There has been a police defunding movement for awhile now. It has recently garnered serious attention in several cities, including Los Angeles. Today the Minneapolis City Council passed a measure that is veto-proof by the mayor to disband Minneapolis Police and to start over with some new entity and a new way of policing. The undersigned backs this move by Minneapolis.
People are rethinking not just tactics or training but the very foundations of policing as it is practiced at least in the United States. That conceptual rethinking is captured in the below post.
"Fuck the Fire Department" is a riff on "Fuck the Police," a hip hop song by N.W.A. released in 1988.
The prevailing model of policing is the constable on patrol, which gave rise to the acronym COP and then the word. The rethinking is to ask the question,
Why do we have constables on patrol when we do not have firefighters on patrol?
I...do not have an answer to that question that preserves the prevailing cop model. Firefighters do not go knocking on doors to ask if they can come in to check if there are any fires going on that the homeowners may not be aware of. Firefighters do not go into homes to prevent fires by checking the wiring. Firefighters are not armed and it is unthinkable that a firefighter in the U.S. would go up to a citizen on the street and do a pat down search for arsonists tools. Firefighters stay in their damned stations and wait for a call. Why can't police officers do that?
Does the COP model in the U.S. prevent crime? You'll get a vigorous debate on that, even within yourself, but if they do, they don't do a very good job of it. How many unlawful homicides, rapes, robberies, and aggravated assaults (the Big Four of violent crimes) are prevented by patrolling police officers? A few but a negligible few. It takes a split second to pull a trigger; rapes are committed overwhelmingly in settings when no one is around. Robberies occur in broad daylight on public streets and usually take several seconds, patrolling police officers could in theory and I'm sure in practice do stop a robbery before it happens, but unless the officer is right there, (s)he won't. (S)he may be in the patrol car and see a scuffle that suggests a robbery is occurring but before the officer gets out of the patrol car there is a completed crime and the best the officer can hope to do is to catch the robber red-handed--after the fact. That is not preventing the robbery from occurring in the first place. So a theory of policing based on stopping a crime immediately before it is committed is not justification for the constable on patrol.
And, the reverse is true. It is undeniable that police officers commit crimes against those who they are sworn to "protect and serve," and it is undeniable that the police provoke civilians to commit crimes. I have never been mistreated or even been insulted by a police officer in my entire life. But the broken windows theory of policing made popular and omnipresent in New York City and other cities was described in practice by an NYPD cop: "You accidentally bump into a guy on the street, you feel a hard object, which gives you p.c. (probable cause) to search and seize the firearm." And what went unstated in that explanation is that if you don't feel a hard object in the bump, that will not prevent you from "accidentally" bumping into others! When somebody bumps into you, it's aggravating, is it not? On the street, in an elevator? Shit! Aggravation leads quite frequently to confrontation and when the confrontation is between a police officer and a civilian who gets "accidentally" bumped into every time he walks down the street, well, that's going to lead to violence and 90 times out of 100 the civilian is going to be the victim. Do you like getting pulled over in your car by a police officer? All who do raise your hands. What if "bald tires" or a "broken tail light," or "dark tints," or, or, or, leads the police to pull you over all the damn time. Never happened to me. But if you are black, you have committed no other offense justifying the police to pull you over than "Driving While Black."
Police often tell critics, "Fine, next time your car gets stolen, call a protester!" Well, the new theory of policing responds, "No, we will still call 911 and we expect you to be in your station playing pinochle waiting on our call--then you can respond." What is wrong with that concept of policing? As I said, I can come up with no answer to that question.
The reality of the current constable on patrol model is that cops need crime to justify their jobs. "There is crime out there, men! Now you go ahead and find it." Well, if you tell a cop, go find a crime, he will damn well find one. "Officer of the month Bill Jones made 13 arrests this month. Thank you Bill for keeping our streets safe. There is not a goddamned bald tire or broken tail light in this precinct." That's a messed up incentive system, and understand: it is an incentive system. No police officer in the history of the whole earth has ever been awarded Officer of the Month for making no arrests.
So, I applaud Minneapolis City Council today. They are going to replace Minneapolis Police with a different entity and until someone gives me a game-over counter, I hope they turn their new police officers into firefighters.
People are rethinking not just tactics or training but the very foundations of policing as it is practiced at least in the United States. That conceptual rethinking is captured in the below post.
The prevailing model of policing is the constable on patrol, which gave rise to the acronym COP and then the word. The rethinking is to ask the question,
Why do we have constables on patrol when we do not have firefighters on patrol?
I...do not have an answer to that question that preserves the prevailing cop model. Firefighters do not go knocking on doors to ask if they can come in to check if there are any fires going on that the homeowners may not be aware of. Firefighters do not go into homes to prevent fires by checking the wiring. Firefighters are not armed and it is unthinkable that a firefighter in the U.S. would go up to a citizen on the street and do a pat down search for arsonists tools. Firefighters stay in their damned stations and wait for a call. Why can't police officers do that?
Does the COP model in the U.S. prevent crime? You'll get a vigorous debate on that, even within yourself, but if they do, they don't do a very good job of it. How many unlawful homicides, rapes, robberies, and aggravated assaults (the Big Four of violent crimes) are prevented by patrolling police officers? A few but a negligible few. It takes a split second to pull a trigger; rapes are committed overwhelmingly in settings when no one is around. Robberies occur in broad daylight on public streets and usually take several seconds, patrolling police officers could in theory and I'm sure in practice do stop a robbery before it happens, but unless the officer is right there, (s)he won't. (S)he may be in the patrol car and see a scuffle that suggests a robbery is occurring but before the officer gets out of the patrol car there is a completed crime and the best the officer can hope to do is to catch the robber red-handed--after the fact. That is not preventing the robbery from occurring in the first place. So a theory of policing based on stopping a crime immediately before it is committed is not justification for the constable on patrol.
And, the reverse is true. It is undeniable that police officers commit crimes against those who they are sworn to "protect and serve," and it is undeniable that the police provoke civilians to commit crimes. I have never been mistreated or even been insulted by a police officer in my entire life. But the broken windows theory of policing made popular and omnipresent in New York City and other cities was described in practice by an NYPD cop: "You accidentally bump into a guy on the street, you feel a hard object, which gives you p.c. (probable cause) to search and seize the firearm." And what went unstated in that explanation is that if you don't feel a hard object in the bump, that will not prevent you from "accidentally" bumping into others! When somebody bumps into you, it's aggravating, is it not? On the street, in an elevator? Shit! Aggravation leads quite frequently to confrontation and when the confrontation is between a police officer and a civilian who gets "accidentally" bumped into every time he walks down the street, well, that's going to lead to violence and 90 times out of 100 the civilian is going to be the victim. Do you like getting pulled over in your car by a police officer? All who do raise your hands. What if "bald tires" or a "broken tail light," or "dark tints," or, or, or, leads the police to pull you over all the damn time. Never happened to me. But if you are black, you have committed no other offense justifying the police to pull you over than "Driving While Black."
Police often tell critics, "Fine, next time your car gets stolen, call a protester!" Well, the new theory of policing responds, "No, we will still call 911 and we expect you to be in your station playing pinochle waiting on our call--then you can respond." What is wrong with that concept of policing? As I said, I can come up with no answer to that question.
The reality of the current constable on patrol model is that cops need crime to justify their jobs. "There is crime out there, men! Now you go ahead and find it." Well, if you tell a cop, go find a crime, he will damn well find one. "Officer of the month Bill Jones made 13 arrests this month. Thank you Bill for keeping our streets safe. There is not a goddamned bald tire or broken tail light in this precinct." That's a messed up incentive system, and understand: it is an incentive system. No police officer in the history of the whole earth has ever been awarded Officer of the Month for making no arrests.
So, I applaud Minneapolis City Council today. They are going to replace Minneapolis Police with a different entity and until someone gives me a game-over counter, I hope they turn their new police officers into firefighters.
