What Does Defunding the Police Mean, and Why Do It, Anyway?

A typical example is attacking the death penalty because it is a costly process. I mean, we are always demanding that more money be spent on education and medical care because it is necessary. That’s our gig, to argue for the necessities even when it would result in the wealthy receiving bigger tax bills. So the way I see it, the death penalty question is fundamentally moral, not budgetary. If you oppose the death penalty because you are against taking anyone else’s life, then speak your piece and I will respect you for it. But don’t think that you are being convincing to the conservative types just because you make a superficial attack on government spending. The other side knows full well you are being a bit hypocritical. 

I wonder if the same point needs to be made in this argument over defunding the police. And by the way, in case you haven’t heard it from everybody else, the “defunding” refers to a budget cut of maybe a few percent. 

So now we are looking at a move to cut somewhere $150 - $250 million from the LAPD budget. Ostensibly, the freed up monies can be applied to socially useful tasks. We’ve even heard the mayor proposing the cut. 

We should remember that this proposal comes during a long era in which L.A. mayors have been promising to add more police to the LAPD in order to increase the presence of cops on the street. As a city, we’ve been hovering around that magical mark of 10,000 uniformed police officers, always seeming to fall just a little bit below it. 

I think there are two or even three different arguments being played out here. The first is fairly obvious – The city is strapped for the cash that would be required to carry out all those good things that people talk about, starting with doing something about the street-level homeless population. The idea of stimulating job creation at the manufacturing level (or even import-export) comes to mind. It’s hard to work through a budget that would provide for some of these items, unless – unless – you snip a little dough off the LAPD budget. 

One problem – as a distinguished writer once explained in The Law of the Land, it is keeping the peace that is the first and fundamental principle of governance. Is the LAPD so fat and well financed that it can do without a few bucks? I have yet to see this concept being passed around by those who are usually considered to be serious thinkers. Usually, we are told that we need more police and, at the current moment, the replacement of damaged vehicles. 

I think there are two fundamental issues here. The first is obvious. Prop 13 realigned funding in the state of California, making it essentially impossible for local governments to increase property taxes to cover lost revenues. The state and its local governments have been fighting the battle ever since. The real question is how to find the funds to cover the necessities of police services along with the necessary social and educational goals. I’ve yet to talk to a liberal who owns a house who is willing to vote to rescind Prop 13. 

The other question is a lot deeper and is worthy of extended discussion now and in the near future: What is the proper relationship between the people and its police force? Right now, the police have the right to put their hands on you, frisk you, and even handcuff you (ostensibly for their own safety) merely in the service of investigation. You can be deprived of your freedom (even if only for a few minutes) even when there is no probable cause to arrest you. 

And let’s be frank. Television shows about police (Blue Bloods, CSI) don’t represent the realities. The heroic, nearly saint-like NYPD depicted in Blue Bloods became famous a few years ago for their propensity to tell lies on the witness stand. There was a word for it – testilying. We should be considering what it means to have rights as a free people, how this translates to the rules of engagement demanded of the police, and how a realigned relationship between the people and the police would impact public safety. 

Briefly, do we the people have to put up with police ordering us around, shoving us, and shouting at us, in order to avoid being mugged and murdered? 

There is one more question that everyone seems to be too embarrassed to even bring up. Right now, the police are trained to avoid (as much as possible) risking their own lives. That is where so many of the irritating interactions between the police and the people arise. Can we the people demand less of these irritations, knowing that the police will interpret such policies as putting them at risk? And in the final summation, will police casualties actually go up, or will they instead decrease, should we develop a more peaceful form of coexistence between ourselves and those who rule us? 

Bizarro World in Law Enforcement 

In this moment in American history where the bizarre is routinely surpassed by the more bizarre, an incident came to my attention just the other day – something that would otherwise have been on all our radar when it happened back on May 30 and 31. (So much else was going on that it seems to have avoided the top shelf of the headlines.) Here’s what happened: 

There was a widespread tire-slashing incident that went on for a couple of evenings. Ordinarily that wouldn’t have been a full-fledged national story, but this episode had that one thing that was significantly different: The tire slashing was carried out by the Minnesota State Police. 

Here’s one rendering of the story from the Star Tribune.  

Forbes magazine (not exactly an underground radical paper) published a piece that included the following:

“Videos and photos posted to social media from protests on May 30 and May 31 show officers knifing car tires in at least two locations, including a Kmart parking lot, with confused protestors, news crews, and medics questioning online why it was done. 

“State Patrol troopers strategically deflated tires,” Department of Public Safety spokesman Bruce Gordon told The Star Tribune on Monday, “in order to stop behaviors such as vehicles driving dangerously and at high speeds in and around protesters and law enforcement.” 

So according to the state authorities in Minnesota, leaving your car in a Kmart parking lot implies that it will be driven dangerously and at high speed in the area of a protest. I wonder why they didn’t burn down all the car lots and tire stores while they were at it. 

The Forbes article as well as many other sources are now linking to video from the incident, which you can find on the Mother Jones Site. You can watch the officers in their camo-riot gear systematically knifing, one by one, all the tires on each car. 

Look, I do understand that the CHP sometimes has to engage in a bit of automotive violence (the “PIT maneuver”) in order to bring a rogue driver in a stolen car to a halt, but knifing every tire in every parked car in the Kmart lot? This is crazy. This is like a mass-hallucinogenic event, where the high fliers weren’t some rainbow painted 1960s hippies, but the appointed leadership who had authority over law enforcement. 

I’m not hearing about any state officials being indicted for conspiracy to commit vandalism as yet. Wonder when it’s going to happen . . .

******

Rats, sinking ship, deserting 

The strong majority of Republican office holders are, at least officially, sticking with their president, but it’s becoming more of a wake than a celebration. Of course they wouldn’t admit it in a million years (or at least for six months), but the polls and Trump’s approval ratings are not just looking dismal, they are dismal in that chronic, not gonna change way that losing campaigns exhibit. Two and a half years ago, the Republicans controlled the presidency and both houses of congress, and had been having their way in passing a terrible tax cut bill as well as approving the appointments of all kinds of bad judges. They are still able to appoint the bad judges because it only requires control of the Senate, but even that house is now in play in terms of the November elections. 

The drip, drip, drip of a losing campaign shows up in small ways, here and there. You saw the remarks by the Republican senator from Alaska, who claimed to be having some doubts about supporting Trump’s reelection. A more traditional president would have attributed the remarks to local politics, and would have cut some sort of deal to serve up some pork, and all would be forgiven. But Trump is incapable of living that way, and promised eternal vengeance, or at least threatened to come to Alaska to campaign against Senator Lisa. 

And Senator Romney is obviously going to continue to be a thorn in the royal paw. That is no surprise. 

But it’s all the other incumbent senators and members of the House of Representatives who are keeping their mouths shut and trying to avoid the press. Their behavior reflects the political reality on the ground. It’s become an absolute comedy as senators have been ducking questions about anything that has to do with Trump. 

One online site even mentioned a rumor that some Republican senators would like to reverse the impeachment decision in order to save their own skins. The story makes for good political theater, although a Republican senator voting at this late date to impeach Trump would be a sure fire election loser because it would cost more than a few percent of otherwise expected Republican votes. But the fact that the story even exists is indicative that Trump is on very thin ice and doesn’t have a lot of time to find a safe shoreline. 

I won’t say I’m sad, but I have to admit that there is a certain noire comic element in the mess that Trump has fallen into. Six months ago, he was sitting on a tolerable economy and a nation at peace. And though he was his usual uncaring, thoughtless self in negligently ignoring the corona virus until things were heating up, it’s not like he created it himself. And even though Trump has been trying to act sympathetic to the travails of people being cooped up these past couple of months, the explosive outbursts all over the country over the catalytic effect of the George Floyd murder have not rebounded to Trump’s advantage. His now-famous photo-op where he walked past the tear-gassed protestors and stood flat footed in front of a church and held a Bible has not served him well.

(Bob Gelfand writes on science, culture, and politics for CityWatch. He can be reached at [email protected])

-cw