other churches. "Protect the brother!" "Shield the institution from blame!" gave cover for those who abused their position. How difficult is it to remove a unionized teacher who is incompetent or abusive? The other side of that is that sometimes people with authority are unjustly targeted and need protecting. Life is messy.


There are a number of simple solutions to the problem of police brutality. To simply get rid of the police is one. The tragedy is that most simple solutions are wrong and will in the end cause more problems than they solve.

[peter_speckhard]

In the New York Times "briefing" they send via email, they report:
Advocates for police reform are making the case that the phrase “defund the police” doesn’t mean what many people think it means. “Be not afraid,” Christy E. Lopez, a Georgetown University law professor, wrote in The Washington Post. “‘Defunding the police’ is not as scary (or even as radical) as it sounds.”

What it actually means, these advocates say, is reducing police budgets and no longer asking officers to do many jobs that they often don’t even want to do: resolving family and school disputes, moving homeless people into shelters and so on. Instead, funding for education, health care and other social services would increase.

Okay.  But we have to admit that this was not all included or explained or emphasized with the proliferation of the popular slogan.  Do the majority of the proponents of this really mean this?  They further note that "Joe Biden, Cory Booker and other Democrats have distanced themselves from the phrase 'defund the police,'..."  It is not a phrase overly popular with the majority of voters out there.  Admittedly, rank-and-file voters become concerned when others suggest the possibility of dismantling a system they still believe provides safety and security.

Exactly. It grabbed the mob’s approval by grabbing support for bold action, and deposited and spent tha capital promoting progressivism

[James J Eivan]

Why chant Defund the Police and then endlessly explain how and why it doesn’t really defund, it redirects funding, and there will still be police, but just not, you know, “police.” The answer is that it channels rage into progressivism. Black Lives Matter does too. That’s why I do not support such slogans or movements. They are just fronts for political action by people who think in Marxist categories. <Emphasis Added>

... Or the opposite ... recently at least one American lost his job for stating ‘All Lives Matter’.  The statement “xxxxx Lives Matter” where ‘xxxx’ refers to a specific ethnicity/skin color or other proclivity of life is extremely divisive in that it places an emphasis on one group while ignoring the similar issues effecting others. The fact that as least one man lost his rather prominent job for a social media posting expressing ‘All Lives Matter” strongly indicates the divisiveness of this mentality.


In the same manner, hate crime laws are are discriminatory and divisive as well ... if I kill both a white person and a black person, under hate crime laws I can be punished far more severely for killing the black person ... simply because of the difference in skin color. (Yes, Rev Austin, you can add white to my dossier🤩) This totally ignores the fact that I must hate each victim equally ... they are equally dead. No murderer indicates a love for God by their actions.

[Brian Stoffregen]

Why chant Defund the Police and then endlessly explain how and why it doesn’t really defund, it redirects funding, and there will still be police, but just not, you know, “police.” The answer is that it channels rage into progressivism. Black Lives Matter does too. That’s why I do not support such slogans or movements. They are just fronts for political action by people who think in Marxist categories. <Emphasis Added>

... Or the opposite ... recently at least one American lost his job for stating ‘All Lives Matter’.  The statement “xxxxx Lives Matter” where ‘xxxx’ refers to a specific ethnicity/skin color or other proclivity of life is extremely divisive in that it places an emphasis on one group while ignoring the similar issues effecting others. The fact that as least one man lost his rather prominent job for a social media posting expressing ‘All Lives Matter” strongly indicates the divisiveness of this mentality.


In the same manner, hate crime laws are are discriminatory and divisive as well ... if I kill both a white person and a black person, under hate crime laws I can be punished far more severely for killing the black person ... simply because of the difference in skin color. (Yes, Rev Austin, you can add white to my dossier🤩) This totally ignores the fact that I must hate each victim equally ... they are equally dead. No murderer indicates a love for God by their actions.

Conviction of a hate crime also requires proof. They often look at what websites you frequent - if they are anti-black. They look at what you post online. They look at the materials you have in your house and are reading. Witnesses (or surveillance cameras could recount your words as you killed the people. If such evidence pointed towards hatred towards blacks (or towards white Jews or white Russians or white Roman Catholics) charges of "hate crime" could be added to the murder.


What does love for God require of us? Can we defend ourselves, or should we follow Jesus' path and allow the enemy to kill us rather than fight back? It gets more complicated if we talk about defending our neighbor whom we love vs. killing the enemy whom we are also commanded to love.