Defund the Police

Let’s start with not killing the residents. Then we’ll work from there.

Let's start with residents who don't NEED killin'.

So, a kid raised in poverty and only knows life on the street deserves to be killed. But, a rich white kid who has had every priviledge deserves a break because ... boys will be boys?

If someone actively is threatening someone's life, then an officer is justified in shooting or taking action to end the threat.

There's no question that there are lots of times officers overreact and shoot or harm people who do not actually pose threats, and that more work needs to be done to prevent such things from happening in the first place and to hold cops more accountable for those errors and actual crimes.

But it is not the fact that the kid is minority or poor that means he deserves to get killed, nor the notion that a kid is rich, white and privileged that means that he deserves a break.

People in these discussions bring up people like Dylan Roof and Kyle Rittenhouse being alive despite being multiple killers while officers have shot black kids who merely seemed like they had a gun. The circumstances of Roof and Rittenhouse were different. Just as officers have undoubtedly arrested some black shooting suspects without shooting or killing them, they have arrested Roof and Rittenhouse without shooting them. It's not any more because they are white than it's because their last names begin with R.

State-sponsored extrajudicial executions? How libertarian of you.

The only thing I'm judging is the threat you present to me and mine, and your level of "privilege" is irrelevant to that.

The patterns of Roof and Rittenhouse and others of their ilk is that only one group gets to consistently get out of their killing sprees alive and get pampered and petted by the police on the way to the jail cell.

Last I heard about Rittenhouse, he and his family had skipped town while on bail and they can't seem to find him

Rittenhouse is an obvious case of white privilege. If a black person did what he did they would not be allowed to wait outside of jail for trial. Guy got caught while out on bail living it up with his gang members in a bar and drinking at 19. What 19 year old black gang member kills people deliberately at a gang promoted shooting event and while awaiting trial goes out with his gang members to have a congratulatory beer on camera with his mom who is legally supervising him on release, and then vanishes and does not tell the court where he is and stays out of jail? How many violations of his release awaiting trial are there?

I do not mind if the police took him in quietly as he surrendered. That is what they are supposed to do, but there is no way you violate the conditions of your bail like that and don't get locked up. The person who is supervising him is bringing him to bars to drink and helping him hide his residence from the courts.

Of course, the next question will be "why is it still legal for them to do this to adults?", although I can see the argument that kids are either more likely to be intimidated by "bad cops" or trusting of "good cops" during interrogation - also less likely to push for a lawyer (or have one or know not to talk to cops whilst waiting for a public defender):

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2021/07/police-interrogation-illinois-minors-children/

I'd go further and entirely outlaw interviewing of suspects without an attorney present. That ought to handle the "lying to a suspect" angle, because the attorney will know the facts that the police possess.

I'd also reject as inadmissible any and all confessions that are NOT given in the presence of counsel.

Then you'd be handcuffing the police!

Well, well, well. How about that?

What the fuck? Until last week it was legal in 50 states for cops to lie to kids in the course of their duties? And it's still legal in 50 states for them to lie to adults?

The Tokyo Metropolitan Police Force's budget for FY 2014 was 5.441 billion USD. That only accounts for 40,000 of Japan's 262,500 Police Officer's.

I think your math is off.

Looking at budgets internationally, the NYPD's budget lines up right in the middle, per officer, with Tokyo, Toronto, London, and Berlin. Apropos of nothing, I also did some number crunching based off of population of certain First World countries. Canada has the lowest number of police officers per citizen at 547. Germany has the most at one police officer for every 339 citizens. The US is right in the middle at one police officer for every 466 citizens.

Looks like I missed a comma.

That being said, for Tokyo's PD, 40,000 out of 262,000 is about 15% of the nation's police force and their budget is still lower than the NYPD (which makes up 5% of the nation's police force), and they employ more officers than the NYPD because Tokyo has 14 million people, and the NY city has about 9 million, that's New York City, not the NY metro area, the NYPD jurisdiction doesn't include the NY metro area. On top of that, Tokyo's crime rate is so low that there's an overstaffing problem. Too many officers on duty, not enough crimes.

Here in the US there's always a black guy to beat down.

I'm well aware of the jurisdiction of the NYPD. That said, you may have missed my edit:

Yeah, but look at what we spend nationwide for being "right in the middle:"
https://boingboing.net/2021/04/20/u...orlds-third-highest-military-expenditure.html




Keep in mind that those are military budgets being compared to the US police budget.


It's kind of like our healthcare system when you think about it: mediocre performance at many times the price of everywhere else.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...er-countries-with-worse-results-idUSKCN1GP2YN

We need to do serious overhauling of all these things, and I think defunding the police would be a great start. Take a huge chunk of that budget and pour it into non-police services for mental, economic, social support, etc., and away from sending the police to do everything because they are ill equipped for much of it, it seems.

Dump bucketloads of free money on poor neighborhoods, and you're still gonna have violent crime. Just with more drugs and better guns. Sounds festive.

I'll be shooting thieves, and you can thank yourself.

You have to factor populations and the number of officers into the equation or total number are meaningless. The UK, on average, spends $168,000 USD per police officer. Using your figures, the US, on average, spends $170,000 USD per police officer. Germany, on average, spends $194,000 USD per police officer. Canada, on average, spends $179,000 USD per police officer.

The US has nearly 710,000 police officers, with approximately 466 persons per police officer. The UK has approximately 146,000 police officers, with approximately 456 persons per police officer. Yeah, in raw numbers, the UK is going to spend a lot less than the US for police. But, when you look at all the data, the numbers seem much more reasonable.

That's because the US defense budget is 780+ BILLION dollars. We spend more money than Russia, China, and India *plus 8 other countries* combined:
https://www.pgpf.org/blog/2021/07/t...n-defense-than-the-next-11-countries-combined




That's like saying "I only get a paltry 5% tip" when the cost of the meal was $20,000. Every other waiter who served a $1000 meal gets to look at you like you're full of shit.

You're focusing on the defense aspect I erroneously added and decided to remove because I thought it would stear the conversation into a pointless side-angle. Lets get back to talking about per officer figures.

US: Approximately 710,000 police officers (approximately one officer per 466 persons) at a cost of approximately $170,000 per officer, per year.
UK: Approximately 146,000 police officers (approximately one officer per 456 persons) at a cost of approximately $168,000 per officer, per year.
Canuckistan: Approximately 70,000 police officers (approximately one officer per 547 persons) at a cost of approximately $179,000 per officer, per year.

You can't look at those numbers and claim that US police budgets are out of control.

Sure I can, because our police are out of control. If we're pouring massive amounts of money into our police forces across the country, and we are, what are we getting in return? It's why I made the comment about our healthcare system. We pay twice as much for treatment, and receive less quality of life from it overall. We pour a shitload of money into the police force, and we get dead kids and suffocated black men. Thousands of rape kits sitting on shelves never even tested. A prison industrial complex the likes of no other country. So even if you think we're not putting too much in (I believe we are when you look at the budgets and then compare the results), then you can look at how we're spending it and realize that defunding is a viable solution. Remove the excess fat from the police, and put it into better social and economic support programs. No more police showing up to drag a black man to the ground and choking him to death for selling loose cigarettes. No more police showing up to shoot a 12 year old kid for waving around a toy gun. No more putting their knee on the neck of a man and ending his life over a supposed counterfeit $20 bill. No more police bombing entire black neighborhoods.

No more tanks, no more military gear, make them a basic force that handles crimes that are violent, or can act as an intermediary between agencies, so you can say someone is acting odd on a bridge, and the police can send word to the relevant agency to send someone out for support. A jack of all trades is a master of none, and it's time the police actually become what they've slapped on the sides of their cars for decades, to serve and protect, though now it can be for everyone, and not just rich white folks.

I think the argument why should police be able to lie to adult suspects comes down to basically what you said.

Adults are presumed to be sophisticated enough that when they confess to a crime, the burden should be on them to show that the confession wasn't coerced out of them. Children by and large are not as sophisticated (although some assuredly are, and some adults are particularly unsophisticated), so as a general rule children deserve more protection.

It will still be legal to lie to kids in many contexts as the article points out. Just not in a custodial interrogation. And even when the law goes into effect in January, Illinois cops still can lie to kids during custodial interrogations. There will just be a good chance that any resulting confession will be kept out of court (as I understand things purely from reading these few articles) if there is not a showing that the cops knowingly lied.

I am fairly sure that a clever detective can figure ways to stretch the truth without telling actual lies. "Your homeboy just gave you up" is a lie. "I think your homeboy is going to give you up" is not. I don't know if "Admit it and it'll go easier for you" would constitute a false promise of leniency in the same way as "Admit it and I'll put in a good word with the D.A." And I don't know if even that is "false, " especially if the cop can say "Well I tried to put in a good word, but she blew me off."

Also even if there is a showing the cop lied, the prosecutor can still get the confession in if they make a showing that the confession was more likely than not voluntary. Since it would be judges making the showing and since judges are disproportionately former prosecutors, I would not hold my breath waiting for the majority of such confessions to be kept out of court.

Not saying any of the above is good, mind you. I just think it is probably good to be cynical about the criminal justice system.

An attorney early on in most cases will not know what facts the police possess. The police generally don't have an obligation to share any information to attorneys (or anyone) until someone is formally charged with a crime. So while criminal defense attorneys would generally be wise to say "Shut up and let's go" they would only have their own BS detector to catch cops in lies rather than any assortment of facts.

I think that would be bad for society to reject any and all admissions that were not in the presence of counsel. People make all sorts of statements to police (not even the confessions that they make to friends, family, co-workers, strangers etc.) that there's no reason to think may be coerced. If a statement is apparently voluntarily, I don't see a problem with using it against a typical adult suspect.

You're focusing on the emotional and not the rational. You want to slash police budgets and I want to inflate them. If you want premium talent, you must pay a premium price.

Locally, the numbers have dropped across the board, not because crime has actually gone down, but because the police don't have the manpower or hours to actually do their job. Our Municipal Police Department is literally at 50% staffing despite starting people at 130% of the annual median household income and a $15,000 sign-on bonus. To his credit, the new Chief of Police has worked with the Supervisor's to get rid of all of the dead weight, which was about 30% of the department. The rest left out of fear.

This may be a hard concept for a WF reader to believe, but they were so busy this weekend that they literally didn't have time to arrest people. You can't take an hour to write a report and get someone booked into jail when you, and everyone else on your shift, have six calls holding for when you get done with the call you're on. I'm denying nine out of every ten cases that come into my office because I have 48 hours from the time of arrest to hold a Probable Cause hearing. That hearing is not completed until the officer has appeared before me and sworn, under oath, that his complaint or statement is true and accurate. They are so busy that they literally don't have time to do that. So, the otherwise legitimate case gets denied.

A 44 year old woman allegedly choked her 20 years old son into unconsciousness Saturday afternoon. The officer arrested the mother for Domestic Violence. I have 48 hours to hold a Conditional Release Hearing and a Probable Cause Hearing. I sat in my office for eight unpaid, salaried hours Sunday afternoon/evening after church, taking time away from my son, hoping the officer could come swear, under oath, on the complaint. It was call, after call, after call. He could never come to my office. I denied the charge and released the woman from jail this afternoon.

You're going to have to define "interviewing." If you're talking about detectives interviewing someone "down at the station" as portrayed in movies and TV, well, we can have that discussion. But, a preliminary investigation by a patrol officer at the scene is, legally, an interview. Rolling up on a scene and finding a beaten and bloody body and asking someone what happened is, legally, an interview. You have the right to say nothing, but the police also have the right (and duty) to ask as part of their preliminary investigation.

Now, if you want to install a pocket lawyer in the trunk of every police car, I'll certainly entertain that conversation.

Most people in poor neighborhoods are not criminals so dumping bucketloads of free money on them would be an excellent idea. They would use it to provide for their families and pay down debt. A net win for society.

No, they will put $20,000 down on $80,000 cars hand have nothing left over to so much as repair a flat tire, so they roll arond on 3 $1,000 rims and one bald donut.




The rural redneck version of course being a pickup truck on 3 monster tires.