Govt Assignment 4

As the country continues to reel in the wake of the death of George Floyd at the hands of a

Minneapolis police officer and reckons with a history that is long past due in the eyes of many, a

new rallying cry has taken center-stage: “Defund the Police”. At issue is the fact that no one

really knows what this means exactly, as if you were to ask 100 people, you would likely receive

100 different responses. For some it means what it says literally, a full abolition of police

departments around the nation, but to be replaced with what exactly no one knows. In light of

Mr. Floyd’s death, the Minneapolis city council passed a veto proof measure promising to

disband the police department completely after citing that it was cancerous and could not be

reformed, but they also admitted that they don’t know exactly what will replace it in the future.

Other states and cities have responded by passing measures to defund percentages of police

budgets and reallocate them elsewhere while still admitting that some degree a police presence as

a protection force is needed. Obviously, there are many others who are extremely concerned

about the prospect of defunding of police as they legitimately wonder who, or what, will reply to

calls for help or service. One thing we know for sure is that crime and violence will still occur

when police are nowhere to be found, as we have seen in the area of Seattle known as “CHOP”

where there have been shootings, vandalism, burglary, and reports of extortion of business

owners in exchange for protection by people claiming to be leaders of the movement there.

These individuals also pay taxes and as citizens are entitled to their protection, so how do we, or

can we, balance out the wants/needs of everyone in our nation? Is it possible to provide a

reformed police presence that is kinder, gentler, and more receptive to people of color? Has the

trust been too eroded over the years? Is the issue truly systemic or is it “bad apples” who need to

be rooted out? All jobs have “bad apples” or people not qualified for the position, and there are

some professions which require a calling to do well as opposed to someone just taking the job for

a paycheck and because there was an opening. Some would argue that policing is simply a

profession where “bad apples” cannot be accepted due to the potentially deadly results. Perhaps

the comedian Chris Rock expressed this concept as well as anyone possibly could when he said:

“I don’t think they pay cops enough. I don’t think they pay police enough. And you get what you

pay for. Here’s the thing, man. Whenever the cops gun down an innocent black man, they always

say the same thing. “Well, it’s not most cops. It’s just a few bad apples. It’s just a few bad

apples.” Bad apple? That’s a lovely name for murderer. That almost sounds nice. I’ve had a bad

apple. It was tart, but it didn’t choke me out. Here’s the thing. Here’s the thing. I know being a

cop is hard. I know that shit’s dangerous. I know it is, okay? But some jobs can’t have bad

apples. Some jobs, everybody gotta be good. Like … pilots. Ya know, American Airlines can’t

be like, “Most of our pilots like to land. We just got a few bad apples that like to crash into

mountains. Please bear with us.”

So, what do you think defunding the police should mean? Should it be a complete abolition of

such services? If so, what replaces it to ensure public safety? Should defunding simply called

for a reallocation of some money to other community programs intended to reduce the

requirement of police to respond to calls which they have no business do so? For example,

should an officer really be the one responding to a person having mental issues and trying to

discern whether they are a threat to themselves or others? After all, is it fair to ask an officer to

discern a person’s mental state when it takes psychologists/psychiatrists years to earn the

multiple degrees necessary to treat a person with such issues? As a secondary issue to the one at

hand, if you argue there should not be such a replacement, then what about the 2nd Amendment?

You recently were asked about this issue and many argued that an AR-15 is not necessary, but it

there’s no police presence then should citizens have the right to own such weapons to protect

themselves and their property? We saw during the riots where people’s businesses where

overwhelmed by looters to the degree where weapons holding less ammunition would not be

enough to deter, so does this potentially alter your opinion? I am including a few links to articles

for you to read over to help you with this particular board. There are no right or wrong answers

here and I expect there to be many differing views, but as always, I expect you to be respectful of

each other’s viewpoints because by having these difficult conversations is how we move forward

as a nation.

Discussion essays should be approx. 1 page double-spaced and typed in 12-point Times New

Roman font and should include at least 1 outside source other than the lecture materials which

you must cite in APA formatting at the end of your post.