Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

mreed911 t1_jcys5kg wrote

Reply to comment by Donmiggy143 in San Francisco official who pushed to defund police pleads for more officers in her district by Top-Organization-124

Which meant… fewer police.

−1

blazelet t1_jcyxwvs wrote

Yes, it would mean fewer police because more of the police responsibilities would shift to specialists who are trained to be more effective at working with mentally ill people, etc. Police would be reallocated to do what police do well, and moved away from areas where we see repeat failure in policing.

As that transition didn't happen, though, we still need more police.

18

[deleted] t1_jcz0ohu wrote

[removed]

1

AutoModerator t1_jcz0om3 wrote

Sorry, but your account is too new to post. Your account needs to be either 2 weeks old or have at least 250 combined link and comment karma. Don't modmail us about this, just wait it out or get more karma.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

0

SilasX t1_jczxvqz wrote

… So the title is still oniony, and the subject is still hypocritical. What’s the problem again?

−3

Donmiggy143 t1_jcysk58 wrote

No. Which meant fewer police tanks, and riot gear, and payouts for terrible police behavior. Slightly reduced budgets for less police bloat, and more experts to handle delicate situations. That doesn't mean less police. But the unions sure wanted to make you think that's what it would do.

14

mreed911 t1_jcyt5va wrote

It’s meant fewer police in every major city that reduced budgets.

7

Jarjarthejedi t1_jcz4w6w wrote

And where was that? I haven't seen a single major city that actually reduced police budgets. Tons of people talking about how "oh, they reduced police budgets and then needed police, ha ha!" but in literally every one of those cases (including this one, as San Fran increased its police budgets since 2019, https://abc7news.com/sfpd-budget-defund-the-police-department-funding/12321818/ ) the police budget went up and police usefulness continued to go down, and the "its because of defund!" was nothing but propaganda.

So which actual cities did this happen in?

5

mreed911 t1_jcza74n wrote

https://www.austinmonitor.com/data-graphic/austin-police-department-budget-2012-2022

>During the 2020-21 budget process, City Council cut $31.5 million from APD’s budget, citing the protests and “community outcry against the disproportionate impact of police violence on Black Americans, Latinx Americans and other non-white ethnic communities,” according to the approved budget.
The following year, however, Council members approved a record-high APD budget – more than $443 million.

What this doesn't say, though, is that the operational budget was still cut and the increase in overall Police Budget was because several other operations that were moved out of APD were then merged back into APD and/or expanded the next year... like the combined city dispatch center, additional calltaker support, etc.

Austin, today, has fewer sworn officers on the streets but also a higher response times to priority calls, than previously, indicating it's not keeping up with demand despite taking street officers off of nonviolent property crime calls. A significant chunk of that budget increase was in non-sworn positions and 311 calltakers to deal with those issues, where APD issues a case number over the phone for non-violent property crimes (and never follows up).

4

Jarjarthejedi t1_jczsd0m wrote

...So budgets went up, and usefulness continued to go down, and the people crying "it's because of the defund people!" continue to be liars. Exactly as I said. Neat? Thanks for the additional source I guess.

Also, fun fact about Austin. While they did officially cut police budgets in 2021, they put that extra money in a fund ("Decouple and Reimagine) designed to be used to move stuff to other areas but used for police business in 2021.

https://theaustinbulldog.org/did-austin-defund-the-police-here-are-the-numbers/

3

mreed911 t1_jczuc0d wrote

Taking officers off the streets (APD has fewer sworn officers today in actual numbers an in terms of officers per 1000 people) has resulted in increase operational burden, meaning longer waits for critical calls and deferment of non-critical calls to other departments (which I support).

6

Infernalism t1_jcysfx3 wrote

Yes, where the ones remaining would be doing things other than babysitting department stores.

4

SpicyMcBeard t1_jcyv7p0 wrote

Or fewer new swat vehicles. Maybe don't buy that tank or helicopter that your department doesn't REALLY need. Maybe only increase the budget by a LITTLE BIT this year. There are a lot of things you can skip out on and NOT decrease the number of boots on the pavement, but for some reason everyones mind goes straight to layoffs as if they've never had to finagle a budget before, meanwhile the top brass is sitting in their office laughing their asses off at all of us. Maybe the police unions need to step up to the plate and teach their members who the real threat to their employment is (hint: it's not the public whom they are sworn to serve and protect) and remind them that they're at the bottom of the pyramid in this situation along with the rest of us

0

mreed911 t1_jcywoyu wrote

You seem to not understand capex vs. opex. Equipment is capex. Officers are opex. When budget cuts happen, both get cut. And if you require additional positions that aren't sworn officers, that reduces opex spend, meaning fewer officers.

You and I likely agree about the over-militarization of police and what that's done to their relationship with the community, their focus, etc. We likely also celebrate the recent Texas court decision that forced McKinney PD to pay for SWAT damages to property. Accountability is key... but lowering the budgets when the vast majority of budget goes to sworn personnel results in fewer personnel on the ground, resulting in more harm before they get there and harsher response when they do because situations are more out of control.

9

SpicyMcBeard t1_jcz1l07 wrote

No, I know nothing about opex vs capex, but neither do most of the tax paying public calling for smaller department budgets, they just look at the overall spending then see the military looking equipment on the road and say "why aren't we spending those tax moneys on helping people instead of hurting them".

I mean, opex and capex both come from OUR taxes right? The police department isn't selling stamps to pay line level salaries like the postal service. How our money is split and the system of budgeting in place is irrelevant to the person paying the bill but SOMEONE is responsible for deciding what money goes where.

I've always felt "defund the police" is, or at least should be aimed at THAT person. No one thinks a dude in blue and a badge is making the budget for the department. We all understand THAT guy is wearing a suit and tie sipping coffee in an office somewhere, but for some reason the lower rank and file seem to think that WE think it's up to them. As a union worker I'd never call for another union worker to lose their job over budget cuts, equipment spending should always come first. (Well really management salaries should come first cause they're always the most bloated but realistically I know no one making the budget is ever going to cut their own salary, looking at you top level politicians)

1

OS_Apple32 t1_jd0msfa wrote

But the point is that defunding the police doesn't fuck over the guy making the budget, he gets to keep his job. It fucks over all the guys in blue with badges who are out there on the beat.

You think policing is bad now, think how bad it will be when all the good, competent officers are forced to find a different profession because it no longer pays enough. The only people left will be those at the bottom of the barrel.

Money isn't the problem. Accountability is the problem. On a fundamental level I agree with all the grievances of the defund the police crowd. Their diagnosis is largely correct, but their prescribed cure is not.

6