There has been some confusion, even on this site, about what is meant by “Defund the Police.” A great explanation comes from John Oliver–who is, in my opinion, among the best commentators working today. This short clip is worth the few seconds it’ll take to watch, but the basics of it are that defunding the police doesn’t mean eliminating their role in protecting against crimes. It means shifting funds to other places where it’s needed. To do this requires a massive change in thought about the meaning of “public safety.”
Historian Heather Cox Richardson, in her fabulous daily email called “Letters from an American” put it this way:
What most reformers mean by that phrase reflects that, as we have defunded education, housing, mental health facilities, and so on, our towns and cities increasingly have turned the functions of those institutions over to police. Reformers want to shrink police responsibilities and decrease funding from police budgets, investing instead in the other community resources that have lost money as police departments have gained it. Most are not calling for abolishing police departments altogether. They are using “defund” in the same way Republicans have called for defunding social programs.
The main issue, of course, is that for a significant segment of the population police do not represent safety and security, but instead represent fear. There is no easy way to change that. Doing more training or hiring more people of color will not make the larger national problem go away. There is a culture around policing and how it’s done that must be dismantled and rebuilt and as local citizens, we have the opportunity to make those changes here.
We rely on our police to solve problems that they’re just not equipped to solve. We’re asking them to help the homeless, be social workers, communicate with our teens, and on top of all of that, solve crimes. Defunding the police and reallocating those funds allows us to invest in our own community, moving dollars to places where they can solve problems and pulling the pressure off of the police.
This does not mean that Newton turns into a place where armed vigilantes roam the streets. It does not mean we build walls around our homes to keep people out. It does not mean we descend into chaos. It means that we take a look at who feels safe and who doesn’t. It means that we look at our municipal budget in a new light and make changes that work for everyone. It means we make our community safer, more inviting, and more nourishing.
We must make this change.
Please quantity “significant ” from your statement
“significant segment of the population police do not represent safety and security, but instead represent fear”
What percentage of Newton residents do you HONESTLY believe FEAR the police.
Personally, I’ve had nothing but pleasant interactions with police (I’m neither black or white)
It’s not just Newton residents, it’s also people working, visiting, or passing through here. We are not an island.
For that I would point to the larger regional and national narrative.
Hear hear
Chuck
Since this is a Newton blog and your post mentions changes to Newton.
I think its fair for you to quantify what % of newton residents “fear” the police since you made the claim of significant numbers.
If the vast majority Newton residents have no issues with police then we should be discussing tweaks and reviews… certainly not funding overhauls
But yes, if newton pd have a long history of brutality then overhaul is needed.
@Bugek let me give you an example that doesn’t fall into the current national narrative round racism.
We have homeless living along the river. Not just us, but also Waltham, Watertown, Boston, Cambridge, etc. Residents are worried about this issue as it has both health and safety ramifications (for both residents and the homeless). The police have worked out a patrol of the river with the goal of moving the homeless along. They’re not able to require someone to go to a shelter, but the theory is that by keeping someone moving that person will eventually give up and go take the advice to go to a shelter. Newton police now coordinate with Waltham, Watertown, and State Police on this effort.
Homeless advocates bristle at this idea because the issue isn’t that homeless are living along the river (or in wooded areas) but that the shelters themselves are both unsafe and inadequate. The problem that the police are dealing with is a symptom, not a cause.
With the attention right now we have a chance to take a bigger look at the problems and find real solutions.
I don’t like the phrase “defund the police.” It’s not accurate, and I’m not sure serious people believe it to be true. Rather, aren’t we really saying we want to “reform the police,” or (and this is where I come down) “demilitarize the police.” It took Chuck five paragraphs and a link to John Oliver to explain what “defund the police” means. As is said in politics, “if you’re explaining, you’re losing.”
I don’t think it’s confusing on the face of it.
I think it’s confusing because opponents are using extreme positions to make it so. The idea of “defunding” a department or concept is something that Republican lawmakers have executed on for years, whether that’s public broadcasting, Planned Parenthood, or the National Endowment for the Arts. They didn’t seem to misunderstand the word then.
I’m just doing my part to ensure that the position is clear.
Chuck, if a three word phrase requires a smug windbag like Oliver six minutes to explain “what it really means” then it is probably not the ideal rallying cry for our current times.
I would add that when Republicans talk about defunding Planned Parenthood or NPR, that is precisely what they mean.
I’m not sure where you are going with the homeless example. We obviously cannot have homeless people camping in Newton and it sounds like the police are doing the best they can under the circumstances.
“under the circumstances” is the point. We can work to solve that.
It’s unfortunate that the Newton community has turned their back on our Police Officers. Does anyone remember the 2013 Marathon? Our Newton officers were sweeping Comm Ave for bombs, putting their lives in danger for you! They do this every single day without hesitation. I wish our community would step up to the plate and commend the men and women of the NPD who have answered your 911 calls and who will continue to do so.
The slogan on this needs to change. The GOP are going to be purposely obtuse and run with this and push the idea that liberals want to abolish the police. The ideas, however, are solid.
Has Newton PD changed negatively so much since 2013 ?
If the answer is no then what responses do you think this post would have generated if it was posted 1 day after the marathon bombings?
Is it to fair to question Newton PD effectiveness now if they have been doing a excellent job protecting us? Have the number of complaints increased since 2013?
Why wait 7 years all of a sudden to critize Newton PD?
Nothing is meant by “defunding the police”. People say it because other people on their side of the political spectrum say it. It’s the progressive equivalent of “Make America Great Again”. Something you can chant and share on social media.
And as Mary notes above, unfortunately it’s giving free and effective ammunition for Donald Trump’s reelection campaign.
Regardless of the marketing, there are some really sound ideas in here. Police are not the swiss army knife to solve all of society’s problems and they really shouldn’t be.
Want a perfect example that is oh-so-Newton? The police don’t want to enforce the leafblower law. Advocates are not happy with their ability to enforce it. Yet the only solution seems to be trying to force the police department to enforce the leafblower law. Does a team of trained law enforcement professionals that carry guns REALLY need to be the ones giving out tickets for leafblower violations? Or parking tickets? Or “moving along” the homeless? (is that really our best response to homelessness in Newton?!) And on and on.
This slogan is not a hill to die on and needs to change. ASAP.
Like it or not, the dictionary definition of “defund” is “prevent from continuing to receive funds”. It’s a negative concept when we need to present a positive message/direction at a time when societal norms are seriously frayed.
Since both FedUp and Bugek brought up the Marathon bombings, it should be noted that the police acted bravely. They put their lives out there for the safety of the community. The Watertown police were fired upon by the bombing suspects and the suspects threw explosive devices at them. They acted and reacted under intense stress at a very difficult time. It’s exactly what we want from the police.
But the story of the Watertown incident is much more complicated.
According to a MEMA report released two years after the bombings, there were several large problems.
Notably, more than 2500 officers from around the state “self-deployed” to Watertown. Command didn’t know what to do with them. Most stayed around the Target parking lot, but “there were a significant number of occasions when officers responded based on information or calls they heard on their radios, at times placing themselves and the officers with the authority to respond at risk.”
One such time was when the suspect was found in the boat. More than 100 officers “self-deployed” to the location when they heard the call on the radio. One fired a weapon and others thought was the suspect, so they opened fire.
In the end, the report cited several problems including “Lack of weapons discipline” (including an officer who fired on an unmarked police car with two others in it) and “Lack of Coordination and Management of Mutual Aid.”
I encourage you to read the narrative in the Executive Summary.
Chuck,
I guess your example does highlight the fact that police should not be called in for everything. Afterall, i doubt police had adequate training to look for an armed terrorist with live bombs…
… would you have felt safer if they simply observed and waited for a much smaller terrorism task force search the entire Boston area?
Definitely, armed police don’t have to be called in for every single incident.
@all: Bryan is correct in the Swiss Army Knife analogy, but in all of this it still comes down to one thing for public safety, response time. The staffing level of the Police Department was designed to meet the national standards for response time once called. The multitude of duties assigned to the police over the years doesn’t really change their current response time as the event determines the level of urgency as assigned through dispatch. The city, the colleges, and some businesses have added the “blue” light safety system designed to protect walkers that may have an urgent need for the police. When you’re in fear and trigger that system your hope is the police arrive “now,” as time is of the essence. Should the residents of Newton make the decision to accept a longer response time then we can reduce staffing levels. This is a serious discussion as you will jeopardize safety. The Newton police are progressive, well trained, and take their interactions with the public very seriously. No person nor group is perfect, but they work hard at accountability and safety.
Chuck,
Why do t you just change the headline to “let’s take money and responsibility away from the police”, especially if you are looking to post a long video with the hopes of explaining it. It will save us a lot of time.
I for one have always had pleasant interactions with the police, be it in Newtonville where we live or just out and about. I would identify myself as middle eastern, and have never experienced a racial incident in Newton (and hopefully never will).
My honest opinion is this whole “defund the police” thing is just the flavor of the week, And while there could be poor spending in police budgets elsewhere, I think in any budget that you were to examine you will find poor spending.
Leave the police budget as is, fund the police, and let’s start to move on
@Bugek you are either not absorbing what I’m saying or being purposely obtuse. Either way, I’m done interacting with you on this topic.
The only people being obtuse are the ones saying that defund the police doesn’t mean defund the police.
Jane is correct – this isn’t a hill to die on and is political suicide.
I posted about this on another thread. Twice, as a runner, I was stalked/accosted by a man I did not know (2 different men) – in broad daylight. As James Cote said, I was in danger, terrified and wanted the police to arrive “now” – and they did.
“Defunding” is a terribly misleading label for what sounds like a rethinking of approaches to public safety along the lines of an outreach program my late brother was involved in for many years in Burlington, Vermont, which teamed police with social services so that routine issues arising on the streets from homelessness, addiction, and mental illness could be dealt with as social problems, not invariably as crimes. I know my brother was invited to speak to city administrations and police departments around the country, so certainly the details of what is being labeled “defunding” are neither new nor outlandish and in some places have already been put into effect.
Say what you mean and mean what you say. As an intelligent adult, I don’t need to listen to John Oliver or anyone else trying to explain that “defund” doesn’t mean what it means, or has a new magical meaning.
I’m sure this is well intentioned and well meaning. It’s also incredibly misinformed about what law enforcement does.
Signed,
A criminal defense lawyer who actually deals with police, police procedures and law.
@all to answer a few question I just received off line: Staffing on days and weekends. There are no peaceful times of day any longer in public safety. Your police, fire, and EMT’s have to be prepared to respond to serious events such as active shooters during the weekdays with several colleges, public schools, and private schools, and on weekends at places of worship. Plans call for large numbers of trained responders on a moments notice.
Social Work: The Newton Police have an on staff Social Worker that has trained for police/civilian encounters and rides with the Police in situations that warrant this need.
Lisap: I totally agree. This whole situation with people “explaining” what defunding means is utterly ridiculous.
The Newton police budget exceeds the Newton public health, veteran and senior services, library, and parks and rec budgets combined.
We need to re-think our spending priorities. Defunding the Newton Police and shifting those funds to other departments who can be more cost effective and functionally effective needs to be on the table.
Start by defunding two new, unnecessary not-well-justified squad cars for $100k and restoring some of the dozens of NPS education staff already cut, and Sunday library hours.
“Explaining” defunding is altogether too close to “mansplaining” for my liking.
Chuck – please be more respectful of those who actually agree with your principles but aren’t going to spend a ton of time learning about the concept of the slogan. “Defund the police” is one of the stupidest slogans that Dems have ever come up with. Plain and simple. The end.
No one wants to listen to your explanations or listen to John Oliver’s 15 minute video. Get over it.
Do you want to win in November or not? That’s the question. I will do everything in my power to oust the maniac in the White House – anything – including reframing the question of how to deal with public safety so that it doesn’t alienate a significant portion of the voting population.
@Jim – I’ve been thinking about that a lot recently. How do we create a system that ensures there are armed police on the rare occasion when they might be needed in a timely manner, and shift to a system where unarmed police are available to de-escalate situations that probably don’t require a gun, while also shifting responsibilities for social welfare / code offenses away from police.
We may have to have a longer conversation about whether this means we’re willing to accept a slower response time, or that we create rapid response teams that are on call, or some other method I don’t have the expertise to imagine.
@Bryan,
Have you ever wondered why police wear bulletproof vests? I know, odd question…. but if you think a police officer, who has to wear a bulletproof vest on a daily basis (yes, even in Newton) would not wear a firearm while working in any capacity you misguided
@Jane
Sadly, as a lifelong Democrat, I see the writing on the wall and frankly I’m not pleased about it. Democrats have alienated law enforcement the past few years and I won’t even get into the past couple of weeks. While in local communities the police vote may not mean an awful lot, on the national level it would be well over a million votes at stake. We are literally pushing all these votes over the Donald. Even in this community. Our own elected officials, none of which have come out to vocally support law enforcement in this city. While they may thank an officer quietly and privately, but in the public, where their voice carries weight, they watch while the police are torn apart.
Chuck-
John Oliver is a former stand up comedian, smurfs voice over artist, and host of his own show
on Comedy Central. He is an entertainer. Nothing more and nothing less. Oliver is no George Carlin, Richard Pryor or Paul Mooney, who despite being comedians and comedy writers, could have spoken or riffed about “Defunding the Police” with authenticity and rage informed by real life experiences, not an effete middle class English upbringing.
Oliver is a transplanted British National, who like British and Canadian expats James Corden and Samantha Bee, have made a handsome living residing among elite, wealthy liberals in New York and LA sending their children to private schools while they mock the values, lifestyles and politics of Americans whom they have absolutely nothing in common with. Lovely…
John Oliver is an American citizen. His show is well researched and is always careful to state sources. Comedy has always been part of the national conversation (Will Rogers, anyone?)
But hey, go ahead and dismiss people as “foreigners.” No bias there.
How many hours should a police officer spend on a single shift? How many shifts per week is it reasonable to ask them to work? What percentage of domestic calls involve violence? How often are police officers required to accompany a victim into his/her home to retrieve property facing the possible presence of their abuser? How many individuals are arrested by Newton PD on outstanding warrants charging crimes of violence? How many individuals resist arrest? How many miles per year are accumulated on each cruiser? How many officers are injured on the job? How many violent crimes occurred near the Charles River before the State police began enforcing no trespassing at night? How many rapes and sexual assaults are investigated by the Newton PD? How many traffic collisions do the police respond to? How many home and business burglaries? How many home burglaries occur during the nighttime (a felony)? How many drunk driving arrests?
If you don’t have that basic information, and this is a scant drop in the bucket, perhaps the conversation needs to begin with a deep and fulsome dive into the work of community policing. And then when we understand the range of issues the local police address, along with how many human hours it requires to serve the public, we can have an informed discussion about who, what, where and when our police resources are best utilized.
And I will say, Jane is absolutely right about the effect on the election. Nixon was elected as a law and order President. I personally would hate to see a misguided slogan ensure 4 more years of Trump.
Thank you Lisap, my thoughts exactly. I hope Biden nips this thing in the bud before it sinks his campaign.
@ Newtoner said.
Chuck – Get a grip.
Chuck-
Read what i said again, take a deep breath, and drop the nastiness. The post is not about “foreigners”, or “bias.” This isn’t a FOX news debate. I didn’t attack you, so i expect you would show me the same respect. Did i call you a cop hater for authoring a thread about defunding the police? The post is about relying on authentic sources for important information in tough times for maximum impact. Oliver might find the topic amusing, i don’t. The topic deserves more than a smug, glib analysis designed for cheap laughs by someone who has ZERO skin in the game. Incidentally, most of the piece was most likely written by the 20 something stable of writers that comedy central shows have historically used- more individuals qualified to write seriously about defunding the police…
Do you know who Richard Pryor is? Paul Mooney? Any idea why their take on “defunding the police” might have a bit more impact than a stand up comedian and smurfs voice over artist?
Not exactly respectful dialogue, Jane. I find Chuck’s points compelling *and* I agree that the term “defund” is poorly chosen. This quip doesn’t help make your point, though.
Bryan, you said, “How do we create a system that ensures there are armed police on the rare occasion when they might be needed in a timely manner….” I think this is a good example of a “common sense” idea that falls apart when you look at the complexity of the issue at the level of detail that Lisap describes.
Let’s take the example of traffic enforcement. Not “revenue enhancement” enforcement. Not “an excuse to pull you over because you look shady” enforcement. I’m talking “not stopping for school kids in a crosswalk” enforcement, or “driving too fast on a residential street” enforcement.
Is that an “armed” or “unarmed” task? I suspect you are aware how dangerous traffic stops are for police officers. You don’t know a traffic stop is dangerous until it is. Well trained officers can minimize the chances of being injured or killed (stand behind the driver’s door, use their vehicle to provide a refuge space, etc), but traffic stop gone wrong is a huge danger to the officer and the public.
Then look at the most recent string of police violence. A knee can kill. Pushing someone backwards can put someone in the hospital with critical injuries. Going at a protestor with a metal baton can crack a skull. Executing a no-knock warrant on the wrong house to arrest someone who was already in jail is plenty fatal.
Trying to split the issue around armed or unarmed misses the point. Training, experience, culture, leadership, and accountability keep the public and the police alike safe. A well-trained officer knows when, how, and when not to use a weapon. An undisciplined or intentionally violent officer doesn’t need a weapon to inflict injury.
There are people who understand this stuff. If Newton wants to make their police more effective and make sure they serve everyone with dignity and respect, we should talk to them rather than re-invent from our own preconceptions. Our job is to inform the discussion, set priorities and make change happen.
And add me to the list of people who think “defund” is an awful choice of words. When Republicans said “defund Planned Parenthood”, they didn’t mean “examine it and see if some services offered could be better provided by other organizations” nor “dissolve and rebuild it to be more effective and efficient”. Their meaning was crystal clear.
Bryan said “there are good ideas here, regardless of the marketing”. Viral hash tags and soundbite politics are nothing *but* marketing. There needs to be a word for clickbait that bites back.
A good start for freeing police resources, reducing expenditures, and significantly increasing overall public safety would be automated traffic enforcement (assuming it could be done without the usual crony contracts).
Michael,
Unless something recent happened that I don’t know about automated traffic enforcement is still not legal in MA. A bill in the State Senate would allow it, and has resonable privacy provisions as well as other safeguards against abuse. Only 32 would be allowed in Newton based on population. It would be difficult to deploy them flexibly in a way that addresses many of the kinds of bad behavior we see in Newton. There will likely still be opposition to them from civil libertarians and privacy advocates.
(To be clear, I would like to see more bike/ped safety related enforcement than NPD does currently. I would also like to see timely and detailed crash reporting and analysis to help us improve our roadways and signals. Automated enforcement can help as well, but it can’t replace all traditional traffic stops.)
“There needs to be a word for clickbait that bites back.” For the win!
I hope the words, “defund the police,” go away before they become an overwhelming slogan being chanted. Those words are poison.
Bringing up the many things Republicans have tried to defund makes it worse – they actually wanted to completely defund those organizations. So when I hear it, that’s what defund means to me.
BYW Jon Stewart is on HBO on Sunday nights. He and his staff do a great job of breaking down subjects so everyone can understand them – with humor. He is the first to say that he is a comedian not a reporter and that his is a comedy show not a news show. Although he has a great take on presenting the news.
Defunding police is a serious policy proposal and I encourage you to read up on the movement before judging its feasibility. This publication on ending policing as we know it is free this week and I encourage all to read it ! https://www.versobooks.com/books/2426-the-end-of-policing
As for people’s concern about the slogan, activists are not politicians. activists don’t spend time work-shopping slogans and meeting with focus groups to make sure every word is right. The democrat party should champion this and come up with your “better slogan”. In the mean time, activists are proposing real policy and engaging the masses and I for one am glad they are spending their time on voter registration at mass demonstrations and mobilizing outreach to local representatives instead of workshoping a slogan for people who won’t even take 5 minutes to learn about what Defund Police means. https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/09/politics/voter-registration-protests/index.html
Great explanation!! I lived in Newton for 18 years, and I am so excited to hear that residents are considering defunding the police. I highly recommend that everyone watch that John Oliver piece. Right now, Newton is in a budget crunch, and the police department is requesting an increase while the library, parks, veterans services, and Historic Newton are all expecting cuts.
I would much prefer that less funding get used for the police and more funding go to the library and parks departments. For example, the library’s proposed budget includes cutting Sunday service. Why should the NPD get a budget increase and funding to hire new officers when calls to service are down and these essential community services are facing such drastic cuts? The police department has grown over and above inflation in past years, and we have more officers per capita than Needham, Natick, or Wellesley. Is anyone frightened to move to any of those towns because of rampant crime?
In Connecticut, where I live now, many towns do not maintain a municipal police department at all and rely on a small handful of state troopers for all their crime prevention needs. These towns, like Newton, consist of residents who may not be afraid of the police. Most of the towns are white and middle-class, and some are even Republican-majority! Still, these towns do not maintain a police department in order to save the general fund for other agencies that help provide for public welfare and safety. Newton should do the same.
(Sources:
http://www.newtonma.gov/civicax/filebank/documents/103602
http://www.newtonma.gov/civicax/filebank/documents/103625
https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2016/crime-in-the-u.s.-2016/tables/table-26/table-26-state-cuts/table-26-massachusetts.xls
https://cga.ct.gov/2016/rpt/pdf/2016-R-0246.pdf, individual CT town web pages.)
It’s pretty clear based on the defunding that’s already happening across the country that this is where our country is headed. It’s not just morally right, but inevitable. I just got laid off from my job as a special education teaching aide for NPS. For many of my students I was one of a handful of adults in the building they felt comfortable around. Why are these students being given a new police cruiser while be stripped of a trusted adult who knows and understand their specific learning styles? Why are they being given 5 new cops on the beat while their public library, one of the only places my low-income students can get literacy materials without having to break the bank, is losing Sunday hours?
Also, for those asking for reform rather than defunding, it’s worth noting that the founder of the nation’s main reform activism group, Campaign Zero, just left the project, noting that their project “detracted from efforts of fellow organizers invested in paradigmatic shifts that are newly possible in this moment.” In other words, the most prominent reformist in the country stepped down because they realized defunding is the only way to go.
^source: https://sports.yahoo.com/police-reform-8cantwait-project-zero-cofounder-apology-143505275.html
@Mike – The fact that these conversations are difficult doesn’t mean they are impossible. We would have to determine when and under what circumstances being armed is appropriate. I certainly don’t think every duty police are tasked with now requires a firearm just because there is some minuscule chance that it could escalate (obviously recognizing there are some tasks where that risk is much higher than others).
LisaP is right at least about the questions that need to be asked to make the best possible determinations about what these new policies should like. That does NOT mean that ordinary citizens shouldn’t be asking these questions and pushing for a better balance between armed police and the array of other options available to the community, whether that be unarmed police, social workers, code enforcement workers, or others.
Benyamin says: “Defunding police is a serious policy proposal”. I would claim “defunding police” isn’t a policy proposal at all. It’s an idea, a philosophy, a battle cry, maybe even a goal. But is isn’t a policy proposal that provides a roadmap to get from where we are to where we want to be.
Robust positive change without unintended consequences requires specifics and hard work that we should neither shy away from nor underestimate. That in no way takes away from empowering the masses or giving voice to the voiceless. They are both important, just not interchangeable.
Even if you look at the relatively small number of municipalities that have implemented some form of police defunding or dissolution, their implementations are all different. And that makes sense. They have different goals, different problems. Some were done just to save money. Some because of chronic problems or corruption that resisted other fixes. Camden New Jersey is being held up as a success story and a potential blueprint following their dissolution effort, but it hasn’t been a panacea for all community/police issues:
https://www.inquirer.com/news/camden-police-defund-minneapolis-george-floyd-protest-20200609.html
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/06/camden-nj-model-change-police-forces-200609200444590.html
If we want effective change to come to Newton, we have to start with Newton’s specific problems and strengths, identify as a community what we can do better and how, and chart a path to get there. That doesn’t seem controversial.
I get your point about regular people not having focus groups to land the right slogan. Words matter, though. Words rally, convince and inspire, but they can also anger, confuse, or distract. Dr. King’s heart-felt ideas helped change the world, but his carefully chosen words were the vehicle that delivered them. They still ring in our ears today.
Very few have been ever been gifted as Dr. King, but we can all learn from him. Let’s just start by trying to speak thoughtfully, plainly, and accurately, and resist getting defensive in the face of criticism that can help us sharpen our message. We all make mistakes and misspeak as well. Diversity means new perspectives. We can all learn and grow. We can all do better.
Here’s a quick one. “Democrat party” is commonly used as an epithet by Republicans as a disparaging political reference. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democrat_Party_(epithet) The party name is the Democratic Party. When Democrats correct the record, Republicans can cast them as thin-skinned or overly sensitive, which is a subtle but effective dominance tactic. It’s subtle enough, in fact, to offer plausible deniability or to trip up people unintentionally, like you.
@Mike Halle,
Thank you for so clearly and articulately addressing so many of the issues with the “defund” rhetoric. Words matter, including “democrat” as an individual noun versus “Democratic” – part of a proper name.
@Bryan – I would hope that the instances where Newton officers feel threatened and need to draw their weapons are “minuscule”. It strikes me that that is precisely the sort of data point that would be helpful to have. Any time an officer unholsters a weapon, I would suggest should be documented in writing. But without that actual data no one here is in any position to call it “minuscule”.
I’m going to take a moment here and add the following: For years a group of people have been pushing back against police abuses, against encroachments on privacy through the use of cell phone and GPS tracking data, against cognitive bias in the forensic sciences that implicitly make science examiners part of the prosecution team instead of independent scientists, against coercive interrogations and confessions, against the school to prison pipeline and so on and so on and so on… For too many years our prisons have overwhelmingly been filled to over flowing with people of color. The criminal justice system within which law enforcement is but one piece is long overdue for meaningful change. But sloganeering and sound bites to “defund police” may feel good in the short term, but in the long run they are simply that; slogans and sound bites.
Reform is hard; it takes time, data, work, will power and patience. Cutting a few positions from the force, taking away a couple of cars from the police may feel like success. But I would submit it’s but a bandaid on an open artery.
I am concerned at the lack of consideration being given by many on this thread to the serious and thoughtful proposals to defund the police in Newton. Many of those questioning those proposals appear to be missing a lot of information about what defunding the police means, and this post was designed to help allievate that ignorance. But instead of becoming better informed, I see many posters here insisting that they know what it must mean, without any indication that they have actually read or listened to any of the serious policy proposals about defunding police departments nationwide.
It would indicate respect for the citizens making these proposals if those questioning them get better informed. These proposals are made in the context of a current national dialogue about defunding the police. The answers to many of the questions raised are already out there, and proposals made here in Newton shouldn’t have to start at ground zero.
I suggest that those seeking information about what defunding the police means–and it distinctly does NOT mean zero police–begin with these sources:
I recommend the entirety of John Oliver’s 30-min June 7 broadcast about policing in America:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wf4cea5oObY
Yes Oliver is a comedian, but his program Last Week Tonight has been engaged in serious, evidence-based investigative journalism. Oliver’s current-events reports are better researched than some “news” programs.
If foul language (which Oliver routinely uses) offends you, then there are other serious journalism sources about defunding the police. You might start with articles in The Nation (thenation.com), beginning with this one:
https://www.thenation.com/article/activism/defund-police-protest/
I also strongly recommend Trevor Noah’s thoughtful (rather Rousseau-ean) discussion about how black Americans have always been excluded from the social contract that police departments are supposed to enforce:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v4amCfVbA_c
I welcome hearing others’ suggestions on how to get better informed and how to move Newton on the path to equality. By moving our local city on this path, we contribute to moving the entire country on the path to equality. If not here, where? If not now, when?
Falls Resident: I was specifically responding to note my disdain for Oliver and the laughable idea that Defund The Police means something other than exactly what it states. Many posters that are sympathetic to the umbrella of ideas under that tagline have expressed agreement that it is a very stupid name for this movement.
But since we are here, I’m happy to see that so many people support our Newton police officers. My experiences with them have been nothing but positive. If people want to tinker around the margins of a police car here or there, fine, but profound changes to our police structure are not needed.
But bonus points for pretending that the Nation is “serious journalism.”
@Newton Upper Falls Resident,
I am concerned by the assumed expertise of individuals who don’t actually know much at all about the criminal justice system and all of the moving parts that go into it. You get to talk about “defunding” police while I get to deal with defendants they arrest.
I am alarmed by people who embrace a slogan which requires citations to multiple sources to explain how and why a clearly defined word doesn’t actually mean what it means. And I am alarmed and genuinely fearful that this silly hashtag will generate a backlash that will give us 4 more years of the worst President in the history of the US imho. There are places without law enforcement in the US – they are replete with “sovereign citizens” who take it upon themselves to “police.” If you want an example, read up on the Bundy Ranch fiasco and the ensuing take over of a National Park by the sovereign citizens.
Newton Upper Falls Resident says “I welcome hearing others’ suggestions on how to get better informed and how to move Newton on the path to equality. “, yet “I am concerned at the lack of consideration being given by many on this thread to the serious and thoughtful proposals to defund the police in Newton.”
I think what at least a few of us are saying that the “getting better informed” is a necessary prerequisite for making “serious and thoughtful proposals”, no matter what issue we’re talking about.
We all have to be humble enough to say that if people don’t understand something, the weight of clearer explanation may be us and not on them. Being a good teacher is one of the most exhausting yet most vital jobs of civic life.
And to Craig: “If people want to tinker around the margins of a police car here or there, fine, but profound changes to our police structure are not needed.”
How do we, as the community and government that grants the police power of lethal force, know enough to say what and how much change is good or necessary? How can we be confident that “profound changes to our police structure are not needed”? It’s our responsibility to know, right?
Shouldn’t every city department, including the police, have sufficient transparency so that Newton’s government can judge its effectiveness and operation, and so that citizens can have confidence in them?
If we as a community, through debate and thoughtful deliberation by our elected officials, believe an action or change is needed, shouldn’t we be confident it will be implemented? For any department, including the police?
Should something bad happen, shouldn’t we be able to expect transparency, accountability, and corrective action? If so, it seems prudent to understand what the mechanisms of transparency, accountability, and corrective action are *before* something bad happens, because by then it’s too late.
@Mike Halle, re: Automated Traffic Enforcement,
You’re correct that there is a bill in the state senate which was tabled until the next session. It would allow one camera per 2,500 residents, or about 35 for Newton.
In my observation of recent speed and red-light camera deployments in Providence and Montreal, this would be more than enough to change driver behavior and improve safety, would be orders of magnitude more efficient in catching offenders than the current enforcement by officers, and would allow the police department to redeploy its resources to other public safety issues.
I also believe that it’s time to revisit the mafia-like $50 million police detail business at construction sites –
https://www.telegram.com/news/20180811/10-years-after-state-oks-civilian-flaggers-police-still-prevail-at-construction-sites
@Craig & @Lisap
Thoughtful and engaged people should not have to show their credentials to be taken seriously in a conversation about social reform. We could meet to show our respective social-science doctoral degrees and professional teaching and research credentials, with extra points for degrees or employment at universities in the US News & World Report’s top five ranking. But would my credentials–or anyone else’s–persuade you to listen, inform yourself, and seriously consider another perspective than your own?
The two most dire–and interrelated–issues facing us today are inequality and global warming. Thoughtful engagement on the drastic measures necessary to solve both issues is essential for peaceful solutions.
A number of people on this thread (and on some other threads on V14) are attempting precisely such thoughtful engagement. But others are attempting to hijack that engagement by mockery, hubris, and asking bait-and-switch questions (not information-seeking questions). My initial post was intended to call out the bait-and-switch tactic, and this one to call out the mockery and hubris tactics.
Going forward, I hope we can focus on thoughtful engagement about what we can do to resolve inequality in public safety here in Newton.
@Newton Upper Falls Resident,
Your snark contributes nothing to your persuasiveness nor credibility. I don’t have any specific recollection of seeing you post here in the past – perhaps you have. But I’ve made no secret of the fact that I am a lawyer and a large part of my practice is criminal law. The problem to me is that while you want to demand that others read up on what you wish to direct us to, you are unwilling to listen to voices who have practical, real world experience with policing and criminal law. In other words, from my perspective- you are the writer with the issue here. And no need to drag out your degrees or compare vitae. I’m just not that into you.
@Lisap: You have once again missed the point: it’s not about me and it’s not about you. It’s about reforming our society toward equality.
Tim Duncan had practical, real world experience with Newton policing, and it did not promote his safety in public. We need to be listening to his voice and others with similar experiences, who are usually shut down and silenced–all too often silenced like George Floyd was. We need to take seriously the statistical evidence that in the US police are far more likely to kill black people, and often for petty reasons.
Policing and the criminal justice system in this country are broken and they need to be fundamentally rethought. Reallocating funding away from militarization of police forces and toward social support services is both morally right and will certainly make people of color safer. It’s a good place to start a conversation about equality, however uncomfortable it makes people who currently profit from the broken system.
@Newton Upper Falls
I’m really not interested in engaging with you any further except to say the following: When you have to work this hard to get to the point, your message is muddled. Before you can fix you need to know what needs to be repaired. We won’t cure poverty, drug addiction, violent crime or any of the many other issues I wrote about previously by scrapping the local police – and yes, the most radical elements of the movement actually mean that. Until you know and understand what functions can and cannot be diverted from law enforcement, this simply sounds like an effort to penalize our local force for the sins of others. Not interested in giving Trump this huge baton to bash across the Democratic nominee.
Take it easy Margaret.
Use a powerful (but open to interpretation) and polarizing slogan like, “defund the police“ – expect a powerful, polarizing response.
It’s always good practice to regularly review spending and budgeting to determine if resources are deployed in the most efficient manner and getting a maximum return on the spend – regardless of the slogan used – but frankly, with only 25% of eligible voters participating in the last election, Newton has not earned the rights to make “demands”.
Oh – PS – I don’t believe there are any “people who currently profit from the broken system” involved in this thread. Do tell us if a rep from a for profit prison joins us though.
If you’re looking for a change in focus to the responsibilities of a police department, there are certainly technological solutions which could be far more effective than routine traffic enforcement. It might prove to be a big-brother threat to civil liberties if carried out to the extreme, so I’m not ready to advocate for this, but there’s really no reason we couldn’t monitor all vehicles for speed, red light, and other traffic violations, either with cameras or devices embedded in the car. Someday, autonomous vehicles may make this all moot. In terms of the more modest bill Mike speaks of that’s been tossed around on Beacon Hill, a past Newton PD chief said on the record that he supported such legislation, and I think even the police union was on record supporting this as well, presumably to complement, not replace, traffic stops.
Police-run traffic details for construction and utility work have also been a non-negotiable requirement in the state, where some other states use non-uniformed flagmen.
“Support among blacks for the “defund the police” movement is more than double that of whites, & black Americans are nearly twice as likely as whites to back key tenets of the movement.”
https://abcnews.go.com/amp/Politics/64-americans-oppose-defund-police-movement-key-goals/story?id=71202300&__twitter_impression=true&id=71202300&__twitter_impression=true
Nathan, I know how deeply you care about the hearing the voices of the voiceless. National polls and aggregations of the opinions of black and white Americans can suggest potential paths we should follow, but they are still aggregates. Police power can both threaten and protect the most vulnerable and most voiceless individuals of our society. We have to listen to those individuals, not risk stereotyping them as members of a broad class.
To move forward, we have to hear more from the Newton community (which includes residents, businesses, and people who work and visit in the city) to find out their experiences and concerns. We can talk about their feelings about the police in general, but ultimately it’s the Newton Police specifically (and to some extent the State Police and the Massachusetts public safety and legal system) that we have the most power to address.
I also look forward to hearing more from experts with experience with the criminal justice system and the police.