This past summer, I sat across from my father at our dining room table. For weeks, our dinnertime conversation seemed to cycle back to the same topic again and again: police brutality and what to do about it. I argued for abolishing the institution, while he insisted progress could be made via reform. There was one area that we agreed upon: the term “ACAB,” or “All Cops Are Bastards,” is inadequate. Vilifying every law enforcement officer without specifying that the root of the problem is a bastardized system provides only half the story, only half the context. And, in these politically fraught times, half the context is never enough.
Defunding and/or abolishing police forces across the country has surged as a hot topic for conversation and consideration in recent months. But, what does defunding actually look like? Does it mean police officers will have to confront dangerous people like active shooters without any weaponry? Does it mean that you will never again feel that deep chest-pounding fear when you barely make it through an intersection on a yellow light and realize that familiar blue and black emblem is right behind you? Or, does it mean communities will police themselves?
These are all good and valid questions. Well, maybe not the second one. But, I’d like to take a moment to consider the other two. While some activists are calling for dismantling or removing the police from society entirely, many are instead focused on defunding the institution. This means reducing the resources allocated to police and redistributing those funds, often to social services like housing, education and employment — aspects of the social safety net that can help reduce crime and recidivism. Commonly, this takes the form of disarming officers. To the everyday American, this idea sounds radical. The average Minneapolis Police Department officer carries one to two fully loaded handguns, an impact weapon (otherwise known as a baton), a Taser and a chemical agent (tear gas) and must have a riot stick readily available whenever on duty. Meanwhile, the United Kingdom, New Zealand and Norway, among other countries, do not arm law enforcement at all.
Police in the United States have become a catchall support system for many problems communities face. Burglary, vandalism, car-jacking? Call the police. Your elderly neighbor hasn’t answered the door in a couple days? You’ll likely call the police. A stop light is out on a busy road or the bar in your neighborhood is blasting music too loudly? Once again, your local police department will be answering the phone. Most of these crimes are nonviolent and do not necessitate police carrying firearms to effectively handle the situation. In fact, many police departments spend only about 4% of their time addressing violent crimes. We can create a community that is safer for everyone by ensuring that police have access to firearms when the situation necessitates them while still lowering the risk of police violence in otherwise nonviolent scenarios.
Let’s say we’ve all agreed that reallocating police funding is in our best interest. Unfortunately, the situation is still tricky. While neighborhoods like Stadium Village, Dinkytown and Marcy-Holmes are policed by the Minneapolis Police Department, the campus itself is covered by the University of Minnesota Police Department. So, who do we even defund? Looking at the City of Minneapolis crime locations map, significantly more crime occurs off campus than on. Disarming UMPD is theoretically easier as it is under the jurisdiction of University governance, meaning that we as a community would also have greater control over how funds are redistributed. However, disarming UMPD does little to solve the greater problem at hand. It is but a small drop in a very, very large bucket.
The reality is that disarming UMPD is a symbolic gesture. It is not meaningless, but the legitimate effect it will have on the surrounding community will not be obvious or hugely transformative. Crime will still be an issue on and off campus. Police brutality toward minorities will not disappear. But, disarming UMPD is a crucial step in distancing ourselves from the racialized, militarized policing tactics of the past. More importantly, it allows us to accept that disarming and defunding police departments is not just another insane, unachievable idea of the radical left. ACAB may strike fear in the hearts of moderates everywhere, but the core idea is one we can all agree on: We, as a society, cannot sustain this level of violence. Creating a society that is more equitable, peaceful and compassionate starts with change in our own communities.
A Gopher
Dec 11, 2020 at 6:43 pm
The author is from Hopkins and so once again we see the bored, white, suburban over simplification of crime and race relations is only based in rhetoric. Would Emily move over North Minneapolis, Philips, or Payne-Phalen? Of course not, because it’s not “safe.” That’s the white euphemism for too much black criminality while still pretending they’re not as racist as the Truckers for Trump. Well, at least those guys are saying what they actually believe instead of lecturing us city-dwellers about city politics while you sip suburban lattes, bunch of hypocrites all!
A Gopher
Dec 11, 2020 at 6:14 pm
The biggest Trump supporter I know still acknowledged that he had no shot going into May. Then an inflammatory video was released that many interpreted occurred only because of the race of the individual and not the aggressive behavior that led to a hold 167 people survived with no lasting effect. After that, rioting, looting, and arson occurred and democrats had trouble giving full-throated condemnation of these events. Even when they did start to speak out they misattributed the people responsible often saying it was the KKK or bugaboo boys. You can look at the ATF website and see that clearly the suspect lineup is far more diverse than liberal media outlets and politicians are willing to say. And therein lies the problem, whilst democrats gleefully point out every lie and falsehood Trump spoke they willfully refuse to speak out against black violence and criminality. Even as many UMN students hail from suburbs and rural areas they lecture city-dwellers about their racism, but did you ever question why your parents or grandparents moved so far out of the inner-city in the first place? In 1940, Minneapolis was a growing metropolis of 600,000. White flight occurred (for you know exactly the reason) and Minneapolis is now around 400,00 residents 80 years later. And so, democrats and liberals in general have a major problem where their actions say one thing, but their virtue signaling another. I’m sick of Trump and his cronies, but if I have to hear about one more suburban white person lecture us about privilege and the inner city I will join the millions voting for Trump just to spite you willfully blind liberals.
z3r0C007
Dec 9, 2020 at 12:44 pm
“This means reducing the resources allocated to police and redistributing those funds, often to social services like housing, education and employment — aspects of the social safety net that can help reduce crime and recidivism.”
We already have those and it hasn’t shown to do any of those. Minneapolis has poured hundreds of millions into its safety nets and nothing better has come of it – ever.
“Meanwhile, the United Kingdom, New Zealand and Norway, among other countries, do not arm law enforcement at all.”
You probably don’t know this, but gun ownership in all three of those countries? Non existent. Guns have been outlawed in the UK for decades now – something THEY have warned our country we shouldn’t let happed. Australia? Almost impossible to get a permit or own a gun. Take away the guns and then you have more knife attacks, just like they’re seeing in the UK now – where there’s talk of get this. . . outlawing knives now. Also, in Norway, police have always had guns with them, although they’re mandated to be locked in their cars. Ironic considering Norway is a country that has a very high level of private gun ownership.
No, you can’t just say, “Hey, in these countries, cops don’t have guns and it works so our cops shouldn’t have guns either!” without understanding WHY they don’t have to carry guns and why it would be an unmitigated disaster if you disarmed police departments here in this country.
“We can create a community that is safer for everyone by ensuring that police have access to firearms when the situation necessitates them while still lowering the risk of police violence in otherwise nonviolent scenarios.”
You’re making a blanket assumption by stating you will know when a situation is a violent one and when it will be a non-violent one. Domestic abuse? Usually starts non-violently, but is one of the most dangerous calls because its very likely it will escalate (just review some of the most recent police shootings) and is the number 1 reason cops are killed on duty. I can name a dozen or so recent incidents that should have been non-violent where a cop was attacked and had to defend himself. You cannot simply say, “We’ll just send a social worker to this call because its non-violent, its just a guy in an argument with his mother (Ricardo Munoz ring a bell?)”
It doesn’t work like that EVER.
“Let’s say we’ve all agreed that reallocating police funding is in our best interest.”
Its not and it never will be. One doesn’t have to do more than five minutes of research on the crime rates in cities where they’re already moving money out of the police budget to other areas. All one has to do is look at the huge spike in crimes in Minneapolis after the “defund the police” movement disenfranchised cops and emboldened criminals.
“But, disarming UMPD is a crucial step in distancing ourselves from the racialized, militarized policing tactics of the past.”
Do some research on the 1033 program. Go read the statistics on the UCR about how crime breaks down along racial lines. Here’s the link: https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2018/crime-in-the-u.s.-2018/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-6.xls
Then try and tell me blacks are being killed at a higher rate by whites (specifically white cops) then by other blacks.
“We, as a society, cannot sustain this level of violence. Creating a society that is more equitable, peaceful and compassionate starts with change in our own communities.”
This is the fatal flaw of progressive philosophy. You think if we’re just nice with each other, everybody will play along and we all sing songs and be happy. I got some news for you – reality doesn’t work like that. There are bad people out there. They want to take what you have, and if necessary, they will do it by force. The only line of defense against those people (and here’s a newsflash for you, they exist in EVERY community) is the police.
You want to fix the problem? Its pretty easy actually.
Pay for more training – as in a LOT more training. Navy Seals? They train 18 months for a 6 month deployment. Why are we not training our police forces like they are? Why are we not pouring the hundreds of millions of dollars into their training instead of hiring a bunch of “social workers” to do their job?
Train them better, in an ongoing, rotating process. 15-20 hours of training per year? Asinine. You used Norway as a great example of cops who don’t carry guns? Noway’s cops get upwards of 50+ hours of training. If you’re on one of their specialized units? North of 150+ hours of yearly training.
Train them better and put more of them out on the street. Arradondo askes for 400 cops at the start of this year. Frey gave him 15 instead. The people in these areas want MORE cops patrolling their streets, not less. When you have less cops, you don’t get to know the communities, you have no vested interest in the people and communities in which you patrol. More cops, better relationships, less crime, more training to handle situations better.
THAT is the solution, not getting rid of them or disarming them.
Tom
Dec 9, 2020 at 12:44 pm
Reliance on idiotic rhetoric like this is the reason Democrats didn’t take back the Senate and lost seats in the House, despite defeating the most unpopular President in history.
So thanks a lot. Your “symbolic gestures” have had tangible, real world consequences.
You should be so proud of yourself.