LAPD Budget


Carborendum
 Share

Recommended Posts

Apparently, LA officials are proposing that they LOWER the police department's budget by about 10% specifically as a response to the riots.  (Previously, he had announce that they are NOT RAISING the budget). And that money is now supposed to be re-directed to "communities of color".

I'm not sure if I follow the rationale for this.  If they want to lower the PD budget, I can only guess that they don't think the PD is worth the money or that they've been wasting it or something.  If they want to raise investment into poorer neighborhoods, that just makes sense.  But when they 

  • Base it on the premise that it is some sort of reaction to the riots.  AND
  • Link these two items together as a response to said riots...

I don't understand the reasoning.

Edited by Carborendum
Link to comment
Share on other sites

One concern among those seeking law enforcement reform has been the militarization of police forces. Reducing a police force's budget is a tactic that, as I understand it, is premised on the idea that if police forces aren't able to escalate their tools, they will have to develop new (and ideally less confrontational) methods of maintaining order.

in other words, the budget reduction forces the police force to consider what its priorities are.  If they want to keep buying the militaristic equipment, they'll have to make cuts somewhere else, such as training, salaries, personnel, etc. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, MarginOfError said:

One concern among those seeking law enforcement reform has been the militarization of police forces. Reducing a police force's budget is a tactic that, as I understand it, is premised on the idea that if police forces aren't able to escalate their tools, they will have to develop new (and ideally less confrontational) methods of maintaining order.

in other words, the budget reduction forces the police force to consider what its priorities are.  If they want to keep buying the militaristic equipment, they'll have to make cuts somewhere else, such as training, salaries, personnel, etc. 

I have seen some negative consequences of a militarized police force.  But I don't see how that is related to the Floyd death.  And for those "harsher" tactics that have been used during times of riot when the city if literally burning down because of rioters, I don't know why the reaction should be to weaken the police.

Perhaps it's my perspective.  I'm looking at it from the perspective that the whole thing was not about the "system" but rather the individual policemen involved.  To solve that, it is not a question of the system needing change, but to root out the bad police and attract a better type of man to replace him.  That should include a higher salary and benefits.  That means more money.  This is the philosophy applied to teaching and public schools.

Unlike the police (that many on both sides have already said are mostly very good people) American public schools are almost universally proven to be less effective that those of other nations.  Years ago, the reaction of a large majority of Americans has been to increase funding to schools.  But with police we're lowering funding.  As far as I know, their salaries and funding are very similar.

Schools put out lower quality students each year and get more money.  Police put their lives on the line and get beat up by protesters so we don't have to.  They get funding pulled.

There are bad police officers and they get fired and/or put on trial, then to prison (like Chauvin).  Bad teachers go through the shuffle and never get fired.

No, I still don't get it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MormonGator
12 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Bad teachers go through the shuffle and never get fired.

I tend to agree with you, that bad teachers can't be fired because of tenure, etc. But, bad teachers generally don't carry guns and kill people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, MarginOfError said:

One concern among those seeking law enforcement reform has been the militarization of police forces. Reducing a police force's budget is a tactic that, as I understand it, is premised on the idea that if police forces aren't able to escalate their tools, they will have to develop new (and ideally less confrontational) methods of maintaining order.

in other words, the budget reduction forces the police force to consider what its priorities are.  If they want to keep buying the militaristic equipment, they'll have to make cuts somewhere else, such as training, salaries, personnel, etc. 


I have heard these same ideas tossed around for decades. 
 

So, if we will take away some of the department budget for the guys who are overworked, under paid, overly stressed, and expected to make life changing decisions in the blink of an eye on a daily basis then that should solve all those issues...? 

By either taking pay from the guys already working massive amounts of overtime just to make ends meet OR by removing the tools used to keep them safe each day we can solve the issue? 
 

If Batman would just quit being so scary then all the criminals would stop being so bad! 
 

 

Is there a chance.... just a small chance... maybe... possibly... that this idea is an attempt to buy votes from poverty stricken, blighted areas of certain cities via redistribution of taxpayer funds? And that those same cities’ politicians who promote this idea are the very ones already at fault for the poor distribution of these funds thereby being responsible for the very poverty stricken areas in the first place? 
 

 

Sure, let’s blame it on the icky tactical-styled uniforms and weapons utilized to keep those officers safe from the crime infested rat holes created by the corrupt, democrat leaders of those areas. 
 

{Whoops. Was I not supposed to say that? Were we still pretending that “both sides are equal” or two sides of the same coin?} 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Perhaps it's my perspective.  I'm looking at it from the perspective that the whole thing was not about the "system" but rather the individual policemen involved.  To solve that, it is not a question of the system needing change, but to root out the bad police and attract a better type of man to replace him.  That should include a higher salary and benefits.  That means more money.  This is the philosophy applied to teaching and public schools.

It is, indeed, a matter of perspective.  The militarization of the police force is one aspect of a policing system that has become increasingly confrontational, especially over the past two decades. (see sources below) There's still some work to be done in this field of research, but my impression is that police aggression has been increasing. Some of that may be related to militarization, and some may be related to qualified immunity, and some may be related to the move away from community policing.

Underlying all of those effects, minority communities, and especially black communities, have a very long standing, tense relationship with law enforcement. This tension is a couple of hundred years old, and encompasses the fact that, pre-abolition, any white person could stop a black person and demand proof that they weren't a slave; it encompasses the Jim Crow era; it encompasses lynching and harassment that were ignored by racist law enforcement officers. The reality is that police treat black people differently. This is most starkly reflected in what white parents teach their children about interacting with the police versus what black parents teach their children about interacting with the police.

so yes, if you look at this from the perspective of this is one incident that needs to be brought under control, then it is ludicrous to cut the budget.  On the other hand, if you see this as just the most recent in a long line of incidents, then you begin to realize that this also won't be the last one.  If we keep doing what we have been doing--increase the budget and continue amping up the crowd control--then it's quite likely that the next one will just be bigger. Reducing the budget, then, can be interpreted as a step toward deescalating tensions.

 

https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/usappblog/2018/07/05/evidence-suggests-the-militarization-of-police-forces-leads-to-more-civilian-deaths/
https://www.princeton.edu/news/2018/08/21/militarization-police-fails-enhance-safety-may-harm-police-reputation
https://hub.jhu.edu/magazine/2015/spring/aclu-militarization-of-police/
https://journalistsresource.org/studies/government/security-military/militarization-police-reduce-crime-research/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Colirio said:


I have heard these same ideas tossed around for decades. 

so let me be clear...you've been hearing those ideas tossed around for decades.....but police budgets have generally been increasing for decades.... and things aren't getting any better.....so your proposal is to do more of the same?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, MarginOfError said:

It is, indeed, a matter of perspective.  The militarization of the police force is one aspect of a policing system that has become increasingly confrontational, especially over the past two decades. (see sources below)

If you're saying it's systemic, then why is education treated with the exact opposite strategy?  It seem like it's the same problem to me.  Is it the people or is it the system or both?  And why are the police given the opposite treatment than the schools?

BTW, I read the rest of your post.  But you basically repeated what was written in the quoted statement above.  So, that is what I'm focusing on.

Edited by Carborendum
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure your belief that police aren't getting the same treatment as the schools is as solid as you think.  To begin, the idea of cutting police budgets to encourage a move away from aggressive policing is new enough that I've only heard it discussed in theory in the past couple of years, and LAPD is the first force I'm aware of to actually do it.  By and large, police budgets have been increasing.  

As far as schools, keep in mind that schools that under perform get less money from federal resources. So this new trend with police forces may be more consistent than you are thinking.

Lastly, if it were demonstrated that increasing school budgets resulted in a physically more aggressive teaching force, do you really think we'd keep increasing those budgets?  That is, the terms of comparison may not be completely equal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, MarginOfError said:

so let me be clear...you've been hearing those ideas tossed around for decades.....but police budgets have generally been increasing for decades.... and things aren't getting any better.....so your proposal is to do more of the same?


Hmmmm. It has been reported extensively that crime rates have been getting better for quite some time.... 

 

If you are speaking to the tensions between police and minorities not getting any better, perhaps we should look to a broader societal problem rather than placing blame on law enforcement directly? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, MarginOfError said:

I'm not sure your belief that police aren't getting the same treatment as the schools is as solid as you think.

Actually, I said the opposite. 

Quote

 To begin, the idea of cutting police budgets to encourage a move away from aggressive policing is new enough that I've only heard it discussed in theory in the past couple of years, and LAPD is the first force I'm aware of to actually do it.  By and large, police budgets have been increasing.  

I didn't even mention how long it has been discussed.  I, myself, have only heard about it this first time in LA.

I'll take your word for it that they've been increasing.  The thing is that people forget what police are for.  For the most part, they do not prevent crime.  They're just supposed to bring offenders in to be sent through the system.  As long as there is crime, they need to bring people in.

Are they supposed to be more effective or less effective at bringing people in if they are less aggressive?  How about if they're less funded?

Quote

As far as schools, keep in mind that schools that under perform get less money from federal resources. So this new trend with police forces may be more consistent than you are thinking.

I heard that.  But I don't see it actually happening.  You're the stats man, do you have stats on it?  Compare older funds to newer funds.  Older performance scores and newer performance scores?  Then you have to adjust for inflation and consider the sources of funding, and what they do with that funding.

Quote

Lastly, if it were demonstrated that increasing school budgets resulted in a physically more aggressive teaching force, do you really think we'd keep increasing those budgets?  That is, the terms of comparison may not be completely equal.

No, it's not equal.  But let me help you out here.

The purpose of a police force requires the use of... FORCE.  The purpose of teaching requires empathy and inspiration.  Therefore:

  • Increasing police budgets will result in a physically more aggressive police force.
  • Increasing school budgets will result in a physically more empathetic and inspiring teaching staff.

I'd say that both are at least somewhat true.  But to say this supports the current action says that the level of aggressive power the police force currently has is too high.  Well...

Like all things about aggression, it is always acceptable when we benefit from it.  It is unacceptable when the EXACT SAME level is used against us.  Just how much is too much?  Is this ONE incident going to decide that it was too much for ALL incidents?

Edited by Carborendum
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, MarginOfError said:

I won't contest that there are broad societal issues that need to be addressed.  Motivating police forces to deescalate is not a magic cure, but could be a valid and effective part of an broader strategy. 

Then wouldn't it make sense that the "broader strategy" would also require funding?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Actually, I said the opposite. 

I didn't even mention how long it has been discussed.  I, myself, have only heard about it this first time in LA.

I'll take your word for it that they've been increasing.  The thing is that people forget what police are for.  For the most part, they do not prevent crime.  They're just supposed to bring offenders in to be sent through the system.  As long as there is crime, they need to bring people in.

Are they supposed to be more effective or less effective at bringing people in if they are less aggressive?  How about if they're less funded?

I heard that.  But I don't see it actually happening.  You're the stats man, do you have stats on it?  Compare older funds to newer funds.  Older performance scores and newer performance scores?  Then you have to adjust for inflation and consider the sources of funding, and what they do with that funding.

I'm going to say this with the caveat that I am not going to engage further in this line of discussion as it falls outside the scope of this thread.

I agree that I don't see it happen often.  But the threat is there. Which also leads to all sorts of shenanigans and outright corruption to inflate scores to stay above the federally mandated thresholds. Honestly, it was a system I never really liked, but I understand the premise.  As far as what to do about it....(shrug)...see Colirio's comment about broader societal issues.  We've got lots or problems, and the solutions may not be the same.

Quote

No, it's not equal.  But let me help you out here.

The purpose of a police force requires the use of... FORCE.  The purpose of teaching requires empathy and inspiration.  Therefore:

  • Increasing police budgets will result in a physically more aggressive police force.
  • Increasing school budgets will result in a physically more empathetic and inspiring teaching staff.

I'd say that both are at least somewhat true.  But to say this supports the current action says that the level of aggressive power the police force currently has is too high.  Well...

Like all things about aggression, it is always acceptable when we benefit from it.  It is unacceptable when the EXACT SAME level is used against us.  Just how much is too much?  Is this ONE incident going to decide that it was too much for ALL incidents?

Again, if you look at the current event as a single incident*, then cutting budgets doesn't make sense.  If you view it through a lens of a history of events, it starts to make sense that maybe a change in tactics is desirable.  Whether or not you agree depends on whether you prefer preparing the police force to restore order or whether you prefer shifting their culture into better relations with black communities.

* Keep in mind that by and large, the black community will tell you that these types of events are not new. What is new is that they are being recorded.

 

Quote

Then wouldn't it make sense that the "broader strategy" would also require funding?

Sure.  But funding of what? Funding for more riot control equipment? funding for more overtime? funding for more community policing? If the mayor of LA can approve the size of the police budget but has limited ability to control what it is spent on*, then how else is he supposed to persuade the police department to spend their budget in line with his priorities?

* I don't know the structure of these things for LA.  I'm hypothesizing that if the mayor could direct what the money is spent on, then he'd do so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, MarginOfError said:

I'm going to say this with the caveat that I am not going to engage further in this line of discussion as it falls outside the scope of this thread.

I agree that I don't see it happen often.  But the threat is there. Which also leads to all sorts of shenanigans and outright corruption to inflate scores to stay above the federally mandated thresholds. Honestly, it was a system I never really liked, but I understand the premise.  As far as what to do about it....(shrug)...see Colirio's comment about broader societal issues.  We've got lots or problems, and the solutions may not be the same.

Read it.

56 minutes ago, MarginOfError said:

Again, if you look at the current event as a single incident*, then cutting budgets doesn't make sense.  If you view it through a lens of a history of events, it starts to make sense that maybe a change in tactics is desirable.  Whether or not you agree depends on whether you prefer preparing the police force to restore order or whether you prefer shifting their culture into better relations with black communities.

Whether I look at it that way or not isn't really the thing.  It's what I'm hearing from the LA officials.  If I just didn't get it in the context of the broader picture.  K...  But the announcement didn't really go into it.  I just took his words as he spoke them.  And he said it was all about this one event.

56 minutes ago, MarginOfError said:

* Keep in mind that by and large, the black community will tell you that these types of events are not new. What is new is that they are being recorded.

Yes, and if you saw the other thread, you'd see where I showed that unarmed white men being killed by police barely made it to the news and quickly went away from public consciousness.

56 minutes ago, MarginOfError said:

Sure.  But funding of what? Funding for more riot control equipment? funding for more overtime? funding for more community policing? If the mayor of LA can approve the size of the police budget but has limited ability to control what it is spent on*, then how else is he supposed to persuade the police department to spend their budget in line with his priorities?

* I don't know the structure of these things for LA.  I'm hypothesizing that if the mayor could direct what the money is spent on, then he'd do so.

I don't know the structure either.  But if I'm to accept your argument, I believe this policy would be the equivalent of:

I don't like what you're doing with matter A, so I'm going to tighten your purse in all areas.  Then I'll leave it to you to choose where.  That was what I thought you had said earlier.

So, what's to prevent them from streamlining the police force and laying off half the force and invest in drones and increased militarization to make each policeman robocop?  If it is about a particular item, they can pass ordinances.  They can change leadership in the force. They can institute policies. They can specifically carve out money for training, etc.

But the blanket reduction of budget doesn't have the effect of doing what you might intend.

Anyway.  Thank you for your insight.  I appreciate the exchange.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MormonGator
3 minutes ago, Plein Air said:

Not generally but truly bad (and dare I include amoral?) teachers from K-12 up through college, can do a lot of damage over their careers. 

Agree. 

I hated K-12th grade more than anyone. So much so that I still struggle with bitterness and anger sometimes. I threw away my yearbooks and never looked back. 

However, I'd say only one teacher I had in all those years was truly "evil". She was more concerned with being popular and being considered "cool" than being a teacher. I think truly "evil" teachers are as rare as evil cops. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

What equipment do police officers have, that they shouldn’t have?

Well, apparently, there is now a new movement beginning (who knows how much steam they'll get) to defund the police entirely.  Gee, conservatives say defund Planned Parenthood.  And this is the liberal counterpoint?  

Celebrities are offering to bail out protesters, rioters, vandals, & murderers.  But they aren't offering to help any of the victims -- man of whom are minorities?

This is just plain madness.  Am I still on the planet Earth?  Am I still living in the Unites States?

Is it Bizzaro world where the one sane (even exemplary and thoughtful) celebrity is Kanye West?

Edited by Carborendum
Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Well, apparently, there is now a new movement beginning (who knows how much steam they'll get) to defund the police entirely.  Gee, conservatives say defund Planned Parenthood.  And this is the liberal counterpoint?  

Celebrities are offering to bail out protesters, rioters, vandals, & murderers.  But they aren't offering to help any of the victims -- man of whom are minorities?

This is just plain madness.  Am I still on the planet Earth?  Am I still living in the Unites States?

Is it Bizzaro world where the one sane (even exemplary and thoughtful) celebrity is Kanye West?

Just wait, it's going to be more bizzare as things flip more rapidly.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, Minneapolis just announced that they are dismantling the police and determining a completely new philosophy on how the concept of "public safety" will be handled.

I'm not sure how many people saw Demolition Man.  But the way they depicted police in that movie is what comes to mind when I read this headline.

"We're police officers.  We're not trained to handle this kind of violence."

Edited by Carborendum
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Carborendum said:

So, Minneapolis just announced that they are dismantling the police and determining a completely new philosophy on how the concept of "public safety" will be handled.

I'm not sure how many people saw Demolition Man.  But the way they depicted police in that movie is what comes to mind when I read this headline.

"We're police officers.  We're not trained to handle this kind of violence."

You know what?

If they can make it work, good for them.  That’s what federalism’s all about.

But as for me—I’m glad I don’t live there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've been spending some time thinking about the whole idea of "defunding" the police.

First, to be clear, there are two mentalities regarding what "defunding" means.

  • Literally get rid of police departments completely.
  • Reduce the scope of police mission statements to only handle things that no one else can do.  Then do other (less lethal) methods to cover most of the (let's say non-violent) police calls.

I am certainly against option one (for the most part -- see below).  But there are actually people out there saying that they are very much for it.  But I'm wondering about how option two would be implemented.

The libertarian/constitutionalist side of me is reminded that there is only ONE LEO that is established by the Constitution: The Sheriff.  All others were established by executive action or by legislation.  It would then make sense to go with option 2 -- IF, it is done right, IF the sheriff's office is kept.

Since this would be a completely different approach, it would be premature to up and say exactly what would and would not be included.  This has to take some thought.

The reason the sheriff's office is different is the nature of the way sheriffs run things.  While some other LEOs also have elections for the heads, the elections sure help.

Edited by Carborendum
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share