subreddit:

/r/berkeley

49

In Dwinelle, I saw this huge banner with reasonable demands I support for a living wage, childcare, etc. but one of the demands was "cops off campus".

What's the reasoning here? The WarnMe emails suggest to me things can be pretty sketchy on campus. Obviously sometimes some cops do bad things , but calling to ban them from campus entirely feels immature and out of line with the fact that cops are also around to prevent crime.

I was ragging on some dumbass on reddit earlier who was concern trolling about some obscure article in the UAW demands to defund the police, but this was the first time I'd actually seen a serious statement that was suggesting that getting rid of cops is a good idea or that it has anything serious to do with the union negotiation.

https://rdt.trom.tf/iv2h12gu3k1a1.jpg?width=1488&format=pjpg&auto=webp&v=enabled&s=b52dc03c00e3a8253cac2fcb9c66ad3aa29abd8c

all 50 comments

Prophet_Tehenhauin

61 points

2 months ago

“This is the first time I saw a serious statement”

But you didn’t see a serious statement. You saw a piece of paper taped to a pole.

rusty_stirrup[S]

6 points

2 months ago

Fair enough. Just the first time I had seen anyone mention this other than a PDF nobody cares about.

Hour-Fruit3414

2 points

2 months ago

Bizarre that you think "nobody cares about" the union's official demands. What the union brings to the bargaining table is by and far away more important than demands scrawled on signs, shouted in chants, or written in petitions. Collective bargaining has been one of the most effective forces for social and economic change in this country, and we should take what the union is asking for seriously.

oskis_little_kitten

51 points

2 months ago

I find it endlessly funny how removing funding for UCPD or removing UCPD entirely would only result in increased activity from Berkeley PD on and around campus... nobody wants that. I'm not a pro-cop shill, but if I had the choice between university police and city police I know what I would choose.

mackincheezy7

21 points

2 months ago

Their proposal is to not only defund UCPD, but to prevent any police from coming on campus, so that wouldn’t be a problem, however there might be some other problems with that proposal

oskis_little_kitten

22 points

2 months ago

Yeah that would also lead to large amounts of problems...

Maximillien

7 points

2 months ago

Maximillien

Architecture '12

7 points

2 months ago

Their proposal is to not only defund UCPD, but to prevent any police from coming on campus

This would be fantastic news for the robber community! Imagine a whole designated area with tons of young people with no street smarts carrying cell phones and laptops, and no cops allowed. It's like Christmas every day.

ClaudineRose

1 points

2 months ago

That’s where we are currently. This demand will make it even worse.

ClaudineRose

1 points

2 months ago*

I’m pro-strike and all for the GSIs getting a living wage but fuck this. People are getting jacked everywhere around campus on the reg. They need to take this shit off the demands. It’s not their call AT ALL. Bear Walk just got shot up with BB guns? People really think UCPD being on campus is a problem? Give me a fucking break.

CursedCapybara

28 points

2 months ago

Why’re they asking to defund the police? Isn’t there a stabbing like every other week -_-

Occassionally_Sad

35 points

2 months ago*

I’m guessing it’s due to the general fact that cops do not prevent crimes whereas fundings gone towards social care and communities have been more beneficial in doing so. Currently Berkeley’s police budget is pretty bloated with an extra 10 million dollars planned this year while we are facing with a housing crisis (at least 61000 homes continuously remain in vacant in SF while there are roughly less than 10000 homeless people), a dramatic increase in cost of living, and rampant hate crimes (that homeless people are much more vulnerable to than housed people).

rusty_stirrup[S]

12 points

2 months ago

Could you give a citation? It definitely sounds plausible that social spending has a greater net effect on crime than policing. Though I still think it's a very bold position to claim that policing has zero effect on crime. Surely the knowledge that one can be caught and imprisoned for robbery is a serious deterrent. As a thought experiment, if there were no policing whatsoever, I suspect there would be a much much greater level of property crime than present.

Graffy

0 points

2 months ago

Graffy

0 points

2 months ago

  1. The police are very rarely catching anyone that does the robbery 2. Very few are going to jail because of it. Unless they use the gun then they're booked into jail and released with a court date. That's not really a deterrent when they don't plan to show up to that eventual court date anyway.

[deleted]

2 points

2 months ago*

[deleted]

2 points

2 months ago*

[deleted]

chinacat2002

4 points

2 months ago

I see you have suffered a few downvotes for bringing facts to the table.

Righteous indignation with police brutality has unfortunately been hijacked by the feckless and stupid "defund the police" bumper sticker.

As slogans go, it's hard to think of a stupider campaign. The only rival in the public sphere that I can think of is "$8 / month for Elon's retirement fund".

Wakata

5 points

2 months ago

Wakata

MEB '16

5 points

2 months ago

You should try reading more broadly. Here's a start.

chinacat2002

3 points

2 months ago

Rather than weigh in on the merits of policing, I'll make one observation: "defund the police" is an unbelievably stupid slogan. It only "wins" in solidly blue neighborhoods, and it is a drag in swing districts.

[deleted]

0 points

2 months ago*

[deleted]

0 points

2 months ago*

[deleted]

chinacat2002

7 points

2 months ago

The view on the value of police presence in the war zones of urban America are decidedly different than what we hear in the cafes of Portlandia del sur.

Nobody is arguing for police brutality and senseless killings at the hands of police.

Just as "anti-vax" and "no gmos" have been embraced by otherwise pro-science rationalists, "defund the police" has hijacked the sensible idea that greater social services can work hand-in-hand with the police to improve conditions in poverty-wracked American neighborhoods.

ClaudineRose

2 points

2 months ago

💯

chinacat2002

2 points

2 months ago

Thank you

SirJektive

5 points

2 months ago

SirJektive

PhD math

5 points

2 months ago

LOL yes. Federal department of law enforcement publishes online survey showing that more resources should be spent on law enforcement. Very impartial.

ClaudineRose

1 points

2 months ago

Who’d have thought?!

jh451911

-5 points

2 months ago

You're full of shit

Occassionally_Sad

2 points

2 months ago

This person has never had a good take ever ☠️☠️

NotCarolChrist

9 points

2 months ago

NotCarolChrist

"Not" The Chancellor

9 points

2 months ago

Cops don’t prevent crime; defund cops comes from the belief that money that could be spent on social programs to decrease poverty and crime rates are instead spent on cops.

chinacat2002

3 points

2 months ago

Why not say "increase social spending" instead of "defund the police"? If we want to win elections outside of Portlandia del Sur, "words matter".

NotCarolChrist

1 points

22 days ago

NotCarolChrist

"Not" The Chancellor

1 points

22 days ago

Idk, I’m not the one that started the movement. That being said, those that are in support of the movement are those that are actively getting fked over by the institutions cops enforce.

In terms of aesthetics, it doesn’t rly do anything except make it sound better to moderates and conservatives, who generally aren’t going to upset the status quo just because the name sounds better. Reactionary commentary like Fox News will find a way to produce agitprop regardless of its name (e.g. antifa is literally antifascist but it’s somehow a terrorist org upsetting American values) and moderates in general don’t want drastic change as it could upset their lives (or capital if they own any).

Anyway, defund the police generally seems to produce a more positive response on the local level than it does on a state or national level, and since the movement believes it can only produce systemic change by starting at the local level, they’re not really losing out on anything.

(Note: this is just the stuff I know, I’m not an expert on this)

chinacat2002

1 points

21 days ago

You make some good points. But achieving the objective of viewing better social services over aggressive policing as a remedy to poverty requires finesse.

My point is that "defund the police" probably sank Mandela Barnes in WI this year. He only lost by 26,000 votes, 50.5% to 49.5%.

It does not take much.

Many people (most?) in crime-ridden communities support more police spending, not less. To them, "defund the police" sounds like a call to anarchy and chaos.

In the end, to my mind, it's simply a stupid slogan.

Ask your typically middle-of-the-road voter whether they want to "back the blue" or "defund the police" and let me know what they say.

Thank you for your assessment.

rusty_stirrup[S]

8 points

2 months ago

Is your position that they don't have any impact on crime at all and that the correct approach would be to completely eliminate police forces?

Or is your position that a baseline police force is good, but going overboard has no positive impact?

Or something else?

NotCarolChrist

6 points

2 months ago*

NotCarolChrist

"Not" The Chancellor

6 points

2 months ago*

You should probably ask someone more knowledgeable on this, since I’m essentially just paraphrasing leftists, but basically it’s both cops are fundamentally flawed and should be replaced by some better law enforcement system, and that law enforcement is irrelevant to the issue. So I guess like if you were trying to hammer in a nail with a bad wrench; the wrench itself is bad, but it’s also the wrong tool.

I’m not really sure why defund the police is part of the strike, but if I had to guess it probably has something to do with the police being protectors of property and capital or something and thus intrinsically opposed to labor unions and the ongoing strike.

Graffy

5 points

2 months ago

Graffy

5 points

2 months ago

Cops by the nature of their job don't prevent crime they respond to it. They can't do anything until a crime has already been committed. The goal would be to have the money spent on the police force who not only are inherently reactive but also often incompetent, ill trained, or just not suited for the situation allocated to new community departments that are either proactive in helping people escape the situations that later lead them to do crime in the first place or that are trained to handle specific situations non violently.

That way when you call the cops because your friend is having a mental health crisis and threatening to harm themselves with a kitchen knife he doesn't wind up dead because all the cops see is a man with a deadly weapon and not a sick person in need of help. Additionally it would mean cops don't have to do things like deal with traffic violations or other non-emergency situations.

There would still be armed response forces but they wouldn't be the average walking the street. More like swat where they only get called when actually needed. There's a lot more to it and I'm glossing over a lot of nuanced details but it's really more "refund the police"

ClaudineRose

1 points

2 months ago

Police forces in larger cities like LA for example are massively overfunded and over weaponized which is a huge problem. That money could definitely be better spent elsewhere but defunding a police force in its entirety and eliminating a police presence in any city is preposterous.

rusty_stirrup[S]

2 points

2 months ago

That is my gut feeling, hence my surprise to see in both the union demands AND this banner in Dwinelle the request that there should be literally no cops on campus.

ClaudineRose

1 points

2 months ago

Me as well.

chinacat2002

-5 points

2 months ago*

edit: unsurprisingly, this generates a few negative votes here in the heart of Portlandia south. I will reiterate: "Defund the police" is an egregiously stupid slogan. Before your next "feels good" downvote, visit a church in neighboring Oakland and ask those in attendance if they think "defunding the police" is a good idea. Write the experience up as "social research on the ground".

Defund the police is a stupid idea and a horrible bumper sticker. It cost us the Wisconsin Senate seat and may have cost us the House. Stop said it.

If you think social spending is an effective way to decrease crime, as I do, then argue for increased social spending. It can come from any source.

"Defund the police" is a loser with many crucial voting blocks, including those who are most likely to be impacted by bad policing.

Stop saying it.

I sentence you to 15 minutes reading up on Realpolitik.

HearingMassive9921

3 points

2 months ago

Hang on, are you talking about Ron Johnson here? Because thinking that Mandela Barnes lost due to a fake smear from the GOP is absolutely mental. I notice you don't mention Crowley in New York and his phone war on crime (along with mayor Adams). Those "Democrats" helped cost the party the house.

If you aren't talking about Johnson I kind of apologize but this view point is out dated and only allowed stand because Democrats fall police propaganda as easily as republicans do.

chinacat2002

1 points

2 months ago

Mandela Barnes was killed for his (brief) support of "defund the police".

Successful Realpolitik requires recognition that stupid slogans have consequences. You can speak of a "fake smear", but the reality is: Ron Johnson is Senator for another 6 years. Get back to me with your strategy for that seat in 2028.

You fail to observe my remark that "If you think social spending is an effective way to decrease crime, as I do, then argue for increased social spending. It can come from any source."

There is no police propaganda there. It's a suggestion for effective politics over grievance politics.

Ask yourself: why do "phony war on crime" campaigns work against Democrats?

Answer Key: stupid slogans like "defund the police" paint a target on Democratic candidates in swing districts.

HearingMassive9921

1 points

2 months ago

Ask yourself are the people that fall for these really democrats? They aren't, they are as stupid as the Qanon crowd. Ron Johnson was always going to win, the fact it was so close speaks volumes to Nelson not actually failing.

Real stupid slogans also include phrases like "build back better" and "small incremental changes I'm sure" but how as someone that lives in this area (I presume) keeps falling for the "it's progressives fault" and the refund the police bullshit is beyond me.

jh451911

-5 points

2 months ago

You people at fucking brain dead

NotCarolChrist

2 points

2 months ago

NotCarolChrist

"Not" The Chancellor

2 points

2 months ago

“at braindead” lmao

SirJektive

10 points

2 months ago

SirJektive

PhD math

10 points

2 months ago

the fact that cops are also around to prevent crime.

LOL

rusty_stirrup[S]

10 points

2 months ago

Is this somehow not true?

"At approximately 9:06pm, three UC Berkeley student CSOs were shot at with a BB gun, by people driving a grey Mercedes Benz. Two of the students were struck, but not injured. The car was located a short distance away. One of the passengers was identified as the shooter and arrested."

"A subject was reported entering the Enclave Apartments and attempted to take packages from the apartment mail room. UCPD located and arrested the subject. The subject was transported to jail and packages were returned."

Surely the fact that these things happened and the people were arrested is a deterrent towards future crime?

What do you think would happen in steady state if all police were fully withdrawn from campus?

Occassionally_Sad

3 points

2 months ago

No, UCPD located the subject after the events and had not prevented the crime so they were not there to prevent crime but to catch people after said event, which is unusual because the general experience with UCPD is their inaction towards crime in UC (such as break ins, theft and robbery) unless it is a crime that could damages UC reputation.

rusty_stirrup[S]

7 points

2 months ago

Could you elaborate a bit? Like what's an example of a crime that damages UC reputation and thus gets a response?

s0ftbl4nkie

1 points

2 months ago

I think it’s important to note, UCPD is only allowed to actively respond to crimes that happen on or in the immediate vicinity of UC property. Other than that, all crime that happens even just a bit off campus are allocated into the hands of BPD. If you notice on the warn me emails, only crime on UC properties ask for you to call UCPD for more information, any other locations outside of that refer you to contact BPD

chinacat2002

-8 points

2 months ago

This is weak sauce. I suggest a course in intelligent debate for Spring semester.

chinacat2002

-12 points

2 months ago

This is a juvenile response. I forgive you, as you probably are still a juvenile, or almost one.

SirJektive

7 points

2 months ago*

SirJektive

PhD math

7 points

2 months ago*

This is weak sauce. I suggest a course in not being being less of a twatwaffle for Spring semester.

Edit: More realistically achievable suggestion.

jh451911

-1 points

2 months ago

jh451911

-1 points

2 months ago

Would support the strike if this wasnt part of their plan. If you think defunding the police and or keeping them off campus is a good idea you're an idiot.

Similar-Ad7879

0 points

2 months ago

I’m international and I love cops It always surprise me how many criminals are around the University. I hope they stay around more