The actions taken by politicians who advocated for defunding the police were misguided and detrimental to the cities that, unfortunately, had to bear the consequences of what seemed like political stunts aimed at gaining popularity. It’s worth noting that these politicians often live in gated communities with private security and fortified homes, which makes their calls to defund the police seem out of touch with the reality faced by most citizens.
In my experience and from what I’ve observed, politicians often claim to speak for their communities and provide opinions that supposedly represent the majority, but this is not always the case. It’s hard to believe that the majority of residents in these affected communities genuinely demanded the complete dismantling of their police departments. While there are certainly individuals advocating for such actions, it’s questionable whether they truly represent the majority.
For instance, in my younger years, I lived in Texas. There were times when I would visit Austin. We would often go to downtown Austin, specifically 6th Street, which is known for its vibrant bar scene. After the bars closed, their mounted patrol unit would gracefully clear the streets, leaving a memorable impression. Despite having been there multiple times, each time, I would watch in awe, as it was a sight I was not used to: office in unison to clear the street. And there would be many others on the street with me watching in the same fashion. Later, Austin eventually became one of those cities that embraced the “defund the police” movement. It’s difficult to believe that this decision accurately reflected the desires of Austin’s majority, rather than serving as a political maneuver.
While I might not express this sentiment in the most politically correct manner, I wish politicians would refrain from making statements that often misinform the public for personal gain, further dividing our country. It’s crucial to understand that before the “defund the police” movement, police departments across the country were already underfunded. Contrary to the belief that departments solely spend on fancy police cars and militarized equipment, funding is also essential for training.
When police funding is reduced, training is typically the first casualty. It’s somewhat amusing to see “armchair quarterbacks” of officer-involved shootings making unrealistic comments like, “Why couldn’t the officer just shoot the gun out of their hand?” or “Why not shoot the suspect in the leg?” These comments overlook the high-stress nature of such situations, especially for newer officers who may not be fully “conditioned” to handle them. Additionally, many police departments are now understaffed, leading to excessive overtime, officer exhaustion, poor performance, and a lack of budget for training, all of which are worsening due to budget decreases.
However, let me be clear that police departments could and should improve. This starts with proper oversight. The term “proper” is crucial here, as mere oversight without impartiality is insufficient. Handpicking individuals from within the same agency to assess their actions can lead to issues such as favoritism and corruption, which undermine the concept of genuine oversight.
Unfortunately, politics often infiltrates the inner workings of police departments, particularly in smaller towns with less federal oversight. This allows corruption to persist without immediate consequences. While the idea of a citizens’ review board sounds appealing, it would have to consist of individuals with substantial training in areas such as the use of force, a deep understanding of relevant laws, and awareness of the psychological impact of high-stress situations.
Therefore, defunding the police exacerbates many problems. It not only endangers community safety by understaffing police departments but also impedes proper training, increases overtime costs, promotes poor decision-making, and allows corruption to persist. While police departments should continue to make improvements, the “defund the police” movement has significantly set back progress.
What’s the saying? You can’t have your cake and eat it too. One crucial aspect that often gets overlooked is the issue of corruption within police departments, which essentially can be “aided” by underfunding police. While corruption IS NEVER an excuse for misconduct, departments will act on the theory that it poses a significant challenge. Police departments will often argue that they can’t effectively address the problem of “bad officers” due to staffing shortages. This results in a lack of accountability for wrongdoing, which is not only tolerated but also indirectly encouraged. Consequently, this climate of acceptance leads to the departure of good officers, while the bad ones remain. And even if they won’t come out and say this directly, it most certainly will be happening behind closed doors to shield the department from potential liability from their actions, or rather inactions, in this case.
Over time, this situation can escalate, and those initially considered “bad apples” may become the majority within the department tasked with protecting the community. Unfortunately, the public may remain unaware of this transformation because the oversight mechanisms are often comprised of individuals appointed by the same police department.
It’s essential to recognize that defunding the police will not necessarily result in reduced crime rates and a surplus of highly skilled officers patrolling the streets. To make informed decisions, citizens must conduct more thorough research when voting and not rely solely on news sources for information. This extends beyond the typical advice of avoiding confirmation bias by not only selecting specific news outlets, such as CNN or Fox News, but also scrutinizing local news.
Local politics can reveal critical indicators, such as recurring scandals and embezzlement within different branches of local government. Individuals with corrupt tendencies tend to attract others with similar inclinations. This is why the need for external oversight remains a priority. Observing crime-ridden neighborhoods and noticing local news that downplays the issue or presents biased narratives underscores the importance of objective oversight.
It’s worth clarifying that advocating for increased oversight doesn’t imply a “big brother” scenario. Rather, it highlights the need for a more transparent and independent system of accountability that isn’t controlled from within the police department.
Ultimately, it’s crucial for citizens to be informed and critical when voting for politicians and to question the information presented by the media. Local politics, in particular, may harbor hidden issues, such as scandals and biases in news reporting. More independent oversight, not appointed from within, is needed to ensure transparency and accountability without encroaching on individual freedoms.
Lastly, if you are truly conflicted on the issue or want to look further, try to keep track of every time you’re voting for any local public safety tax, and at the time, what that tax was supposed to go to. If the city is asking the public to renew that tax, was it because the money was misappropriated the first time, or is there another issue? Over time, the public forgets this because it only seems like just a few cents are at stake. Well, if at those times it was only ever a few cents to you, why now would you be standing on the corner with signs demanding to defund the police? If you, as a citizen, are genuinely concerned on where your local PD stands or the direction it’s going, make sure you know what you’re voting for when it’s time to vote!
And I would never choose to live in a city that did not have a police force. No, there is no sensible alternative to the police.
