Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

SpicyMcBeard t1_jcyv7p0 wrote

Reply to comment by mreed911 in San Francisco official who pushed to defund police pleads for more officers in her district by Top-Organization-124

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

0

mreed911 t1_jcywoyu wrote

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

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

9

SpicyMcBeard t1_jcz1l07 wrote

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

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

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

1

OS_Apple32 t1_jd0msfa wrote

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

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

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

6