
Gallup: 81% of Black Americans Want Police to Retain Local Presence - apsec112
https://news.gallup.com/poll/316571/black-americans-police-retain-local-presence.aspx
======
tompccs
This is a survey by a respected polling company with an overwhelming result
that goes against what is clearly the preferred narrative of most people on
this site. Naturally, the most upvotes comments are people countering it with
anecdotes. I thought people here we were meant to be smart enough to avoid
confirmation bias?

~~~
DetroitThrow
One thing to keep in mind with open ended polling questions like this is that
there is that the questions can shape the response. One interesting display of
this is that most Americans don't believe that we should take race into
account for college admissions, but most Americans also believe that
affirmative action for minorities is beneficial.

I don't know what the preferred narrative here has been on the subject, but I
think it's been obvious the vast majority of black folks never wanted police
protection to disappear, and the lack of assurance in our interactions with
police (confirmed by polls mentioned in the article) demonstrates that reform
is something that would be strongly desired.

~~~
belorn
A conclusion based on those polls for affirmative action in college is that
people support the general principle of getting more minorities into college,
but do not support the current methods applied under affirmative action. When
specifics are outlined for respondents the support drops.

This has less to do with the style of shaping the response by what kind of
question _s_ are made, and more to do with what the question is. Support for a
concept is not the same as support for a specific action. If you ask people to
choose between multiple of bad choices in order to achieve a common good then
the goal is likely to have a significant higher support than any of the bad
choices.

~~~
DetroitThrow
Great explanation - and also why we should be wary of headlines touting polls
that don't get into the specifics.

------
dx87
This shouldn't be a suprise. Some people like to pretend that higher crime
rates in some areas is strictly due to higher police presence, but it's
clearly not the case. I remember after the protests in Baltimore from FreddIe
Gray, the police were told to have a much smaller presence, and not do as much
proactive policing. It wasn't long before the people who actually live in
those neighborhoods were complaining about the increasing crime rate due to a
smaller police presence.

~~~
aaomidi
Well you can't just remove police and think everything is going to be okay.

The police abolitionist movement is calling for removing untrained, armed, and
oftentimes extremely racist individuals from the streets and replacing them
with social programs, housing, education, healthcare.

You can't just do 10% of the ask here and then be surprised when shit doesn't
magically get better.

~~~
defen
Would it be accurate, then, to say that the "police abolitionist movement"
does not want to abolish the police? If that is the case, why call it the
police abolitionist movement? It seems like all that does is generate ill-will
from people who are potential allies.

~~~
Sebguer
Re-read the person you're responding to, I think you'll see your response
makes no sense. They didn't say "replacing them with nicer cops", they said:
replacing them with social programs, housing, education, healthcare.

None of these require cops. Yes, you likely need some form of police force for
the very, very edge case scenarios where the others won't do, but abolish
police means abolish the police.

~~~
defen
Unless you assume all cops are "untrained, armed, and oftentimes extremely
racist individuals", simply removing those who are would not "abolish the
police", which is why I asked.

------
newbie789
This is fascinating because I am myself half black, lived in many communities
of mixed demographics and never once heard a friend (of any race) say they
want more police at all, ever.

I guess I also don't know anybody who has done a gallup poll or anybody that
knows anybody who has ever done a gallup poll in their lives so who knows?

Edit: I don't know how or where these are conducted, or their exact phrasing
of their questions, but I'm very curious about that.

Because, some rural areas in America have a "posse" system where volunteers
get to ride around armed, sometimes outfitted (by taxpayer money) with
bulletproof vests and big stickers for their cars showing their semi-official
affiliation with the police (or sheriff's department). On the record, they're
only supposed to observe or report yet in practice I'd question why it's
crucial in some places to outfit posses with bulletproof through taxpayer
money in that case, especially in places that have a very low crime rate?

I only bring this up because if I wanted to tilt a poll, I'd ask folks in
areas where this is a possibility, where asking about a reduction in police
force implies an increase in these somewhat-sanctioned vigilantes. You
wouldn't even have to include it in the question, you'd just have to ask
somebody standing in the right spot.

~~~
djsumdog
I hated the police when I was younger and thought we'd be better with fewer
police.

I don't believe that anymore. The emergence of body cameras are amazing
because they show just how bad we're constantly being lied to. YouTubers like
Donut Operator really opened my eyes.

I think back to my younger years and all the ways I've seen police go out of
their way to do things they didn't need to. I've seem some do really shitty
things too ... but overall, I think we need to remember they're human beings.

We're all just human beings, and most people join the police because they want
to do the right thing. If many of these problem cities, police forces are
composed of a large number of minorities too.

Especially during this time, let's try to remember we're all humans here.

~~~
AlotOfReading
At the same time, if you look at the police-involved deaths per capita, our
neighbors are countries like Iraq and Mali. Other nations in the developed
world (and even many who are not) have rates that are far, far lower. The US
clearly has something tragically wrong with its policing system.

~~~
djsumdog
> Iraq

Can we stick to nations that are at least likely to report real numbers? You
can say China has fewer police shootings and it might be true or it might not.
It's literally impossible to tell when it comes out of a nation with a freedom
of speech that exists in their constitution and not in reality.

In the documentary "Iraq: No End in Sight" the original US team that did
reconstruction said Baghdad had < 11 people in the morgue each year. After the
2003 invasion, it grew to over 11 per day.

~~~
mercer
I'm confused. Wouldn't the likelihood of lying mean that the real numbers in
Iraq are much worse, supporting the criticism of AlotOfReading more rather
than less?

~~~
darawk
No, because if Iraq's real numbers are worse, than we are not in their same
range.

~~~
mercer
Ah, right. Thanks.

------
staticassertion
I'd like to see how this cuts by age. A lot of older folks I talk to see
police _very_ differently, and often say "You just don't know how things used
to be before the police", which I think really misses what people are asking
for ie: redistribution of grossly overbudgeted police departments to
_preventative_ measures like better schooling, community centers, and more
subtle reactive measures like un-armed "police" (or whatever you want to call
this new role).

I also wonder if the question were phrased differently (and more accurately
representing what is actually being asked for), more like "Would you support
an N% cut to police budgets, which would come from X part of the police
budget, to support preventative measures like social services?", if we'd see a
different response.

~~~
cwhiz
NYC tried unarmed “police” to handle minor moving violations and parking. It
was a disaster. People bullied them, assaulted them, and/or ignored them.

The sad truth is that people respect police not because of the badge but
because of the gun, and because of the threat of violence.

Many of the reform ideas being thrown around lately are ideas that places
across the US have already tried.

I think people are saying photos and videos from Chicago, Portland, Seattle,
and Kenosha, WI. They’re thinking they’ll take their chances with the police
than with arsonists and rioters.

~~~
throwaway13337
The US is indeed a different place than countries where unarmed police are the
norm.

It's a pretty sad realization that perhaps the reason we have such violent
police is, in part, because we have such a violent society.

~~~
djsumdog
Where the hell are unarmed police the norm other than the UK and NZ? I lived
in NZ for three years and the police still had guns, just locked in the boot
of their cars. Australian cops (lived there for 1 year) had firearms.

Unarmed police are pretty rare on this planet. Even Japanese cops carry guns.

~~~
indigo945
Germany has a force separate from the police to handle parking infractions and
things of that sort (Ordnungsamt), and they're not armed. I think this is
somewhat common in Europe.

~~~
kelnos
That specific thing is common in the US, too. Parking enforcement, at least in
places populous enough to warrant dedicated parking enforcement personnel,
usually don't arm their meter maids.

------
war1025
The whole "defund the police" movement feels very much in line with the
"Luxury beliefs" [1] idea that has been floating around for the past year or
so.

[1] [https://nypost.com/2019/08/17/luxury-beliefs-are-the-
latest-...](https://nypost.com/2019/08/17/luxury-beliefs-are-the-latest-
status-symbol-for-rich-americans/)

~~~
ianleeclark
> The whole "defund the police" movement feels very much in line with the
> "Luxury beliefs"

Why do you believe this? It seems to me that reinvesting budgets spent on
surplus humvees on more/better school counselors is a perfectly reasonable
goal.

~~~
tomschlick
> It seems to me that reinvesting budgets spent on surplus humvees on
> more/better school counselors is a perfectly reasonable goal.

While that sounds great on paper, nothing the schools do is going to make a
difference if the family support at home isn't there. You can't just throw
money at the problem to make it better.

Anecdotal, but my sister used to work as a teacher & reading specialist in
poorer areas. Per my last conversation with her on this topic, she said maybe
20% of the kids have a solid backing from family for education. The rest she
had interacted with for one reason or another were a mix of parents who told
her it was her job to teach and they wouldn't do that at home; another group
of parents that were too drunk/drugged out to even answer the phone or call
back; and another that would just swear at her for bothering them at home. All
of her co-workers had similar accounts of this happening.

Kids that did want to learn in class were bullied for "acting white" and there
were physical fights occurring weekly. She didn't teach high school, she
taught 4/5th grade.

For us to make any progress with poorer schools there needs to be a community
focus on education, having respect for each other, and having respect for the
law. If you grow up for 18 years in an environment without those then nothing
matters long term and we end up in the vicious cycle of poverty, crime,
imprisonment, broken families and even more kids going through the same thing.

~~~
istjohn
_>...we end up in the vicious cycle of __poverty_ _, crime, imprisonment,
broken families and even more kids going through the same thing._

Poverty. That's the root issue. But it's cheaper to blame the poverty on bad
additudes and poor choices rather than acknowledge the causality goes in the
other direction and pony up the cash for programs to break the cycle of
poverty.

~~~
logicchains
Then home come the poor migrants from China, India, Mexico and even Africa who
come to America end up doing so well?

------
alasdair_
I wonder if this is 81% of black Americans, or "81% of black Americans who had
both the time and inclination to fill out a targeted web survey/ answer a
landline phone call related to policing"

I know polls claim to correct for this, but if even the census, mandated by
the constitution and backed by federal law and billions of dollars, can
significantly under-count black and Latino Americans, I'd be curious to see
how well Gallup can do.

All this said, I DO think the majority of people (regardless of their relative
melanin levels) would like to see more police in their neighborhoods, with the
giant caveat that it's more than simple numbers in most people's minds.

Be wary on conflating a general desire for more police with specific
acceptance of current policing.

~~~
kelnos
> _81% of black Americans who had both the time and inclination to fill out a
> targeted web survey / answer a landline phone call_

Well, yes, that's basically how every poll works. The pollsters come up with
what they think is a representative sample population, they send out surveys,
some people respond, some don't.

~~~
iso1210
Assuming it's similar polling to the UK there are all sorts of weighting and
balancing to get truly representative samples within a margin of error.

Where the system is weakest is in the questions asked, as explained by Yes
Prime Minister

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0ZZJXw4MTA](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0ZZJXw4MTA)

I can't see the tables gallup produced to make their claim, without those I
can't see why it's of any interest.

------
fasteddie31003
Unfortunately, The whole defund the police movement is going to backfire on
the Democrats. Safety is pretty important in Maslow's hierarchy of needs. If
Democrats get branded as the anti-police party they are going to lose move
votes then they are going to gain by the vocal minority opinion.

~~~
donor20
No question - trump is the absolute worst republican you could run it seems.
Short run I don't think republicans have a chance.

But feeling / being safe is CRITICAL to folks - they will accept dictatorships
to gain safety. The whole abolish ICE / defund the police type platform seems
a loser long run for the dems. I'm surprised Biden didn't make a stronger
statement distancing himself form this. The violence is really toxic.

I'm a reliable dem voter and significant dem donor this cycle, but if you
actually live or have lived in "tough" neighborhoods with higher crime (ie,
have had your car broken into multiple times, stolen, experienced violence)
then you really do start to prioritize safety.

~~~
istjohn
Yes, safety is important. George Floyd should have been able to feel safe.
Breonna Taylor should have been safe in her bed. Who's violence are we talking
about here? What does high crime neighborhoods have to do with police not
killing people wantonly?

~~~
txsoftwaredev
If you follow the instructions of the police officers you have little reason
to not feel safe. If you fight, resist, run etc. you've given up your rights
to safety.

~~~
breakfastduck
Essentially - you should follow all orders given by police officers, whether
they are justified or not. If you don't, you forfeit all rights to be alive.

How on earth can you possibly say that? Not following the orders of some
jacked up power trip officer means you've given up all your rights to be
alive?

This has to be the worst take in the entire thread.

~~~
yadco
You follow instructions and then take legal action later.

~~~
breakfastduck
Very easy to say from a distance, not so easy to not resist when someones
pointing a gun at you or gripping you so tightly you're being strangled to
death.

------
bradleyjg
It always annoys me when some random unelected, unselected person or people
purport to speak on behalf of a community. Half the time the self appointed
spokesperson isn’t even in the relevant community.

~~~
awakeasleep
Or the “community” is a fiction itself.

------
nprz
To improve police presence and interactions wouldn't you actually want to fund
the police and make sure they go through proper training to ensure they can
handle difficult situations? A lack of funding would probably result in a
worse trained police force, no?

~~~
GaryNumanVevo
Defunding the police addresses the overspending. Despite millions of dollars
for training, outcomes in police interactions haven't gotten better.
Purchasing military surplus is another area they've spent increased budgets on
as well.

~~~
bassman9000
_outcomes in police interactions haven 't gotten better._

By which metric?

~~~
ineedasername
Well, the number of people killed by officers, and the number of officers
killed in the line of duty are both metrics that have remained fairly steady.
Overall violent crime rate looks pretty steady as well over the past decade,
though it's much decreased from the 2000-2010 rates.

It's not a single-metric question though. Probably not just a 10-20 metric
question either.

------
pzone
This is even more pronounced among so-called fragile communities, where 95% of
black residents want to retain police presence, and in the Chicago area, 68%
want increased police presence.

[https://news.gallup.com/poll/257798/low-trust-police-
complic...](https://news.gallup.com/poll/257798/low-trust-police-complicates-
crime-problem-chicago.aspx)

On the other hand, a majority in these communities also say that people have a
negative view of the police there.

------
readams
This is why the defund the police people really need a better slogan. You can
argue that the police should work differently than they do, but it's just
obviously stupid to not have police.

~~~
GaryNumanVevo
"Defund the police" refers to trimming bloated budgets and fully funding other
programs that reduce crime such as funding inner city schools, child care for
poor parents, etc.

~~~
Rebelgecko
Anecdotally from seeing discussions online and interviews on the news (which
to be fair has some sample bias that will emphasize more extreme beliefs), a
non negligible number of people who say "Defund the police" believe that
police should be abolished.

~~~
jeffbee
There's a case to be made that while a city needs police it maybe doesn't need
_these_ police. At some point an organization is so corrupt that it cannot be
reformed. I have no problem with plans to reshape law enforcement through
complete dissolution of current police departments.

------
zaroth
It’s probably a mistake to even try to comment here, it feels like wading into
a battlefield where words don’t even mean what they say.

This survey tells us what I thought we already knew for decades now. Black
Americans, particular those living in high poverty and high crime areas,
overwhelmingly support _increased_ police funding and increased police
presence in their communities.

While some protestors who are carrying signs like “Defund the police” may not
take the slogan at face value, the ones spray painting “Fuck 12” or “ACAB”
across their local courthouse certainly do, and they do not speak for the
people responding to this Gallup poll.

The literal attacks on police (and police infrastructure) appear to be an
intentional destabilization effort in order to neuter policing capacity within
a community, resulting in increased violent crime (i.e. the “Fergusson
effect”). While I think there are many well-meaning and good intentioned
peaceful protestors that initially joined with “BLM”, the “Defund the police”
movement has been hijacked by radical anarchists who professionally organize
riots (there’s another term for this I won’t use) and absolutely believe
police should be abolished.

National public perception of BLM which initially spiked positively after
Floyd has been decreasing and overall become much more polarized. [1]

[1] -
[https://civiqs.com/results/black_lives_matter?annotations=tr...](https://civiqs.com/results/black_lives_matter?annotations=true&uncertainty=true&zoomIn=true)

~~~
PascLeRasc
I'm trying to search for professional riot organizers but all I can find is
articles debunking the idea that this position exists [1] [2] [3]. Would you
mind citing where you heard this?

[1] [https://www.vox.com/2020/6/3/21275720/george-floyd-
protests-...](https://www.vox.com/2020/6/3/21275720/george-floyd-protests-
outside-agitators-ferguson-civil-rights-movement)

[2] [https://www.snopes.com/ap/2020/06/03/false-claims-of-
antifa-...](https://www.snopes.com/ap/2020/06/03/false-claims-of-antifa-
protesters-plague-small-u-s-cities/)

[3] [https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/janelytvynenko/paid-
pro...](https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/janelytvynenko/paid-protester-
myth)

~~~
aww_dang
>“There are groups paying these looters money to come in and they’re getting
paid by the broken window,” said Chief Mylett.

[https://www.kiro7.com/news/local/bellevue-police-chief-
says-...](https://www.kiro7.com/news/local/bellevue-police-chief-says-looters-
are-part-organized-crime-ring/HEMXIDSLOZAH5FE7H7BBEDHQB4/)

Buzzfeed, Vox and even Snopes are a bit partisan on this.

~~~
GeneralMayhem
Yeah, I think Snopes is a much more credible source than the chief of police
here.

~~~
aww_dang
[https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2018/12/13/fact-c...](https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2018/12/13/fact-
checkers_choice_to_be_literal_or_contextual_138913.html)

[https://ethicsalarms.com/2017/08/31/snopes-credibility-
death...](https://ethicsalarms.com/2017/08/31/snopes-credibility-death-spiral-
presenting-the-straw-man-fact-check/)

[https://www.snopes.com/news/2017/08/23/robert-lee-
espn/](https://www.snopes.com/news/2017/08/23/robert-lee-espn/)

[https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-
canada-41022954](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-41022954)

[https://www.google.com/search?&q=%22snopes%22+strawman+-site...](https://www.google.com/search?&q=%22snopes%22+strawman+-site%3Asnopes.com)

~~~
GeneralMayhem
Hoo boy, that's a hot pile of garbage. I'm obviously not going to convince
you, but I'll get my hands dirty for the sake of bystanders.

>[https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2018/12/13/fact-c...](https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2018/12/13/fact-
checkers_choice_to_be_literal_or_contextual_138913.html)

Yes, fact-checking is hard. You can say things that are literally true but
clearly imply false conclusions, or vice versa. And Snopes isn't perfect. I'm
not sure what else I'm supposed to be getting here.

>ethicsalarms.com

This is a batshit right-wing conspiracy theory site. Anyone who cites it as an
argument should immediately lose all semblance of credibility. Here are some
direct quotes from that site that I found within the first 60 seconds of
clicking around:

>>>CNN is obviously approaching the election as a partisan mission, and has
signaled that fair coverage is not in the cards. The goal is to put Democrats
in control of the government.

>>>Pelosi’s Democrats have orchestrated one attempted coup after another

>>>There have been 19 Plans to abuse various processes, laws and theories, all
put forward and promoted by members of the Democratic
Party/”resistance”/mainstream news media alliance since President Trump’s
election in November of 2016... The desired effect of this barrage, apart from
serving the goal of removing an elected President without the bother (and
risk) of an election, has been to make it impossible for the President to
govern, and to destroy his support among the public.

Yep. Fair and balanced, and definitely not unhinged. Moving on:

>Snopes and BBC articles about a commentator named Robert Lee

As Snopes says:

>There is no dispute that Robert Lee was moved off covering a University of
Virginia football game for ESPN because of the coincidence of his name.
However, ESPN’s intent appeared to have been a desire to avoid prompting
public ridicule rather than public offense — a move that ended up subjecting
the network (for different reasons) to the very mocking they had hoped to head
off.

What else am I supposed to be seeing here? A megacorp attempted to sidestep a
potentially awkward situation, and ran into the Striesand effect. Both Snopes
and the BBC pointed out that it was maybe misguided, and we all had a chuckle
at their expense. Do you think that Disney, of all companies, is a leftist
organization, and that Snopes is covering for them?

>Google search for "snopes strawman"

The top results for me are, in order:

1\. A bunch of Reddit results referring people to Snopes as a source because
the thing they're arguing against is a made-up strawman.

2\. Snopes's own Facebook page

3\. A blog nitpicking semantics over... Amelia Earhart's bones?
[https://tighar.org/wordpress/earhart-project/fact-
checking-s...](https://tighar.org/wordpress/earhart-project/fact-checking-
snopes/)

4\. ethicsalarms.com, discussed above.

5\. "A Guide to Arguing with a Snopes Denier", from the Houston Press

~~~
aww_dang
>This is a batshit right-wing conspiracy theory site. Here are some direct
quotes from that site that I found within the first 60 seconds of clicking
around:

>>CNN is obviously approaching the election as a partisan mission, and has
signaled that fair coverage is not in the cards. The goal is to put Democrats
in control of the government.

In your view is CNN not partisan?

In regards to Robert Lee, like other misleading fact checks, the objection
wasn't that he was fired. People were observing that it was misguided. I think
we should be able to have this discussion without terms like "batshit right-
wing conspiracy theory".

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_bias_in_the_United_State...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_bias_in_the_United_States#:~:text=The%20study%20found%20that%2093)

------
noodlesUK
Having a demilitarised civilian police force maintaining order through the
consent of the public has been a thing since the 1820s. I’d like to see how
Americans would respond to a police force formed with a modern version of the
peelian principles as its guiding rule set.

In my opinion a huge amount of damage has been done by the deliberate choice
to act aggressively and quell the protests by ever greater force, and that
damage has been done to the respect of the legitimacy of the power police
forces hold. People aren’t going to cooperate with a force they see as an
armed occupier.

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peelian_principles](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peelian_principles)

~~~
lawnchair_larry
Nobody is trying to quell protests. I don’t know how that misconception is
still alive. The problem is the rioting. Nobody would be trying to disperse
crowds if everyone was peaceful.

~~~
hn_throwaway_99
> Nobody would be trying to disperse crowds if everyone was peaceful.

That's not really true. There is an area between "lawful protesting" and
"rioting" that's usually called civil disobedience. Civil disobedience as
usually understood is peaceful, but it's also by design inherently disruptive.

In Austin, TX protestors blocked the main highway through the city. That was
obviously incredibly disruptive, but many people believe the city police's
forceful response of shooting less-lethal rounds relatively indiscriminately
into the crowd was the exact type of response people were protesting against.
A large group of trauma doctors in Austin wrote a paper arguing against using
these types of rounds for crowd control due to the horrific injuries they
treated: [https://www.statesman.com/news/20200816/beanbag-rounds-
cause...](https://www.statesman.com/news/20200816/beanbag-rounds-caused-
horrific-injuries-austin-doctors-say)

~~~
dependenttypes
Honestly, this is kind of like putting your hand inside the mouth of a
crocodile and then complaining that you have been bitten. Or if you start
insulting/harassing and physically blocking someone and then start complaining
that you were punched as a result.

I would consider civil disobedience something more like as a policeman to
refuse to disrupt a peaceful protest, or illegally publishing data (consider
Aaron Swartz, Alexandra Elbakyan, Edward Snowden, or Chelsea Manning), or
someone like Oskar Schindler.

~~~
rrrrrrrrrrrryan
A crocodile is a vicious wild animal. And in your analogy... the police are
the crocodiles?

Sorry for being facetious, but the whole point is that people expect police to
have some self-control (unlike an animal) and behave better in these
situations. If you're a cashier, and a customer is yelling at you, berating
you, taunting you, etc. you're expected to try to remain calm and attempt to
de-escalate the situation - certainly you're not supposed to attack the
person. If anything, police should be held to an even higher standard than
this.

~~~
dependenttypes
> And in your analogy... the police are the crocodiles?

No, I would feel safer with a crocodile around actually.

------
aortega
I'm not from US and when I see people claim for abolition of police I can only
imagine the world they live in, completely disconnected from reality.
Seriously, abolishing police? Is this some kind of demolition-man-like future?

~~~
scarface74
If your reality were getting stopped and frisked statistically more because of
your color or pulled over more for “looking suspicious”, your viewpoint might
change. There have been plenty of cases where Black men were “suspiciously”
going into their own homes.

[https://www.usatoday.com/story/life/people/2018/07/29/missio...](https://www.usatoday.com/story/life/people/2018/07/29/mission-
impossible-star-ving-rhames-says-police-pulled-gun/859126002/)

~~~
aortega
That happens in every country. We call it "Illegal face possession", it's
called profiling.

~~~
jessaustin
What form does it take in your country? Is it based on the amount of melanin
in the profiling victim's skin, or are there other arbitrary factors?

~~~
aortega
Sex, race, clothing and general aspect, like everywhere else.

------
habosa
Since many people here are not discussing the actual article, let me copy-
paste the author's conclusion:

> It's not so much the volume of interactions Black Americans have with the
> police that troubles them or differentiates them from other racial groups,
> but rather the quality of those interactions.

> Most Black Americans want the police to spend at least as much time in their
> area as they currently do, indicating that they value the need for the
> service that police provide. However, that exposure comes with more
> trepidation for Black than White or Hispanic Americans about what they might
> experience in a police encounter. And those harboring the least confidence
> that they will be treated well, or who have had negative encounters in the
> past, are much more likely to want the police presence curtailed.

------
InfiniteRand
There's a good case for defunding the police in parts of the country where
crime has gone down, but my impression is the worse police-citizen
interactions happen in areas where the police are stretched thin (maybe I'm
wrong about this), moreover, when you are trying to reform a provider of an
essential service, it is typically better to provide a carrot and a stick (see
education reform for instance), otherwise not only do you get organized
resistance to the reforms but you also reduce morale. Good morale is
important, not only for good performance, but for reducing the siege mentality
among the police.

Requiring people to make an extra effort to do their job better (even if the
level of better is still below average), while cutting their pay (even if
their pay probably should not be as high as it is), seems like setting
yourself up for failure.

~~~
shirakawasuna
Defunding is a two-part task:

1\. Balkanize police into distinct departments with different training and
oversight. The police are tasked with far too many jobs at once and don't do a
very good job at any of them.

2\. Redirect some portion of funding to community development and fighting
poverty, i.e. crime prevention. Instead of buying military surplus equipment,
create after-school programs, ensure that kids get fed, etc.

If a police department is stretched thin, balkanizing should help with that.
Having police doing too many things is a big part of the problem.

The police resist reforms constantly. They protect themselves and lie brazenly
with little consequence. While morale is certainly something to consider, it's
not the elephant in the room. There must be real consequences, and for that
there must be real mechanisms of oversight, firing, and prosecution of cops
and those who act in bad faith to protect fellow cops.

~~~
athms
Police don't buy surplus military equipment. The equipment is free, the police
only pay for shipping.

~~~
shirakawasuna
The police often pay for shipping, maintenance, and kitting out the equipment.
They might receive a free stripped-down M16, but they still use their own
budgets to make it tacticool. Just an optic and light run $1k or so.

------
Thorentis
I wonder what surprises this will lead to in the upcoming election, where the
Democrats have firmly placed themselves on the side of those wanting to defund
the police.

~~~
SV_BubbleTime
I was shocked to see them take that position in any seriousness. I think as
more places burn they are starting to see it’s a losing narrative. It you are
right, it’s the side they took.

Bad word choice from the get go though. Should have been reform the police,
they went to hard and landed on defund.

~~~
shirakawasuna
Defunding is a solution because reform has never worked.

~~~
refurb
Should have picked a better slogan.

~~~
shirakawasuna
I think people's lives matter more than critiquing a slogan.

------
throwaway5752
You can want a police presence, you can also want those police to be properly
trained in use of force, and you can want a more robust policy for dealing
with emergent mental health issues all at the same time. None of those are
exclusive of each other.

If I were a police officer or worked in that area of policy, I would be
appalled at the degree of correlation that the more frequently people reported
seeing the police, the less they wanted to see police around.

This is yet another false and divisive zero sum framing of a complex issue.
Everyone deserves quality police service from their municipal and state
authorities, police deserve accountability for colleagues that break the law
and put good police officers at risk, and everyone deserves policing that is
unbiased and increases public safety regardless of race, creed, or any other
factor.

~~~
glenda
Police departments and city governments are plagued with corruption, you
cannot expect corrupt institution the be capable of fixing itself.

------
jrm4
This ought not be particularly difficult to understand. Black folks don't want
the police to go away, we want the police to generally do the job they are
hired for.

But also, we don't have a big problem with the extreme rhetoric against the
police because for years and years, in the face of overwhelming evidence of
misconduct, there hasn't been meaningful reform. Desperate times, desperate
measures.

------
istjohn
But you don't have to read far to get to this bit:

 _> Fewer than one in five Black Americans feel very confident that the police
in their area would treat them with courtesy and respect. While similar to the
24% of Asian Americans saying the same, it is markedly lower than the 40% of
Hispanic Americans and the 56% of White Americans who feel this way. This
could either stem from Black Americans' own negative experiences with the
police or from their familiarity with people who have had negative encounters
with law enforcement._

Most Americans (52%) according to the poll, are not very confident that police
would treat them with courtesy and respect. That's shameful if you ask me. The
power that police wield makes it all the more important that they are
respectful in their interactions with the public. But we wouldn't accept that
kind of performance in any private business front of house role

~~~
refurb
Considering the nature of many (not most) police interactions (i.e. as a
suspect, even just a speeding ticket) what would you consider a reasonable
target for "courteous and respectful" interactions? 100%?

I would just find it hard to believe if I've just committed a crime and been
arrested by the police that I would be able to describe the interaction as
"courteous and respectful", even if the police did everything right.

~~~
edanm
> Considering the nature of many (not most) police interactions (i.e. as a
> suspect, even just a speeding ticket) what would you consider a reasonable
> target for "courteous and respectful" interactions? 100%?

Yes. I'd aim for 100%.

Obviously that's hard to reach, but I think it's certainly possible to do
better than 50%. (Though note that it was presumed 50%, not actual measured
50%, so it's more about perception than necessarily about reality).

As you allude to, many interactions with the police are not in the context of
getting arrested. You might be the one to call the police if you need them for
whatever reason, you might be just an onlooker, you might randomly see police
moving around your city for whatever reason.

But even in cases like speeding tickets, there's no reason for the police not
to be courteous and respectful, so long as you behave that way.

~~~
refurb
I'm not disagreeing, it was an honest question and your answer is reasonable.

We should aim for 100%, but it's unlikely we'd ever get there in the real
world.

What would make a good metric is having a similar score across all communities
as well. Obviously the black and Asian communities have a different
perspective and that's something that could be fixed.

------
hundchenkatze
It's not surprising that people still want the police around... they just want
to be treated equally when they interact with the police.

------
dmode
I don’t understand the point of this survey. They could have also asked
whether people think water is wet or not. The debate here is not about police
presence, but (1) what type of presence and (2) what the alternatives are.
Absence an alternative, of course people will say they want the same police
presence. I would be curious to see if the question is framed along the lines
of “Do you want 10% of police budget be spend on mental health” or “Do you
want 15% of police budget on rehabilitation and integration”, on housing, on
schools etc. That will tell is what the trade offs are and what people feel
about those trade-offs

~~~
weswpg
this wouldn't happen if it weren't for the slogan "abolish the police"

proponents need to accept that it's just bad framing

~~~
bshoemaker
The slogan is defund. I.e. reduce

~~~
brendoelfrendo
Perhaps the "defund" is so entrenched in the conservative playbook as meaning
"eliminate by starving of operating capital" that using "defund" to mean "free
up capital to be re-prioritized to other social causes" simply seems
nonintuitive or alien to them.

~~~
weswpg
also, the dictionary definition of 'defund' means "to withdraw funding from"

if you wanted to campaign on _partially_ defunding the police, then you'd get
a different reaction.

i'm not aware of any previous major political movements which used the slogan
'defund X' to mean 'partially reduce funding to, but continue to support
sufficiently to ensure proper functioning of X"

so if (a) defund doesn't imply "partially reduce funding" and (b) the word
defund has not historically been used that way and (c) plenty of activists say
"literally abolish the police" [1] then if people are failing to interpret it
the way you'd like, the burden is on proponents to have a better slogan to
communicate their message

[1] [https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/12/opinion/sunday/floyd-
abol...](https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/12/opinion/sunday/floyd-abolish-
defund-police.html)

------
acjohnson55
Black person here. Generally speaking, we just want swift accountability when
police do fucked up things.

------
baybal2
A good precedent to study:

Georgia's Ex-President Explains How He Abolished Police and Brought Down Crime

 _> I Abolished and Rebuilt the Police. The United States Can Do the Same._

[https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/06/11/abolish-police-
georgia-...](https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/06/11/abolish-police-georgia-
brutality-crime/)

 _> After Georgia’s Rose Revolution in 2004, I became president of a failed
state. Law enforcement agencies functioned like criminal gangs. Officers
demanded bribes, trafficked narcotics and weapons, and worked for political
and business elites as a mercenary security force. Georgia was a textbook
example of “predatory policing”: Police did not perform the basic
responsibilities of ensuring public safety, instead enriching themselves and
their patrons by extorting citizens. A 2003 survey found that just 2.3 percent
of Georgians held a positive view of police.

> Given that reality, police reform was not only a matter of restructuring
> institutions or implementing better policies. We had to change the mentality
> of a broken, cynical, and fearful society.

> Before people could begin to trust the police, we—the new political
> elites—had to earn their trust. Challenging the status quo was not enough.
> We had to destroy it and build something better.

> We replaced them with an entirely new force of Patrol Police, who had no
> background in law enforcement and thus no ties to old, corrupted elites.
> Recruits had to pass a competitive examination and complete a course in
> criminal procedure code. They were trained in persuasion, negotiation, and
> mediation skills to minimize the use of force.

> In 2005 Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili fired "the entire traffic
> police force" of the Georgian National Police due to corruption, numbering
> around 30,000 police officers. ... Throughout the reformation, policemen
> were presented with new Volkswagen cars and navy blue uniforms, with
> "Police" written on the back._

Law enforcement in Georgia (country) - Wikipedia

------
paulintrognon
I believe what one want is not no police, but rather a non-racist, fair,
police. Maybe I missed something, but imho the protests are not for the
removal of police, but rather for a police you can trust and rely on,
regardless of your look.

~~~
dvfjsdhgfv
Is the slogan "defund the police" helpful in this case?

------
pwinnski
Weird that the focus is on that one question, rather than on "Confidence About
Receiving Positive Treatment by Police"

------
jacquesm
Of course they do. But they want _police_ , people that are professional and
courteous and a net positive for the society they operate in. Not the power
tripping racist scum that seems to make up a good portion of the police in the
USA (and; unfortunately; elsewhere as well).

Police is a good thing when implemented properly, and a dangerous component
that can easily get out of control when allowed to.

------
cityzen
Wanting police presence != wanting the police to shoot them in the back or
choke them, literally, to death. The poll also states:

Fewer than one in five Black Americans feel very confident that the police in
their area would treat them with courtesy and respect. While similar to the
24% of Asian Americans saying the same, it is markedly lower than the 40% of
Hispanic Americans and the 56% of White Americans who feel this way. This
could either stem from Black Americans' own negative experiences with the
police or from their familiarity with people who have had negative encounters
with law enforcement.

Black americans deserve to enjoy the confidence that 56% of white americans do
in terms of being treated with courtesy and respect.

------
dvh1990
I'm not American so I can't know, but how much police presence is "right" in
your opinion? Surely no police sounds like a bad thing, doesn't it?

------
burntbridge
This seems like a massive vote of no confidence in policing. A massive 19% of
black Americans would like to see less police. i.e. just take their chances.
Imagine this in the context of other essential services i.e. 19% of people
wanted less hospitals or ambulances.

~~~
qPM9l3XJrF
"A massive 19% of black Americans would like to see less police. i.e. just
take their chances."

"A massive 19% of overweight Americans would like to eat less food. i.e. just
starve."

Suppose there were police hanging out in front of your door all day, and you
said you wanted to see less police. Does that mean you want to "just take your
chances"?

The question is what the threshold should be before cops feel justified in
coming by. Wanting the threshold higher doesn't mean you want it so high they
never come.

------
kgraves
This will only exacerbate the main issue [0].

[0] [https://news.gallup.com/poll/316247/black-americans-
police-e...](https://news.gallup.com/poll/316247/black-americans-police-
encounters-not-positive.aspx)

------
mykowebhn
Why is this allowed on HN, but articles in support of BLM are not? Also,
defunding police does not mean completely getting rid of police.

Seriously, why is this article allowed whereas others showing another
viewpoint in support of BLM not? This is a real question.

~~~
ponsin
When I read "defund the police" I assume that they mean what they are saying.
What do you think is meant by the phrase "defund planned Parenthood"?

------
fareesh
Not sure why this is on HN - can someone fill me in? Maybe I'm missing
something

~~~
SpicyLemonZest
Defunding the police has become very popular in the circles many HN commenters
frequent, so it's interesting to realize just how niche of a position it is.

~~~
fareesh
Are there any good empirical arguments for it?

------
andromeduck
So I know quite a few people SF who are both anti police and anti second
ammendment and it just makes absolutely no sense to me. The craziest thing is
half of them seemed to be on the marxist/anti-capitalist spectrum too and I
always wondered what their plan would be to enforce those ideals without
police or an individaual mandate like the 2'nd ammendment. It boggles the
mind.

~~~
adventured
> I always wondered what their plan would be to enforce those ideals without
> police

The plan is to replace the police with their own ideology enforcement system,
which every totalitarian ideology does by necessity.

You can already see this in action. The defund the police proponents are
aggressively pushing for building new de facto police structures that they
would control (they won't call them police). The goal, as in all Marxist
outcomes (happens every single time without exception), is to replace the
existing power structures with new power structures that are aligned to the
Marxist outcome they're pursuing and that will help enforce their aims and
beliefs. The new police would be involved in things such as cultural &
behavioral enforcement for example, they would not be narrowly focused on
crime, they would be tasked at assisting the revolution.

They don't want to remove the police per se. They want to replace them. They
want their own enforcement systems put into place, that they can control and
that are aligned to their ideology. It is a cultural revolution attempt, plain
and simple. This is why Antifa is at the center of the riots, they aren't
anti-authoritarian, they're merely supposedly anti-Fascism, and they're
universally pro-Marxism and openly violent (which tells you everything you
need to know); it's nothing more than the escalation of the classic left vs
right conflict, with Antifa being a violent militia wing for the extreme left.

~~~
kqvamxurcagg
Good analysis. I suspect you're right, the funding would be diverted from
traditional crime investigations to cultural and behavioural enforcement.

------
fasteddie31003
Listen live to our county falling apart in Kenosha WI
[https://www.broadcastify.com/webPlayer/30891](https://www.broadcastify.com/webPlayer/30891)

------
newacct583
This is a horribly spun headline. The question was not whether to "retain
presence", it was "Would you rather the police spend more time, the same
amount of time or less time as they currently spend in your area?".

And unsurprisingly the answers split with roughly half the respondents saying
"same" and the remainder split between "more" and "less". Which is about what
you get with any status-quo question like this.

The headline, being phrased along the lines of a protest demand, makes this
sound like a majority disagreeing with the premise of the BLM movement, when
that's not the question at all.

(It is worth noting, though, that the answers anticorrelate with the amount of
actual police work! The more people see the police, the LESS they want them
around.)

------
zalkota
Most people don’t want their local grocery store burned.

------
lucideer
A few people mentioning that a "respected" polling company such as Gallup has
methods to correct for potential bias in such polls.

The Gallup Panel is 100,000 members, with weighting being applied "according
to gender, age, race, Hispanic ethnicity, education and region".

One of those weights is nullified in this headline, and it's also notable that
there is no mention of any direct weighting for economic factors.

Education and region could be considered proxies here, but given the sample
and the already reduced weighting, this seems like a result on very weak
footing.

------
ipython
That’s great news since neither major party candidate is proposing to “defund”
the police.

------
ops
I wish there were fewer police responding to and investigating bank robberies
(in my area).

------
Havoc
Anarchy is generally not much fun so yeah I can see that.

Good policing > Bad policing > No policing

------
kingkawn
Irrelevant misrepresentation of what “defund the police” is asking for

------
CyberDildonics
I wonder how many black americans want body cameras to be mandatory and
investigated if they are turned off.

~~~
kqvamxurcagg
I read several years ago that policing unions were initially reluctant to wear
body cameras but are now very much in favour as they usually provide evidence
that supports the police officer's statement of events.

------
rhegart
Upper middle class morons who’ve never faced hardships or seen true evil, just
lived in their bubble want to feel important and hyper tribalism reinforced
via social media anger bubbles makes it a waste of time to have any nuance or
discussions. These mobs are ruining primarily low income and minority lives
while blue check marks rile them up and media gaslights and fans the flames.
Every single city which has had these riots has seen a dramatic upshot in
violent crime and economy ravaged. None have recovered since Ferguson

~~~
coenhyde
Well yes. But it goes both ways. I would argue that the Right doesn't have the
ability to have a nuance discussion around this topic either. They read the
headline "defund the police" and assume that means less police to deal with
violent crimes. "defund the police" means to reallocate resources from police
to people better capable of resolving low impact community issues. And let the
police deal with violent crimes. If done properly you might see more police
resources available to keep the community safe from violent crime.

~~~
endogui
If the staff in your local monopoly grocery store is underperforming, do you
defund the store? How about your engineering company? In each case, the
solution is to replace/remove under-performers while increasing funding,
rather than to defund.

This is what Camden did when they "defunded": dissolve the city police,
bringing the city under county sheriff jurisdiction, then pay for new staffing
at the county level. They may have been able to save some money because they
broke the police union, but in the long term funding increased.

~~~
coenhyde
But the grocery store doesn't do surgeries or tennis lessons. If the grocery
store was responsible for surgeries and doing a bad job, i absolutely would
defund them and give the money to surgeons instead. Surgeons are trained at
doing surgery. See what i did there? Same applies to police dealing with
mental ill people. Mental health professionals should be involved instead.

This sounds like an absurd analogy but only because America doesn't know how
to operate community services in any other way than with a heavy police force.
It's a failure of imagination and / or unwilling to look at the rest of the
world for successful examples of alternative methods.

------
dragonwriter
Sure, no one has suggested police departments as currently constituted should
both exist and withdraw from Black neighborhoods, except for police unions
applying terrorist negotiating tactics.

More relevant questions

(With regard to “defund the police”): should significant funding and
responsibility be redirected from the police to preventive and specialized
responsive social services?

(With regard to “dismantle/abolish the police”:) Should centralized all-
purpose paramilitary local law enforcement agencies be disbanded, with law
enforcement responsibilities distributed within specialized agencies whose
agents (both armed law enforcement and other) would be domain specialists as
well (for law enforcement officers) trained in law enforcement (which also
involves transferring non-law enforcement responsibilities and funding more to
non-law-enforcememt units.)

~~~
darawk
Ya, that's what anyone intelligent says any time "defund the police" is
mentioned (and I completely agree with it, btw). But they should probably
choose another slogan if that's what they actually mean. "Defund" in the
context of government policy generally means to _eliminate_ via the funding
mechanism.

~~~
throwawaysea
The reality is defunding does literally mean completely eliminate to many of
the groups calling for defunding. The partial reduction in funding is just a
stepping stone. See [https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/12/opinion/sunday/floyd-
abol...](https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/12/opinion/sunday/floyd-abolish-
defund-police.html), an opinion piece titled “Yes, We Mean Literally Abolish
the Police”

~~~
dragonwriter
Note that “defund” and “dismantle/abolish” are separate positions (though many
people who hold one as their preferred also view the other as superior to the
_stays quo_ , and worse yet while there is a strong tendency in what the
language means, the use of each isn't perfectly consistent.)

Which probably shouldn't be surprising since there isn't a single top-down
organization behind any of them.

------
leafboi
I wonder how many people here have personally been wrongfully shot at by the
police versus just watching it on the media? I for one have been shot at
several times after being mistaken for carrying a gun when it was really just
groceries.

Even I don't want the police defunded.

------
venantius
This headline buries the more material difference outlined in the article,
which is the major difference between black/Asian Americans and other groups
in how likely they feel they are to be treated with respect by the police in
any individual encounter.

------
glenda
This poll is either disingenuous or misguided - what percent of black
Americans want better social services?

The call the defund the police doesn’t end with taking money from the police,
the goal is to be able to provide more specific services using other
departments outside of law enforcement.

~~~
1123581321
Why should we assume that this reasoning wasn’t factored in by the
respondents?

~~~
c0nducktr
Because the call to "defund the police" has been referenced implying it meant
"get rid of police" and do nothing else? That's the whole pole... it's not
implied that there will be other services provided to go along with the
reduction in standard policing.

------
foolinaround
Many comments talk about training of the police.

there needs to be basic training for citizens as well.

To recognize when to listen to a police officer, how to identify if the
officer steps out of line, what rights are afforded, etc.

This lecture from a law school professor was very enlightening to me : NEVER
TALK TO THE POLICE -
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE)

~~~
aaomidi
> there needs to be basic training for citizens as well.

No.

> To recognize when to listen to a police officer, how to identify if the
> officer steps out of line, what rights are afforded, etc.

Sure, but no. The police have all the responsibility to de-escalate
situations. If they're not doing that then they're the ones in the wrong.

~~~
tomnipotent
> The police have all the responsibility to de-escalate situations

This is an absolutely naive position to take. Police have no such obligation,
and citizens should absolutely be educated and informed on their rights.

~~~
Lammy
There's even worse legal precedent than not being responsible for de-
escalation: [https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/18/us/parkland-shooting-
laws...](https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/18/us/parkland-shooting-lawsuit-
ruling-police.html)

~~~
foolinaround
[https://mises.org/power-market/police-have-no-duty-
protect-y...](https://mises.org/power-market/police-have-no-duty-protect-you-
federal-court-affirms-yet-again)

------
adamnemecek
One of the problems is how police education happens. In Europe, police
education starts in high school, you go to a specialized high school for it
(and then continue to police college). As a result, the police are much more
skilled and professional. You start by studying the law. I don't think you
even shoot a gun before you know the law very well.

It's unheard of that the police would say shoot a drunk guy with a knife. The
way it happens, is that one of the cops who has more martial arts experience
(which is one of the things the cops study, which they can do since their
education takes much longer) puts on a protective vest and physically
immobilizes the drunk.

In the US, the same situation is very likely to end up with the the drunk
having more holes in him than a colander.

What's also funny to me is the extent to which police in the US tackle people.
Tackling someone is like the worst idea in the world.

