Campaign Zero - End Police Violence? (1 Viewer)

[Joe Bryant]

Anyone know much about this? https://www.joincampaignzero.org/

 

[Kal El]

This is new to me, but at a cursory glance appears to be a reasonably solid thought out process for improving relations between civilians and LEOs. 

 

[Leroy Hoard]

I've seen police from other areas all in for this kind of thing. Not sure why anyone would be against it.

 

[parasaurolophus]

I've seen police from other areas all in for this kind of thing. Not sure why anyone would be against it.

Why would people be against decriminalizing all non violent crime? 

Gee. I cant imagine. 

 

[mcintyre1]

Yeah... I just googled them as I've never heard of them before, clicked on "Solutions" and I'm not seeing anything close to what he's saying here.

Only 5% of all arrests made in America are for violent crimes. Meanwhile, the vast majority of arrests are for low level offenses that pose no threat to public safety. Police departments should decriminalize or de-prioritize enforcement of these issues

Reduce police budgets in accordance with the reduction in policing that results from ending the enforcement of low-level offenses and redistribute these funds into scaling up community-based alternatives

I mean Joe even started a thread and that is literally from the first part of their plan on the link Joe posted.

Moving here so as not to further clutter the other thread -- I see what you're talking about now -- you're referring to a PDF document they've got linked, not the website itself, so that was my confusion.

However, I think you're misinterpreting what that is saying. They're not saying that 95% of all crime (ie. all non-violent crime) shouldn't be enforced, you're inferring that incorrectly from the 5% statement. The very next sentence makes this clear:
 

Meanwhile, the vast majority of arrests are for low level offenses that pose no threat to public safety. Police departments should decriminalize or de-prioritize enforcement of these issues

This is then clarified in the first bullet point on what they mean by "low level offenses":

• Decriminalize or de-prioritize enforcement of low-level offenses, including drug possession, public intoxication, loitering, jaywalking, disorderly conduct and prostitution

So, for example, theft would be considered a "non-violent" crime, but would still be enforced as it is not "low level." However all of the above are either not something that should be enforced at all by a reasonable society (jaywalking, loitering, etc) or something that can be addressed without police enforcement through other methods like drug/alcohol rehab resources, mental health counseling, etc:

• Establish alternative responses to mental health crises and issues like homelessness and substance abuse, including by deploying first responser teams of mental health providers and community intervention workers to the scene to handle these issues instead of police officers.
  

 

[parasaurolophus]

Moving here so as not to further clutter the other thread -- I see what you're talking about now -- you're referring to a PDF document they've got linked, not the website itself, so that was my confusion.

However, I think you're misinterpreting what that is saying. They're not saying that 95% of all crime (ie. all non-violent crime) shouldn't be enforced, you're inferring that incorrectly from the 5% statement. The very next sentence makes this clear:
 

This is then clarified in the first bullet point on what they mean by "low level offenses":

So, for example, theft would be considered a "non-violent" crime, but would still be enforced as it is not "low level." However all of the above are either not something that should be enforced at all by a reasonable society (jaywalking, loitering, etc) or something that can be addressed without police enforcement through other methods like drug/alcohol rehab resources, mental health counseling, etc:

They say "including" they didnt say "only these". We know it cant be considered an exhaustive list since it doesnt list "vandalism" which ending is foundational to "broken windows". Would be very weird to say end broken windows policing, but still enforce vandalism. 

And the 5% stat is meaningless in context if what you are saying is true.

 

[mcintyre1]

They say "including" they didnt say "only these". We know it cant be considered an exhaustive list since it doesnt list "vandalism" which ending is foundational to "broken windows". Would be very weird to say end broken windows policing, but still enforce vandalism. 

And the 5% stat is meaningless in context if what you are saying is true.

Which do you think is more likely -- a group is advocating the complete elimination of theft, fraud, etc. as enforceable crimes, or you didn't understand a pamphlet? Be a reasonble person, please.

 

[parasaurolophus]

Which do you think is more likely -- a group is advocating the complete elimination of theft, fraud, etc. as enforceable crimes, or you didn't understand a pamphlet? Be a reasonble person, please.

You are the one that is literally saying they used the term broken windows policing but still want vandalism enforced. 

Lets also not forget you went to their site and apparently couldn't figure any of this out. So maybe stick to focusing on your own reading comprehension. Thanks in advance.

 

[sho nuff]

Moving here so as not to further clutter the other thread -- I see what you're talking about now -- you're referring to a PDF document they've got linked, not the website itself, so that was my confusion.

However, I think you're misinterpreting what that is saying. They're not saying that 95% of all crime (ie. all non-violent crime) shouldn't be enforced, you're inferring that incorrectly from the 5% statement. The very next sentence makes this clear:
 

This is then clarified in the first bullet point on what they mean by "low level offenses":

So, for example, theft would be considered a "non-violent" crime, but would still be enforced as it is not "low level." However all of the above are either not something that should be enforced at all by a reasonable society (jaywalking, loitering, etc) or something that can be addressed without police enforcement through other methods like drug/alcohol rehab resources, mental health counseling, etc:

Exactly...and glad it moved here rather than there.

 

[sho nuff]

You are the one that is literally saying they used the term broken windows policing but still want vandalism enforced. 

Lets also not forget you went to their site and apparently couldn't figure any of this out. So maybe stick to focusing on your own reading comprehension. Thanks in advance.

Ive read their site and solutions...the claims of almost no police force or decriminalizing 95% of crime simply does not exist in their solutions or site.

They literally explain it when they talk about broken windows policing.

The following activities do not threaten public safety and are often used to police black bodies. Decriminalize these activities or de-prioritize their enforcement:

Consumption of Alcohol on Streets

Marijuana Possession

Disorderly Conduct

Trespassing

Loitering

Disturbing the Peace (including Loud Music)

Spitting

Jaywalking

Bicycling on the Sidewalk

 

[whoknew]

If interested, Sam Simyangwe (one of the founders) is now a contributor to 538. Here's his article posted. And he was on the latest podcast released yesterday.

 

[parasaurolophus]

 Stanton: How would you characterize your own views on that topic? Do you see the police as necessary?

 Simyangwe: No. I believe that as long as there’s conflict in communities, there will need to be some sort of institution or system to respond to that conflict; I don’t believe that it has to be a police department. There are a host of institutions that can respond to issues that are not policing-based, that do not involve somebody who is armed with a gun and protected under a whole system of laws and policies to use deadly force. I don’t think that needs to be the response. And I believe that to get there, we need to use data as a tool to unpack how to defund the police.

I think it is pretty clear that campaign zero is in favor of eliminating 95%, if not all of the police force. But I am sure "no" means something else, "defund" means something else, and "believe: probably means something else too. 

 

[Leroy Hoard]

"Bicycling on the Sidewalk"

Damn, I guess police force was needed yesterday when I had to leave the street due to construction.