Utopia Talk / Politics / Seattle to abolish police

Nimatzo iChihuaha	Mon Aug 03 08:07:23 Under the bill, cops would be replaced by “community-led activities” and organizations focused on “housing, food security, and other basic needs” along with “culturally-relevant expertise rooted in community connections,” according to documents posted by Christopher Rufo, Director of Discovery Institute’s Center on Wealth & Poverty. http://nyp...lice-department-with-new-bill/
Rugian Member	Mon Aug 03 08:29:05 "Arguing that the Seattle Police Department “perpetuates racism and violence” and upholds “white supremacy culture,” the Seattle City Council moved to redirect cash to a non-profit, civilian-led “Department of Community Safety & Violence Prevention” — and offered a “blueprint” on how to defund the police, according to the resolution." The fact that Trump doesnt have 100% of the white vote right now is astounding. The American left has literally become the party of anti-whiteness.
Seb Member	Mon Aug 03 08:31:00 Inaccurate title - if you follow the link through to the supposed draft legislation, it's proposing only transferring some functions from the police. In much of sandinavia, for example, I understand you have a far more progressive approach to handling drugs use etc. The problem in many US cities is that they try to deal with every social ill via police and criminal justice system.
Seb Member	Mon Aug 03 08:42:46 The actual details are: See embed here http://chr...l-moves-to-abolish-the-police/ 1. Remove 911 from police and establish a civilian service (don't see the issue there) 2. Transfer emergency management and harbor patrol to a new fire department 3. Move parking enforcement to a transit dept Etc. Reading down the measures, including a request that the police explicitly prioritise calls around gun use, violence etc. over Peter incidents my first thought is "why the fuck isn't this all standard operating procedure already, as it is in the rest of the world? What sort of hell hole has the police be the prime responder to all civil contingencies, and why on earth would it be controversial to prioritise gun violence over parking fines? Oh.. oh yeah ... the US does that whole civil forfeiture thing. It also asks for a breakdown of funds spent on defending legal claims... Again, why is this not standard practice already? How can there be accountability if this data isn't available?
Rugian Member	Mon Aug 03 08:51:26 The rest of the world has decriminalized misdemeanors so that black people can escape justice? Are you high?
Seb Member	Mon Aug 03 09:03:22 Which misdemeanours?
Rugian Member	Mon Aug 03 09:08:42 According to your link, all of them.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Mon Aug 03 10:12:31 Seb Just the things I found worthy of mentioning. Freeze hiring. Any planned hiring, including for individuals in the training pipeline should cancelled. Eliminate funds for recruitment and retention. Eliminate data-driven policing. Eliminate -implicite bias training -communications Eliminate SWAT Team funding. Eliminate SPD's travel and training budget. Eliminate overtime pay. Taken together with the fact that this is the first phase in a long term plan stretching 2022. A slow bleed out and just making the work situation so bad, that many will voluntarily quit or transfer elsewhere.
Dakyron Member	Mon Aug 03 10:50:31 Yeah, if it was just training some civilians to take of the nasty bum pissing on the front door of a business I don't think anyone would have an issue. Remember what happened in Baltimore when the PD decided to stop enforcing the law? Crime rates skyrocketed.
Average Ameriacn Member	Mon Aug 03 11:02:16 I'm fully stocked on ammo, lawlessness may come, I will survive, some others may not, but my life matters more.
Habebe Member	Mon Aug 03 11:02:57 "In much of sandinavia, for example, I understand you have a far more progressive approach to handling drugs use etc." Scandinavia is also 97% and up white. I challenge you to find a city in the US with a major crime problem that is 97% of any race. A negative side effect of diversity is less trust.
Seb Member	Mon Aug 03 13:13:02 Rugian: Specify in which page of the proposed legislation any misdemeanours are proposed to be waved, and which ones? I appreciate the guy leaking the document is completely unhinged, but the primary source does not support the claim.
Seb Member	Mon Aug 03 13:25:30 Nim: you are looking at the second document, which is not the proposed resolution. The second documents provenance is unclear, Rufo says the council endorses this but it's not clear that it does in fact do so in any meaningful way. What I see is a perfectly reasonable draft resolution that would bring Seatle in line with most of the rest of the western world, and un-sourced document that looks like someones manifesto but no clarity over who is taking it forward or how; and a blog post that implies the two are linked but does not state how they are. In terms of the details in the second document: "Freeze hiring. Any planned hiring, including for individuals in the training pipeline should cancelled. Eliminate funds for recruitment and retention." This amounts to natural shrinkage of the force, not abolition. "Eliminate data-driven policing." I can see how inept use of data driven policing can simply launder bias and be a target, that said elimination is heavy handed way of addressing that. "Eliminate -implicite bias training" Surely you support this? "-communications" Bad idea. "Eliminate SWAT Team funding." Reasonable case for this, US police forces are ridiculously over-militarised. "Eliminate SPD's travel and training budget." How big is this anyway? I have heard that a lot of money gets spent on "training" junkets. Eliminate seems harsh, but I've heard in Boston it is essentially used as a perk. Get sent to Florida for a week of "training" etc. "Eliminate overtime pay." It's been eliminated or highly circumscribed for most public sector workers in the UK, overtime pay can lead to some pretty perverse incentives for rostering. All police should be required to work a certain percentage of overtime, with that factored into basic pay. I don't think this amounts to abolition either: just a healthy dose of austerity for a bloated and inefficient public sector body.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Mon Aug 03 14:06:31 "The second documents provenance is unclear, Rufo says the council endorses this but it's not clear that it does in fact do so in any meaningful way." Settle down now. It is referenced in the proposal page 7. "This amounts to natural shrinkage of the force, not abolition." Neither you nor I know what the net effect is. I have no idea what the turnover is or how big the cohorts about to retire are. So this is very speculative on your part. "I can see how inept use of data driven policing can simply launder bias and be a target, that said elimination is heavy handed way of addressing that." Yea and the solution to ineptitude is to employ experts and educate. I would rather police and other government institutes took data and research more seriously, they can't afford ineptitude on this. "Surely you support this?" I left it there for you :) "Reasonable case for this, US police forces are ridiculously over-militarised." I agree with you, but this is heavy handed. There is a need for SWAT and special police units like this. The solution here is to de-militarize. And really the militarization is much deeper issue, former military are over-represented on the US police force. For natural reasons of proclivity, but a couple of studies indicate that former military are over-represented in shootings and complaints. "How big is this anyway? I have heard that a lot of money gets spent on "training" junkets. Eliminate seems harsh, but I've heard in Boston it is essentially used as a perk. Get sent to Florida for a week of "training" etc." This is a very cynical reading, honestly. As it stand it says travel and training, you added the cynical review of the training from "what you heard about Boston". Training and if required travel are reasonable things to have in any organization that aims to educate their employees. I think all police should have BJJ and grappling training every week. They should be spending 20% of their time training on doing their job. Being a police has a relatively high risk for ruin, mistakes cost lives. "It's been eliminated or highly circumscribed for most public sector workers in the UK, overtime pay can lead to some pretty perverse incentives for rostering. All police should be required to work a certain percentage of overtime, with that factored into basic pay." Which would be fine, but that isn't what the document says. What you propose would be a much bigger salary reform.
Habebe Member	Mon Aug 03 14:13:07 Nim, IDK the numbers on vets But I do know 1/3 of police complaints are on the plain clothes cops who only represent 2% od the cops.... That os too big of a difference to be ignored.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Mon Aug 03 14:14:38 20+% while they are 6% of the population.
Seb Member	Mon Aug 03 14:30:17 Nim: Ok, so it's an attachment, but there's no legislative effect to it. "Neither you nor I know what the net effect is. I have no idea what the turnover is or how big the cohorts about to retire are. So this is very speculative on your part." You might not, I do. Natural shrinkage. Retirees not replaced. Not abolition. If the bulk of the force is in their 60s I'd be surprised. "Yea and the solution to ineptitude is to employ experts and educate. I would rather police and other government institutes took data and research more seriously, they can't afford ineptitude on this." Or you could hire that expertise into a civilian police commissioner body that directs police strategy. Less likely to be influenced with assumptions of beat level policing. "There is a need for SWAT and special police units like this. The solution here is to de-militarize." Is there really though? The entire UK with a population of 66m has a few dedicated armed units nationally. Granted the US has a gun problem, but the idea that each city PD needs a swat team doesn't seem well founded. Why not a state level capability? That seems a far more sensible level. Each city PD having swat capability means overcapacity, which in turn drives overuse, and SWAT by nature is inherently militarised. If you must have a police capability bordering on a military capability, it should be a shared service operating at a scale were utilisation matches actual need. "Which would be fine, but that isn't what the document says. What you propose would be a much bigger salary reform." They basically eliminated overtime overnight in the UK across vast swathes of the public sector. In any case, within these proposals - which aren't being legislated for anyway -the PD can simply end overtime and up basic, using the savings from frozen recruitment.
kargen Member	Mon Aug 03 14:50:18 "1. Remove 911 from police and establish a civilian service (don't see the issue there)" 911 is already central through all emergency agencies. You dial 911 then the person you talk with decides do they need to dispatch paramedics, firefighters, police or others. Usually a combination of agencies respond. The 911 center is simply housed in a police building. Housing it somewhere else wouldn't change anything if the rest of the proposal didn't completely do away with police. And we need to be honest if this goes through as written and is followed as written that is exactly what it does is get rid of the Seattle Police Department completely. They would have no equipment, no budget, and no qualified and certified officers within two years at most. Defunding community outreach and communications is about the most stupid thing they could do. Eliminating SWAT ranks right up there though. Thing about SWAT is sometimes you need them. If you need them and don't have them guess what happens. You have to call in federal agents. If you remove the travel and training budget you eliminate the department. Officers have to be certified and that certification includes training. No training, no certified police, no police department. Hear might be a good time to point out up until very recently the left has been saying the police need more outreach programs and more training. Seems counter intuitive to somehow think less training gives you better officers. The rest of the bill is just vague language calling for minimum wage increases, hiring quotas, enhanced environmental regulation and more handouts. Everything will go to shit when they find out how dangerous domestic calls can be because a social worker or two end up hospitalized or worse. Sometimes saying please calm down I know where you are coming from doesn't quite cut it.
Seb Member	Mon Aug 03 15:08:30 Kargen: If the staff are part of the same organisational culture, they may be biased towards sending police to incidents. SWAT is needed, but it doesn't follow that every police department needs it's own swat. You end up with it either getting used inappropriately or its methods and approach being adopted in non swat situations. Again it speaks to culture. Essentially these ought to be kept separate functions at a level where you can fully utilise swat teams on incidents that require swat response. The bill doesn't include most of the plan, and the fact you saw
Seb Member	Mon Aug 03 15:09:04 The fact you focus on points in the second doc make me think you've not read the actual bill.
Dakyron Member	Mon Aug 03 15:13:38 "SWAT is needed, but it doesn't follow that every police department needs it's own swat. " Umm... a city the size of Seattle definitely needs at least one SWAT team.
Seb Member	Mon Aug 03 15:40:49 700k? That's tiny. A swat team means sufficient staff to provide a swat team covering all times. You can easily share that more broadly. No way is there need in Seattle for a SWAT team to be in anything like 100% capacity. http://www...ice-locations/precinct-locator Could easily share services with the built up areas adjoining the current area they cover.
Rugian Member	Mon Aug 03 15:41:59 Seb Second document, page 9, paragraph 3. It states that minorities are disproportionately charged for "low level crimes" (without saying whether minorities are also disproportionate perpetrators of said crimes) and therefore calls for the wholesale decriminalization of misdemeanors (specifically mentioning shoplifting, low-level drug crimes, trespassing, and disorderly conduct). What they're essentially saying is that black people cant follow the law, so let's just repeal the law. Its insane.
kargen Member	Mon Aug 03 15:43:36 I dispatched for a while part time when the sheriffs office here was really short handed. There is a fairly detailed protocol for who a dispatcher sends out based on the type of call. There is some overlap. For a car accident fire and paramedics are first priority to dispatch because it really sucks if you need them there and they are not there. Next highway patrol is contacted unless accident is on a city street. If it is a city/town the local police is dispatched. If highway patrol is not in vicinity then a sheriffs deputy is sent. If traffic is going to be a problem two deputies will be sent to stop traffic both ways. After the emergency is over the police investigate cause. That is how it is handled in this county and probably most others. A bar fight gets town police called out first with sheriffs office made aware in case they are needed. First officer on scene will advise if medical help is needed. This being a rural area emergency medical people are usually alerted to report to station for possible dispatch for things like a fight. Rural area so most firefighting and medical response is volunteer. Many towns do not have SWAT. Larger cities do need SWAT though. Seattle qualifies as large. For where we are at nearest SWAT is about three hours away. last time they were needed here it was for a person that was trying his best to commit suicide by cop and he wouldn't let his wife leave the house. He was successful in his suicide but it happened before SWAT could arrive.
Seb Member	Mon Aug 03 15:44:59 Rugian: Second document has no legal effect, so, aside from someone calling for it, it's not anything that is actually happening.
Seb Member	Mon Aug 03 15:45:36 I specifically stated which document to look at, so bit stupid to look at another one Rugian.
Seb Member	Mon Aug 03 15:54:20 Kargen: On a map, I see Bellevue, Newcastle and Seattle all cheek in jowl. Do they all need a separate SWAT team? Or could one SWAT capability reasonably cover them all? Hell, Tacoma is what, 25 to thirty KM away. Metropolitan police has a range that covers an approximate 40km diameter area with a population of 9m with 550 SO19 officers.
kargen Member	Mon Aug 03 15:59:59 "And really the militarization is much deeper issue, former military are over-represented on the US police force." Going off on a tangent for a moment. Back in the early 1990s I was living in Denver. Denver decided they needed a more diverse police force. They were told they couldn't have a quota in place for hiring and had to hire based on merit. So they came up with a test. It had a lot of questions you would expect every applicant to be able to answer correctly. It also had a question asking your race. If you answered black you got +15 points. Hispanic got you +10 and white you received -5. Quotas were not legal but this test was seen as being okay. There were other questions along these lines. You needed at least an 85 on the test to be considered. A white male if he got a perfect score on the normal questions could only get an 80. There was one question about military service and if you were in the military you got +5. The result being all white male new hires had military experience. Fun thing is the Hispanic officers on the force raised all kinds of hell about the new test because they didn't want to be lumped in with others that without the race bonus were not qualified. Not sure how long the policy was in place and have no idea if other cities did something similar but it would explain why so many large departments have military on their staff. On a different note my brother has to go once every two years (he is a deputy) for race sensitivity training. The person that teaches the course now starts it by saying if you are white you are racist and will always be racist. He then goes on to tell them how racist they are but doesn't offer much in a way of solution.
Rugian Member	Mon Aug 03 16:02:16 Seb You mean the "irrelevant" document that has a veto-proof majority of support in the counsel? You cant just ignore the insanity by refusing to acknowledge it exists.
Dakyron Member	Mon Aug 03 16:03:30 kargen tells lots of folksy stories that in retrospect, are mostly false. Like, literally the shit he says is stuff my dad would rant about in the 1990s(that is not a compliment).
kargen Member	Mon Aug 03 16:06:20 Newcastle is covered by a SWAT team linked to the county sheriffs office. The other two have their own teams and probably need them. Remember SWAT does have to work with other officers so it helps if they know each other and have worked together in the past.
Seb Member	Mon Aug 03 16:19:29 Rugian: Irrelevant in that it is not the substance of the bill, ergo it is just an action groups plan, ergo I'm not sure how you can be sure it does have a veto proof majority. Kargen: "Newcastle is covered by a SWAT team linked to the county sheriffs office. The other two have their own teams and probably need them. Remember SWAT does have to work with other officers so it helps if they know each other and have worked together in the past." I'm pointing out that as criminals are not likely to respect what look geographically like fairly arbitrary bounds, this looks like you are going to end up with many more SWAT trained officers than you actually need to cover the entire area because you are balkanising them into tiny units. I see absolutely no reason why relationships would be important here, do your police not know how to collaborate using standardised processes, orders etc. and rely instead of having personal relationships? Also, if you had a single central team covering the whole lot, wouldn't they have equal opportunity to work with the respective police forces?
kargen Member	Mon Aug 03 16:54:01 "I see absolutely no reason why relationships would be important here, do your police not know how to collaborate using standardised processes, orders etc. and rely instead of having personal relationships?" Sure there are standards. Still any time you get in a situation that requires SWAT if you know who you are working with it can only help. "Also, if you had a single central team covering the whole lot, wouldn't they have equal opportunity to work with the respective police forces?" Not necessarily. SWAT can be and is used for more than just high intensity situations. They can be dispatched as possible back-up to officers serving a warrant raiding a drug house and things like that where their need isn't immediately known. In those situations chain of command may be different than it would be with for instance a known hostage situation. Knowing who you are working with and how they act is a plus in almost any situation including most outside of law enforcement. Many SWAT teams are also doing a lot of public outreach. You know, getting to know the community they work in. Something Seattle seems to think is no longer important. Again until recently it was thought to be really important getting cops back out on the streets. So much so that some cities have police walking part of their shift so they can interact with the public outside a high stress situation. A single team would still actually consist of many teams just all based from one location. They would be expected to cover the same population so would need the same resources. So basically you have the same coverage and to the public it appears as if there were no change in respect to profile in public.
Seb Member	Mon Aug 03 16:59:55 Kargen: "Not necessarily. SWAT can be and is used for more than just high intensity situations." And that's my point, having SWAT present in such situations can encourage escalatory rather than descalatory approaches. "You know, getting to know the community they work in." Again, not necesarily a good thing from a system perspective. You are taking the police that are most trained to operate in a highly hostile situation (which will shape their view on how to approach other situations - e.g. they will be more likely to perceive threat because in the situations they are trained and specialised to operate for, threat is a given). "Again until recently it was thought to be really important getting cops back out on the streets." Community led policing is great, but what is the sense in training people in the exact opposite of that, and then having them try to do the community led policing? It's the beat cops that should be doing that or the whole thing is pointless.
sam adams Member	Mon Aug 03 17:27:09 Disband seattle government and all seattle institutions. Put bellevue people in charge of everything. I mean thats going to happen anyway. All the tech money is already moving there. The incompetence of the seattle urban core will just speed it up.
sam adams Member	Mon Aug 03 17:28:48 Suburban property going wayyy up in $$.
Habebe Member	Mon Aug 03 18:03:20 I want to see the fraiser episode on this.
kargen Member	Mon Aug 03 18:20:39 "And that's my point, having SWAT present in such situations can encourage escalatory rather than descalatory approaches." Can and does often go the other direction. SWAT usually is better trained at deescalation and negotiations techniques. The added fire power is a deterrent just by being there. Someone who thinks they can shoot past a couple of police with handguns and armor will sometimes rethink when seeing the odds that stacked against them. There are of course the few that will see the desperate situation and do something stupid but those people were not likely to see reason either way. I'm guessing very few people think well shit SWAT showed up I better blow something up. "Again, not necesarily a good thing from a system perspective. You are taking the police that are most trained to operate in a highly hostile situation (which will shape their view on how to approach other situations" Actually it is a very good thing. Lets the public see they are just people. That training is above and beyond all the training other officers go through. They are trained to handle situations that might overwhelm other police units. They are also trained to assist as needed. Their first objective and priority is to end the dispute peacefully. Some cities have started programs where SWAT members along with other officers do outreach programs in schools and other community settings. They try to teach the children police are not someone to fear (yeah I know exceptions exist) and get a comfortable relationship between the police and the neighborhood. Saying police shouldn't know the community they work in is like saying a fast food place shouldn't know what condiments people like on their burgers. It isn't smart policy to not know the people you will be dealing with. "Community led policing is great, but what is the sense in training people in the exact opposite of that, and then having them try to do the community led policing?" There is zero "exact opposite" of that training. There is no seminar on how to avoid the public at all cost and if you must interact with them be extremely hostile to them. That training doesn't exist. People in NYC like when they see the chief of police out and about engaging in conversations with people on the street. Well the rioters don't much care for it but most like it. Same thing with SWAT. They aren't just sitting in a room cleaning weapons hoping they get to go shoot someone. They are simply sometimes a necessary component of law enforcement. They can be ambassadors as easily as they can be warriors. They are trained for both.
Forwyn Member	Mon Aug 03 23:08:38 "a couple of police with handguns and armor" I guarantee every Seattle beat cop has an AR in the car
kargen Member	Tue Aug 04 00:44:21 point still stands.
Cherub Cow Member	Tue Aug 04 01:40:10 [Nimatzo]: "The solution here is to de-militarize. And really the militarization is much deeper issue, former military are over-represented on the US police force. For natural reasons of proclivity, but a couple of studies indicate that former military are over-represented in shootings and complaints." Weird to see you repeat this fallacious argument when I debunked it in the second Floyd thread ( http://ftp...hread=85786&time=1590863224864 ). TLDR: • Of the few studies that have been conducted, research finds that veterans tend to be calmer under pressure, making better decisions due to a higher threshold of stress (e.g., "Military-Trained Police May Be Less Hasty To Shoot, But That Got This Vet Fired" http://www.npr.org/2016/12/08/504718239/military-trained-police-may-be-slower-to-shoot-but-that-got-this-vet-fired ) • The only "major" study that has shown an over-representation of veterans in police shootings was a biased MarshallProject study that was limited to about 500 officers from the Dallas area, and no controls were placed in that study to differentiate between good and bad shootings, complaints against those officers, or where the veterans were assigned (e.g., were veterans seen as more competent and thus placed in areas more likely to have lethal conflicts?). So we have a poor sample size with low statistical relevance from a biased study. .. [kargen]: "Hear might be a good time to point out up until very recently the left has been saying the police need more outreach programs and more training. Seems counter intuitive to somehow think less training gives you better officers." Exactly. It's simple business sense that if you want qualified employees then you invest more in training and pay higher salaries to attract better talent. Defunding (and demonizing) the police makes policing highly undesirable, which means lower quality talent and lower quality training. The belief by proponents is that the newly allocated services will fill in the gaps, but they don't seem to realize the lack in quality that they'll receive from the services due to bureaucratic bloat and incompetence. .. [Rugian]: "What they're essentially saying is that black people cant follow the law, so let's just repeal the law. Its insane." California's Proposition 47, passed in 2014, attempted the same thing. What business owners got was unchecked theft from their stores. Clerks already can't intervene due to corporate rules (they can get fired), and police minimized response if theft was valued at less than about $950 (it's just a misdemeanor and thus a waste of time to pursue suspects). So unless the crime happens directly in front of police, thieves can just go for it. Mega City One will need a new kind of hero.
Habebe Member	Tue Aug 04 02:42:32 Well , I say go for it. BUT keep thorough data, not like the BLM covid BS where they intentionally tried to hide it. Why should I.care what they want to do in there state/city? If it works, fantastic it can be modeled elsewhere with some adjustments. If it's an epic failure, well thats on them. Likley what will happen is some things will work and others will not.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Tue Aug 04 03:00:16 CC Of the few studies (correct there are very few studies) one is an NPR article (?) and the other (you assert) is biased (and btw the largest of its' kind). Marshall project mentions 1 study and their own investigation, study is from Dallas and investigation from Boston and Miami. "biased MarshallProject study" It's a published academic study in an epidemiology journal conducted at Texas school of public health. What makes it "biased"? http://aca...cle-abstract/41/3/e245/5114353 The Dallas study says veteran were more likely to shoot and those deployed even more likely than those that had not. Boston and Miami showed that they were more likely to have use of force complaints filed against them. "In addition, one-third of the 35 fatal police shootings in Albuquerque from January 2010 to April 2014 involved cops who were military veterans." Arguably, this isn't strong evidence, but it is evidence and that requires further investigation and it all point in the same direction. While intuitively it makes sense, intuitions have severe limits. Interestingly, Chauvin had multiple complaints against him and 8 years in the Army reserve.
earthpig GTFO HOer	Tue Aug 04 03:03:44 "Suburban property going wayyy up in $$." Yes, this is happening.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Tue Aug 04 03:27:24 Seb "You might not, I do. Natural shrinkage. Retirees not replaced. Not abolition. If the bulk of the force is in their 60s I'd be surprised" Please tell me this isn't where you start making shit up without referencing? You "know", but you end the sentence with "I.d be surprised", then you don't know, do you? You are making a very confident assertion and unfortunately your confidence means nothing here. You keep repeating "not abolition" as if *I* have made the argument or that we have defined what "abolition" means in this context. This is the title of the NY Post, the blog you linked to and every other source carrying this news. There is now even a wiki article for this movement. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_abolition_movement While reformists seek to address the ways in which policing occurs, abolitionists seek to transform policing altogether through a process of disbanding, disempowering, and disarming the police.[4] Abolitionists argue that the institution of policing is deeply rooted in a history of white supremacy and settler colonialism, and that it is inseparable from the purported existing racial capitalist order. Therefore, they say, a reformist reform approach to policing will always fail.[5][6][7][8] ^Working definition, it indicates that yes this proposal is "abolition" as per the users of the term as it seeks to "disband, disempower and disarm the police". The term is more refined it seems and given that it is just emerging it will likely transform to some degree in the coming months. The Seattle proposal, especially the justifying preamble and the blueprint for action, are congruent with the definition of abolitionists. Now whether they will go all the way and which suggestions from the blueprint that will be implemented is another question. I simply identified things that seemed extreme.
Seb Member	Tue Aug 04 04:22:32 Nim: I know it's natural shrinkage. This is pretty easy to estimate. Zeroth order, it's a flat distribution of ages. Any variance on that is second or third order. If they face acute manpower shortages as a result (especially with other tasks bring removed) that points to something very badly wrong. In a purely scientific sense, yes, I don't know the exact implications and neither do you. But I assume reasonably the city council does, and I assume it will be similar to other public sector shrinkage programs. The Cabinet Office oversaw many such programs during the time I was there across the whole public sector. It's eminently manageable and theres no good reason to recoil in horror at the idea until you have exact staff list numbers. It would lead to around 2.5% reduction in headcount per year max. In practice you will have exemption processes anyway. There's always the need to recruit particular roles. Common law systems often first ban something then create a permit to control something. Cameron govt came in with a pledge to halt all govt IT spending precisely to create that central control. Abolition is the title of your thread. If abolition means "root and branch reform" fine. I suggest that's an abuse of language and dumb politics to call deep reform "abolition" which brings to mind abandoning any enforcement activity. Few regulators now focus purely on enforcement (largely the infective ones) and instead look at monitoring and support activity. Regulation of human activity (policing essentially being enforcement) ought to be the same and the basic point of this movement is that the police are overused, and social services etc. are underused and delivered by police which are not best places to do so. In any case, we can call it Humpty Dumpty for all I care. As proposed legislation it's a perfectly reasonable set of demands. As you say, if *that's* your definition of abolition, settle down!
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Tue Aug 04 04:32:23 Quick google reveals that back in 2018 Seattle had problems with a high turn over among their police officers. A problem that becomes worse if it presists with an errosion of institutional memory, seniority and expertise. People are not computers, where you feed them a punching card of instructions and they execute. The only way to reduce errors in these kinds of jobs that are not a mechanical process is to train train train. Many aspect of the polices job is much more like an atheletic event, a football or grappling match. Not just because of the physical aspect, but because errors cost a lot, you fumble and don’t make it to the next bracket. What do athelets do? They train. Obviously police can’t train as much, but 10-20% of their time is reasonable. If that equation works without employing more police, that is good. http://myn...ing-seattle-police-hiring/amp/ BS count 1. The remainder of the article describes a rather grim picture of the health of the PSD and a rather poor relationship between them and the City. So, I remain skeptical to the blueprint suggestion ”stop hiring”. It may be that their resources need to be better allocated, some services outsourced, some of the suggestions are rather bening, but taken as a whole and the spirit of the legislation is detrimental. If they had high turnover issue in 2018, it is unlikely to have gotten better in 2020. With that said, while I am happy this experiment is not taking place in my backyard and skeptical as I am, I shall wait for the results.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Tue Aug 04 04:47:09 Bla bla bla everything everywhere can be understood from my experience in the UK. -seb Predictable, like all religious conflict and racism can be understood from british and irish. I didn’t bother to post it, but yea I knew it was something about the UK. BS count 2 In fact the high turnover would indicate the average age should be relatively high, since older people are less likely to change jobs. Young people with nothing to tie them down are more likely to move for a new jobs etc.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Tue Aug 04 05:00:35 ”Abolition is the title of your thread” It is also the title of the article I linked to, but it was a mouthful so I shortened it. What is your point? ”As you say, if *that's* your definition of abolition, settle down!” It isn’t mine, I linked to a wiki article that defines it well enough to work with. Yes judging from what is said the ultimate goal is to fully abolish the police. Now I give them more credit that you imply I do. I don’t think they aim for anarchy, but that they view this as a step by step process. Which is the silver lining, things will detrioriate in steps (if they deteriorate) so you can always back off. The question is how much damage will be inflicted on that road. Though critical things could cause casquade effect that are hard to anticipate in messy human systems. I am optimally settled down on this one. In my view an extreme experiment I can watch from afar. NIMBY, but I appreciate the data.
Cherub Cow Member	Tue Aug 04 05:13:21 [Nimatzo]: "What makes it "biased"?" I went partially off of memory since I was copying and pasting from the other thread, my mistake. It was MarshallProject's *review* of the study that was biased; their conclusions support your point, but their conclusions were biased and not supported by the data. The point still stands that the studies were severely limited in scope and lacked good differentiation between their source data, so the evidence definitionally cannot "all point in the same direction" — there's no "all" about it; the study is nearly useless without controlling for confounding variables (a few of which I mentioned already). It "points" nowhere. .. [Nimatzo]: "Interestingly, Chauvin had multiple complaints against him and 8 years in the Army reserve." Complaints against him while a civilian officer, yes. And another point I already made in the other thread, so I'll be brief: the data even among limited cases of extreme examples that have been brought into the public eye (e.g., Floyd, Michael Brown) do not support this maniac-veteran hypothesis/prejudice of yours. Even among those prominent questionable shootings and use of force issues, most of the extreme examples were done by people who were not in the military (and never mind that some of those examples were non-issues of race-bait sensationalism). So Chauvin being former Army does not make a good verification study for you. That being said, he was Army *reserve*, which is a half step away from civilian. And a his job was Military Police, no less. They spend 8 hours a day pulling people over for going 1mph over the speed limit in 20mph zones. Don't over-qualify him from your ignorance.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Tue Aug 04 06:49:59 CC Where is the debunking study though? I have claimed that they are overrepresented in shootings, which is precisely what the study shows. Indeed, based on that and other issues I raised in the thread I have said what I believe about militarism in the police force. You have not shown any incongruent evidence and I have conceded what I show is not strong evidence. I said it was interesting that he fit the profile. You don’t understand what I am arguin. Basically people with certain procilivites will seek out and create the environment that fits their nature. Some portion of men (myself and 50+% of this board) have a fascination with violence and war. We are not evil trigger happy murderers all of us. But there is a certain mentality that exists in people with such proclivities that does not emerge as much in other people. Some people are just turned off by the concept of, war others want to be in one. These things transfer to other domains outside the military and very often in male dominated proffessions. It doesn’t result in dead bodies, they manifest differently and are often bening, but not always. This is all the more interesting on a larger perspective, because the USA has for decades had a relatively large supply of veteran who have seen combat, you average almost 2 conflicts every decade. Decades of combat veterans going into the police force. The effect will not all be positive and this is a very under-studied topic. In that thread I also brought up the fact that these veteran are very often recruited for drug and gang related duties, that is important because those two issues plausibly have the framing of war, even refered to it as such. I brought it up, because that could either be a bening thing or bad or both. Bening because the most violent criminals are arguably found here, but bad because it could also mean things are already too hot and escalate as both criminal and police view their day jobs as a conflict, a mini war. If you are such a police and you also hear the larger society and media talk about these issues in war like terms. Yes I think culture matters. It doesn’t matter what he did in the reserves, he is the type of person that finds war and the military fascinating enough to join them. That is all that says, I have no idea what his personality is like. His status as reservist is not the systematic issue, that is something that emerges after decades. Additionally in subsequent posts I gave you the point about police education. I had no idea it varied so wildly and could be a few months. That is bad, clearly they need much more and continous training. Obviously not all veterans are created equal and neither are all police educations and department selection process. I am in no way married to my speculative hypothesis, I would rather the fact show me wrong on this.
Forwyn Member	Tue Aug 04 10:54:42 "he was Army *reserve*, which is a half step away from civilian. And a his job was Military Police, no less. They spend 8 hours a day pulling people over for going 1mph over the speed limit in 20mph zones. Don't over-qualify him from your ignorance." This. Properly trained vets typically have less unjustified use of force incidents than those without. There's not really a problem with civilian cops having former military training. There's a problem with dropping surplus military goods on city departments, and dropping stacks of taxpayer cash for paramilitary "training" hosted by former cop goons who travel the country making seven-figures doing so.
Seb Member	Tue Aug 04 11:24:24 Nimatzo: You are looking at removal of institutional knowledge as an inherently bad thing, but the aparrently untaught and unapproved neck kneeling tactic* is also institutional knowledge. *I may be misremembering whether it was the PD in question that claimed it was not authorised or the Israelis when accused of training them, but it illustrates the point. Fact is though, natural shrinkage shouldn't affect tacit knowledge. Those people were going to leave anyway, so their knowledge should have been passed on by that point. It's forced redundancies and layoffs that would generate this issue, maybe training but most tacit knowledge transfer comes from co-working not formal training (and a budget cut would only affect external training by a contracted third party, I assume what they have in mind is the crap Forwyn mentions) As to whether retention is important, depends on whether culture is the issue or not. If culture is the issue, getting a lot of people to leave might be part of the answer. I have used that to effect culture change in one particularly brutal case where it was needed. I suggest you are in a far worse position to know that than whether capping recruitment and not allowing retiring staff to be replaced for a year (or how long the budgetary period is) is going to cause a major resourcing issue given the proposed reduction in scope of duties. As for using case studies as an example, ok, will if everything is a unique and special snowflake then naturally nobody can know anything about anything ever. There are no models, all knowledge is wrong, no experience or skills are transferable. You should probably not be posting then (and quit your job if it's still being a lean consultant, because it's based on a lie). Alternatively stop being such a drama queen. Of course you can use examples of similar measures have been successfully used in other oecd countries in the same public service and similar sectors to gauge how this would play out. That's BS count of 10 for you, because it's such a dumb proposition to try and argue. Especially in light of your next point where you draw on the general known fact of job mobility being higher in younger employees which is taking general information from a number of settings and applying it to this setting. "In fact the high turnover would indicate the average age should be relatively high, since older people are less likely to change jobs." How many cops get tired of what is a fairly strenuous job, take early retirement and supplement that with private security work? Or, should I simply ask what's your sector specific data to support that (and does it come from specifically Seattle PD given you don't believe knowledge is transferable)? "It isn’t mine," *Sigh*. If that's the one you want to adopt for this conversation then. Point is Abolition in this context isn't taking about elimination of enforcement of criminal law by police officers. Whether it's an unstated goal is neither here nor there - the measures in the bill look pretty fine, and the ones in the boarder proposal have a few snags but are largely potentially sensible.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Tue Aug 04 11:34:43 I don't want to read *that* much into it, but if you want to go there, I actually think being military police is water on the mill. People behave in a way in the military, according to a chain of command, observing subservience to authority and rank, that just do not exist in the civilian world. I have seen this rift in ordinary civilian companies here in Sweden. Former military people can be short and straight forward, many times men, especially men who have done military service or are really into _team_ sports, like this. Clear commands and expectations. Others (especially women) don't and will find it unpleasant and uncouth. These things do not simply go away when someone changes their job. It isn't fatalistic, but probabilistic. With 20% of the police force being veterans, the military mindset may have taken too much space and be valued too high. I don't think what I am proposing is all that controversial to be honest. You accept that the values and proclivities of Muslim immigrants do not vanish at the border. They bring ideas and value hierarchies with them that persist. The same is true here.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Tue Aug 04 12:03:04 Seb "You are looking at removal of institutional knowledge as an inherently bad thing" Without specifics, just "stop hiring", yes. That is an autistic way of solving problems. Police brutality? Stop hiring police. If specific things have been identified, there are more refined ways of dealing with them. "Fact is though, natural shrinkage shouldn't affect tacit knowledge." Fact is that you have yet to present any relevant facts to support your assertion. I have. the SPD (and all police in the USA, even in Sweden) have difficulty attracting people and retaining them. That has rather severe effects on institutional memory and general expertise and ability. Facts. "As for using case studies as an example, ok, will if everything is a unique and special snowflake" Uhm, I have no idea why you decided to go full retarded on this, but you are claiming there are no context specific parameters that are relevant? Why do you take every opportunity to show that you think in 1's and 0's? You have a very limited understanding and experience of human organization, almost exclusively from the digital space. "How many cops get tired of what is a fairly strenuous job, take early retirement and supplement that with private security work?" Good question, I have no idea, do you have any data? "that's your sector specific data to support that" Why would I need to present data for dismissing things you have asserted without any evidence? I said "stop hiring" sounds problematic (then provided evidence that there actually are hiring and retention problems), you said it wasn't because you knew stuff (specific to the SPD of course). Where are the stuff seb? "given you don't believe knowledge is transferable" Show me the stuff and then we will see if your assertion is close to the truth. Even if it was, we fundamentally disagree since I believe police need to spend more time training. If they can do that and still do their duties, that is great. I am however skeptical, I think they need more police officers.
Seb Member	Tue Aug 04 13:52:15 Nim: Why do you assume that the council don't have more information than you do to inform that decision? There may be more nuanced ways of staying cultural change but as an external body to an organisation (or even within it, if facing entrenched opposition), it's a lever. "Fact is that you have yet to present any relevant facts to support your assertion. I have. the SPD (and all police in the USA, even in Sweden) have difficulty attracting people and retaining them. That has rather severe effects on institutional memory and general expertise and ability. Facts." Stop, and think through. High churn is problem, because you have people with skills leaving and people being recruited and people leaving before they have had a chance to acquire skills, experience and knowledge, but freezing recruitment doesn't create high churn. Measures that would increase exit rates would be a problem, but a recruitment ban does not make people leave who would not otherwise have left. So what here prevents knowledge transfer internally? Arguably the training budget, but internal skills transfer doesn't need a formal budget line, just time allocation. "even in Sweden" As if everything could be could be boiled down to Sweden blah blah blah... "Uhm, I have no idea why you decided to go full retarded on this, but you are claiming there are no context specific parameters" Because you went full retard and argue that merely to cite recent examples of simular programs across police and many other public services in the UK somehow amounted to saying "Bla bla bla everything everywhere can be understood from my experience in the UK.". There's no good reason to think that SPD would be radically different from the remarkably consistent 2.5% seen actors multiple public sectors in the UK (and indeed other countries) through recruitment freezes. "Why do you take every opportunity to show that you think in 1's and 0's?" See, I don't know how you even get this. You post a ridiculous argument that basically says "oh, you've cited examples in other areas, that's bullshit because it's a different context, you are just saying everything can be understood from the UK",cite an example from Sweden yourself, then say I'm the one being ridiculously reductionist! Seriously Nim... how I'm I supposed to take this remotely seriously. Stop making bullshit handwavey adhoms to dismiss arguments out of hand and this conversation will be more productive! "Good question, I have no idea, do you have any data?" No. I'm using assumptions from parallel situations, as you are, the difference is I'm not hysterically throwing my hands up about you doing it and making ridiculous adhoms about "1's and 0's". "Why would I need to present data for dismissing things you have asserted without any evidence?" Because you are making a positive claim yourself - without evidence - that job churn is higher in younger people generally, and if you are going to dismiss me out of hand for citing examples for elsewhere, particularly in such excited and emotive ways then it's the height of hypocrisy to not practice what you preach. Alternatively, perhaps don't hold me to standards higher than you hold yourself. You argued that "Neither you nor I know what the net effect is... So this is very speculative on your part.", I simply said you shouldn't speak for me, because I'm pretty confident that the net effect of natural shrinkage will be around 2.5% reduction per year, and explained why. You have some massive objection to that, holding your hands up in horror at the idea that various similar hiring freeze programs across wide parts of the public sector (including police) in the UK could possibly tell us anything useful about SPD and likening it to "thinking in 1's and 0's" while in the same breath citing findings from Swedish police forces. Double standards Nim. In perfectly relaxed actually about these two not particularly controversial points and the level of evidence behind them. I just think you are being intellectually dishonest in advancing then while strongly rejecting and dismissing the same, and insisting we cannot "know" (at least enough for the purposes of this conversation) about the probable impact of freezing recruitment.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Tue Aug 04 15:15:30 ”Why do you assume that the council don't have more information than you do to inform that decision?” Why do you assume that they do? Have you seen it? I am pretty sure these things are suppose to be transparent. Where are the stuff? ”but freezing recruitment doesn't create high churn.” Just like shutting off the pump that is pumping out the water from your leaky boat doesn’t create more leaks. You are correct and irrelevant at the same time. ”but a recruitment ban does not make people leave who would not otherwise have left.” That are achieve in ”eliminate recruitment and RETENTION”, it is sort of implied in the word and additionally in ”eliminate training budget” and ”eliminate overtime pay” *without any other salary reform. ”So what here prevents knowledge transfer internally?” Is this a real question? So if you have people who retire every year and people who quit and the net effect is negative, then you eliminate the retention budget, you eliminate new hires (even those already in the education pipeline) you will of course end up with a woefully understaffed police department quite quickly, unable to preform their services. There will be a lack of seniority and mentors once you wake up from your nightmare and reinstate that which you have eliminated. You DO understand police work in pairs right and that specifically in the USA the behind the school bench part is 3-4 months and the rest is out in the field? The rookie cop is paired with a more senior cop. You can’t rewind the tape, the veterans who were suppose to mentor the new guys are gone. Some of them had specific expertise in community outreach or gang related activity and so on. You know how many times I have seen companies fuck this up in ordinary industry? lol how can someone so confused talk with such confidence, it really boggles the mind. ”As if everything could be could be boiled down to Sweden blah blah blah…” These are actual facts, like with numbers and stuff. The fact that it is a problem in the USA is covered in the article, do you want a citation for Sweden? Just ask and you shall have it. I am polite enough to ask, despite knowing you will fail to produce any. "Bla bla bla everything everywhere can be understood from my experience in the UK.". You said ”I do know” in reference to me saying we don’t know the specifics of the SPD staff turnover (we know more now thanks to me), then you started to bla bla about the UK. You keep doing this reductio ad Britannia. ”cite an example from Sweden yourself” Ask me for a source about the problems of the Swedish police hiring and retaining problems. I can even give you a bonus that even the police academies have issues even getting people to the apply! Me pointing this out in no way strengthens my argument about the specific issues of hire and mention at the SPD. i.e this specific problem isn’t unique, but a problem it is. You just boldly asserted they stop hiring wouldn’t have a negative effect ”natural shrinkage” retirees aren’’t replaced”. Clearly if a boat is leaking, the best decisions isn’t to shut off the bilge. ”Stop making bullshit handwavey adhoms to dismiss arguments out of hand and this conversation will be more productive!” Stop making shit up, cite sources when someone asks and don’t whine about ad homs when you do it yourself. Because I promise if you assert things and their validity is sufficiently ambiguous to me, I will ask for a source and failing to produce one I will dismiss them out of hand. FYI for future decisions to engage with me or not. It isn’t like I woke up today and had no memories of the poster Seb. Patterns, I see them and you see them, maybe together we can break free? ”No. I'm using assumptions from parallel situations, as you are,” As I have explained, I am not doing what you are doing I have sources for both parallel situations. I have assumed nothing, they are reported and in the public domain. ”Because you are making a positive claim yourself” I said: ”In fact the high turnover would indicate the average age should be relatively high, since older people are less likely to change jobs. Young people with nothing to tie the” It is a hypothetical. I never claimed that they are, but I should fix this grammatically, from would indicate to could mean. You are correct, we do not know the age of the people leaving, it is yet another gap in what we know about SPD. The salient thrust remains the same. ”You argued that "Neither you nor I know what the net effect is... So this is very speculative on your part.", I simply said you shouldn't speak for me, because I'm pretty confident that the net effect of natural shrinkage will be around 2.5% reduction per year, and explained why.” You should have said, yes it is speculative, but this is why I believe what I do based on my experience in the UK. Instead you said ”I know”. You claimed knowledge specific to the SPD. I called BS and reductio ad Britannia. Fair is fair seb, not a double standard. If I find that someone speak with authority I will pose questions (and obviously that I find the whole topic sufficiently interesting), if they are a true authority they can at the very least cite stuff. If not they will declare the limits of their knowledge, otherwise they are BSing.
	show deleted posts

Your Name:
Your Password:
Your Message: