You're using the word "exclude" wrong. Proper use of that world necessitates active intent. And your "5:30-7:30" comment is only accurate for people who work specifically from 5:30-7:30. Isn't the standard/stereotypical/typical US workday 9-5?
Your only proof of 'BS by design' is that most of the participants are paid/well paid, so the only people you're going to fool into believing this piece is legitimate are the gullible, and people who think the more $ you make, the more evil you are. The people who want to "divest SPD" are the same strata of people who attend Before the Badge and the people who want more police presence are the same people you say are the most policed because of this thing called crime.
You are attempting to de-ligitimize a black woman because she is getting paid and ignoring the possibility that she may have a good idea of what her community wants. And underlying all of this is, seemingly from your perspective is that G. Floyd in Minnesota, magically made you realize, that if only there were far less police presence in Seattle, there would be less homeless, homicides, rape, drug use, theft and property damage. Brilliant.
It's not really our job to do outreach for a program that we regard as a waste of money. Several people get paid to do this. Dr. Jacqueline Helfgott gets $650 per day. We don't.
If you read the entire piece, you would these sessions have low participation by design. They only promote them through limited channels and host them at times that are inconvenient for working people (Monday 5:30 - 7:30 pm)
Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t this a program designed for police reform? it is my understanding that there is poor outreach being done, and that is because they don’t want certain voices to appear at the sessions. But wouldn’t it be beneficial if those voices did appear at these sessions, and pressure them to change their systems? What I see right now, is one group (activists) saying “we want change”, and then another group (institution) says “ok, what do you want to change? Come tell us at this really difficult session to attend.” Obviously the activists don’t show up because it’s difficult to attend. But what if we want to? What if we’re not on next door and haven’t heard of this before? I want to amplify my voice and express my perspective with SPD, but again, I’m not on places like next door, and I’m working class, so I don’t see whatever outreach they’re doing. I do, however, see your article. Which I did read all of, by the way.
It's designed to give the *appearance* of reform without the actual reform. A hundred activists could show up to voice highly specific critiques of the police department and policing in general, and it wouldn't change the day-to-day operations or the fundamental logic of policing one iota.
We don't want to "reform" the police. Our aim is to systematically reduce the size and scope of policing while shifting resources that actually do have an impact on people's safety and well-being. Every "reform" just piles more and more money into the police budget while doing little-to-nothing to reduce crime or eliminate harms caused by the police.
We've got tons of reforms already and they all cost a lot: Three different accountability bodies (CPC, OPA, OIG), bodycams, dashcams, countless "community policing" groups, implicit bias training, CIT training, "less-lethal" weapons, etc.
All of these things are sucking up money that could be used to help people and genuinely make our city safer. For example, the total program cost of Behind the Badge thus far is nearly $2 million. For less money ($1.5 million), the city of Richmond California cut youth gang violence in half with violence interruption program that provided at-risk youth mentorship and paid them to stay out of trouble. We spend $1.6 million annually just paying officers to wear bodycams. Mind you, that's not even the costs of the bodycams themselves (the devices, licenses and data storage costs are in the several millions). We pay a 2% premium under the SPOG contract just for putting the damn things on.
81% of SPD calls for service are non-criminal. SPD spends the vast majority of its time not dealing with crime at all. So why is it useful for activists to spend our precious time telling cops how to do better? We think they should be doing less, and the work should be shifted to cheaper, better qualified people.
Define "non-criminal." And do this while considering the change in the definition of "criminal act in Seattle" within the past few years. If prostituting in 2023 isn't considered a crime, police interaction with a prostitute and a john is cut in half compared to in 2010, because the john and not the prostitute is considered a criminal today.
You can use fentanyl and pass out in the once thriving CBD and interact with a cop and it be non-criminal. You are technically correct, maybe, but conceptually and physically lacking.
You're using the word "exclude" wrong. Proper use of that world necessitates active intent. And your "5:30-7:30" comment is only accurate for people who work specifically from 5:30-7:30. Isn't the standard/stereotypical/typical US workday 9-5?
Your only proof of 'BS by design' is that most of the participants are paid/well paid, so the only people you're going to fool into believing this piece is legitimate are the gullible, and people who think the more $ you make, the more evil you are. The people who want to "divest SPD" are the same strata of people who attend Before the Badge and the people who want more police presence are the same people you say are the most policed because of this thing called crime.
You are attempting to de-ligitimize a black woman because she is getting paid and ignoring the possibility that she may have a good idea of what her community wants. And underlying all of this is, seemingly from your perspective is that G. Floyd in Minnesota, magically made you realize, that if only there were far less police presence in Seattle, there would be less homeless, homicides, rape, drug use, theft and property damage. Brilliant.
So are you going to tell us how to join the sessions or just complain about how few people are there?
It's not really our job to do outreach for a program that we regard as a waste of money. Several people get paid to do this. Dr. Jacqueline Helfgott gets $650 per day. We don't.
If you read the entire piece, you would these sessions have low participation by design. They only promote them through limited channels and host them at times that are inconvenient for working people (Monday 5:30 - 7:30 pm)
Right. And if more people who you would consider "appropriate" attended, it render your "argument" ridiculous would be another reason not to promote.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t this a program designed for police reform? it is my understanding that there is poor outreach being done, and that is because they don’t want certain voices to appear at the sessions. But wouldn’t it be beneficial if those voices did appear at these sessions, and pressure them to change their systems? What I see right now, is one group (activists) saying “we want change”, and then another group (institution) says “ok, what do you want to change? Come tell us at this really difficult session to attend.” Obviously the activists don’t show up because it’s difficult to attend. But what if we want to? What if we’re not on next door and haven’t heard of this before? I want to amplify my voice and express my perspective with SPD, but again, I’m not on places like next door, and I’m working class, so I don’t see whatever outreach they’re doing. I do, however, see your article. Which I did read all of, by the way.
It's designed to give the *appearance* of reform without the actual reform. A hundred activists could show up to voice highly specific critiques of the police department and policing in general, and it wouldn't change the day-to-day operations or the fundamental logic of policing one iota.
We don't want to "reform" the police. Our aim is to systematically reduce the size and scope of policing while shifting resources that actually do have an impact on people's safety and well-being. Every "reform" just piles more and more money into the police budget while doing little-to-nothing to reduce crime or eliminate harms caused by the police.
We've got tons of reforms already and they all cost a lot: Three different accountability bodies (CPC, OPA, OIG), bodycams, dashcams, countless "community policing" groups, implicit bias training, CIT training, "less-lethal" weapons, etc.
All of these things are sucking up money that could be used to help people and genuinely make our city safer. For example, the total program cost of Behind the Badge thus far is nearly $2 million. For less money ($1.5 million), the city of Richmond California cut youth gang violence in half with violence interruption program that provided at-risk youth mentorship and paid them to stay out of trouble. We spend $1.6 million annually just paying officers to wear bodycams. Mind you, that's not even the costs of the bodycams themselves (the devices, licenses and data storage costs are in the several millions). We pay a 2% premium under the SPOG contract just for putting the damn things on.
81% of SPD calls for service are non-criminal. SPD spends the vast majority of its time not dealing with crime at all. So why is it useful for activists to spend our precious time telling cops how to do better? We think they should be doing less, and the work should be shifted to cheaper, better qualified people.
Define "non-criminal." And do this while considering the change in the definition of "criminal act in Seattle" within the past few years. If prostituting in 2023 isn't considered a crime, police interaction with a prostitute and a john is cut in half compared to in 2010, because the john and not the prostitute is considered a criminal today.
You can use fentanyl and pass out in the once thriving CBD and interact with a cop and it be non-criminal. You are technically correct, maybe, but conceptually and physically lacking.
That wouldn’t benefit their anti police narrative.
Any accurate statement about the police supports an "anti-police narrative," Seaguy.