Politics

[DColeKC]

It’s not about “admitting.” I think it would be great if the left had a fraction of the power you attribute to it. If the police were willfully defunding themselves because they had been cowed by the defund movement, that would be super cool. Not as cool as a deliberate, democratically-controlled defunding with a plan to redistribute the funds appropriately, but still pretty cool. But all of these cops can’t stop going on national news to whine about how defund has decimated their ranks precisely because it’s not true. Defund isn’t popular enough to have that kind of power, but playing up the same staffing shortages hitting every other government agency and the private sector as being defund’s fault is an easy (and successful) strategy for getting more money specifically because police still actually enjoy broad support from a majority of the country. Unfortunately I just don’t think there is anything here for me to “admit,” and if there is, the proof is not statements from a bunch of cops.

This is like climate change scientist saying there is in fact climate change, but me saying, "Of course they're going to say that or else they wouldn't get the funding". The quotes above are from those trying to hire the cops, but we shouldn't listen to why they say they're having a hard time filling the openings? There are thousands of videos of police officers being harassed for not doing a damn thing besides being a police officer. Certain communities have always had a rocky relationship with law enforcement and rightfully so, yet even marginalized communities are asking for MORE police. Even the communities hardest hit by crime understand that law enforcement is still the #1 way to deter criminals from committing crimes.

It's not only the "defund" movement that went around, which honestly wasn't all bad in the basic form. We should always be thinking of how to better serve the community if that means shifting dollars around to be more effective, so be it. However, it was just a movement, not a plan. Instead, it was just additive to the avalanche of negative attitudes towards all police across this country. And yes, while they still enjoy support by the majority of the population, it's like most other social issues where the vocal minority get all the attention and seem to impact news feeds and weak minded group-think types the most.

You have zero proof that the defund/aniti-police movement isn't a contributing factor in hiring shortages. ZERO.

[TheUrbanRoo]

It was pretty clear to me that Vivek won the debate

[DColeKC]

It was pretty clear to me that Vivek won the debate

Yikes. I think he hurt himself more than anything else. He very clearly lacks any foreign relations experience. I like much of what he has to say but his ideas on the Ukraine situation are terrible.

Nicki Hailey was the clear winner in my book.

[phuqueue]

There is abundant independent evidence of climate change, not just scientists saying "trust us, this is definitely happening." Cops complaining that they can't hire new cops because of anti-cop sentiment don't seem to be presenting any actual evidence to substantiate that claim, they're just offering their own narrative that seeks to convey to the public that the thing the cops don't like (defund) is the cause of the thing the public doesn't like (crime), and so their interests are actually aligned and one solution (more money for cops) will fix everything for everyone. And I don't even think the cops are lying, at least according to the George Costanza definition of a lie, but that doesn't mean they're right. We can see the overall unemployment rate near historic lows and staffing shortages across the whole economy but especially in government agencies. The simplest and most plausible explanation for police staffing shortages is that the same factors affecting everybody else are also affecting them. If your argument is that a seemingly less plausible explanation (that police are experiencing the same staffing problem as everybody else but for a completely different and unique reason) is actually true, the burden is on you to prove that claim, not on me to disprove it.

[DColeKC]

There is abundant independent evidence of climate change, not just scientists saying "trust us, this is definitely happening." Cops complaining that they can't hire new cops because of anti-cop sentiment don't seem to be presenting any actual evidence to substantiate that claim, they're just offering their own narrative that seeks to convey to the public that the thing the cops don't like (defund) is the cause of the thing the public doesn't like (crime), and so their interests are actually aligned and one solution (more money for cops) will fix everything for everyone. And I don't even think the cops are lying, at least according to the George Costanza definition of a lie, but that doesn't mean they're right. We can see the overall unemployment rate near historic lows and staffing shortages across the whole economy but especially in government agencies. The simplest and most plausible explanation for police staffing shortages is that the same factors affecting everybody else are also affecting them. If your argument is that a seemingly less plausible explanation (that police are experiencing the same staffing problem as everybody else but for a completely different and unique reason) is actually true, the burden is on you to prove that claim, not on me to disprove it.

The actual evidence is the responses they're getting from potential recruits and those who are leaving the profession. Also, most PD's are not asking for more money, they're not using this staffing shortage to get a larger budget, they'd just like to fill the existing roles they have open with the existing budget they have.

I've shared stories featuring quotes from those who are trying to hire. You might not like it, but this would be no different than featuring quotes from medical staffing recruiters, you just have a non-favorable attitude towards police so surely if cops who are in charge or hiring other cops say something, you're going to claim that it's not proof.

Here are all the top reasons police departments are having a hard time filling the openings:

As of my last knowledge update in September 2021, there were several reasons why police departments in some areas were having difficulty hiring new officers. It's important to note that these circumstances might have evolved since then, but here are some common reasons that were affecting police recruitment at that time:

1. **Negative Public Perception:** High-profile cases of police misconduct or excessive use of force can lead to a negative perception of law enforcement in general. This can deter potential candidates from pursuing careers in policing.

2. **Increased Scrutiny and Accountability:** Police departments were facing increased scrutiny and demands for accountability from the public, leading to more oversight and transparency measures. Some individuals might be discouraged by the idea of constant scrutiny and potential legal consequences for their actions.

3. **Safety Concerns:** Policing can be a dangerous profession, and concerns about personal safety and the risks involved in the job might dissuade potential candidates from pursuing a career in law enforcement.

4. **Low Pay and Benefits:** In some areas, police officer salaries and benefits were not competitive with other career options that require similar levels of education and training. This can make it difficult to attract qualified candidates.

5. **Rigorous Hiring Process:** The hiring process for police officers can be lengthy and demanding, involving background checks, psychological evaluations, physical fitness tests, and more. Some potential candidates might be deterred by the thoroughness of the process.

6. **Retirement and Attrition:** Many police departments were experiencing retirements and attrition due to an aging workforce. The need to replace retiring officers added pressure to recruitment efforts.

7. **Changing Attitudes Toward Policing:** Following social and cultural shifts, some individuals might be hesitant to join a profession that is seen as emblematic of systemic issues or that clashes with their personal values.

8. **Education and Training Requirements:** Depending on the jurisdiction, becoming a police officer might require a certain level of education or training, such as a college degree or completion of a police academy. Meeting these requirements can be a barrier for some candidates.

9. **Community Engagement and Community Policing:** Modern policing often emphasizes community engagement and building positive relationships with the public. Some individuals might be hesitant to join a profession that involves complex social interactions and a need for strong communication skills.

10. **Media Coverage:** Negative media coverage of police incidents can influence public perception and make the job seem less appealing to potential recruits.

Here's a NPR article from 2021 where they dive into why departments are struggling.

https://www.npr.org/2021/06/24/10095788 ... om-the-job

[TheUrbanRoo]

It was pretty clear to me that Vivek won the debate

Yikes. I think he hurt himself more than anything else. He very clearly lacks any foreign relations experience. I like much of what he has to say but his ideas on the Ukraine situation are terrible.

Nicki Hailey was the clear winner in my book.

I mean we're talking about GOP primary voters? He did great in that regard. Haley can never relate to the base.

[Chris Stritzel]

Every single Republican is in this for themselves and not the country. I watched the debate last night and was repulsed by the stuck-up attitude of Ramaswamy and the constant shouting at each other. Doug Burgum appealed to me the most out of the pack. He was the most clear-minded and provided the most clear answers about everything despite having an Achilles tendon that's broke and likely being high on pain killers. But I know he has no path to the nomination.

Meanwhile, we have a President who's less coherent and walks far more unsteadily than my 85-year-old grandfather with Alzheimers.

Are these really our choices? None of this projects the strength that even Bush and Obama had. Such a sad state of affairs.

Meanwhile...

• Americans grow further and further apart due to the extremes of political parties taking the reins and constant accusations of being a "communist" if you're on the left and a "fascist" if you're on the right.

• The inner-cities and rural communities suffer from high vacancy and high poverty rates brought on by the partisan governments that control them and continually make everything about partisan politics and an "us versus them" mentality.

• School districts across the country are slouching because of lack of funding and having a curriculum that set our kids up for success. The culture war surrounding gender, books, and sexuality in class is ridiculous. Do I believe kids in grade school should be taught and exposed to that stuff. Absolutely not. Do I think this is more appropriate for middle and high school? Yes. But in all cases, children need to learn the things that'll make them successful in the future. Give them the knowledge that could make them the next big scientist, peacemaker, Nobel-prize winner, artist, architect, engineer, inventor, business leader, etc. Schools should not be places of propaganda spewed by the left or right, but unfortunately, they have become that.

• Law enforcement is under attack (the police by many in the Democratic Party and the FBI may many in the Republican Party).

• 911 systems in major cities are understaffed and overwhelmed that callers are placed on hold and in multiple cases, every second counts.

• The IRS is getting 87,000 new investigative agents that'll ultimately penalize lower-income folks.

• The government continues to send billions of dollars in aid to Ukraine to fight Russia, but we aren't doing the same for our inner-cities and rural communities. If we were lead by smart people, both can be done at the same time.

• Inflation continues to be a persistent problem that has made us all poorer in the past year thanks to slow wage growth, higher petroleum and energy prices, and more expensive items in the stores thanks to the higher energy costs.

• The Fed continues to jack up interest rates to get inflation under control, but such a result hasn't been had yet putting potentially millions of Americans in a precarious situation when it comes down to loans and interest rates.

• Democratic cities have a growing homelessness, drug use, and mental health issue that's resulting in poor media attention by those on the right, using our most vulnerable being used as political pawns and become victims of failed policy.

• Republican states are shipping migrants to Blue cities and Blue states as a way to "own the Libs" on the immigration issue while not actually trying to come to the table to build a border wall/fence/surveillance system that reduces the amount of illegal border crossings.

• Republicans are continuing to repeat lies that the 2020 election was stolen from Donald Trump while Democrats harp on the issue that these people are insurrectionists (which some are and some had bad intentions). But the Democrats forget that they too made a big fuss when Trump became President in 2016 by saying that the election was stolen from Hillary Clinton by the Russians. And as this issue flips back and forth, both sides will forget because "well, we're in power now".

• Republicans want to push for a nationwide abortion ban at 6 weeks while Democrats want a nationwide, taxpayer-funded, on-demand abortion service up to the moment of birth. Both are radical ideas. Let the PEOPLE in EACH STATE decide this issue, not a bunch of bureaucrats in Washington and certainly not in the state houses of individual states. The PEOPLE will decide an issue like this.

• The fentanyl crisis continues to grow more worrisome.

• Healthcare costs continue to be high and out of reach for many Americans, leaving many to choose between having a roof over their heads and having food to eat or getting the care they need to be healthier.

• Chronic health issues continue to rise. Obesity continues to lead to more heart disease and premature deaths every year. Diagnoses of disorders like ADHD, PTSD, Alzheimers, Parkinsons, and Cancer, rage on giving people little hope.

• Transportation systems within our cities are struggling to keep up with maintenance, having a strong workforce, and maintaining an on-time schedule.

• Highways continue to be widened in a money-spending blitz that never fixes an issue, but always drives up maintenance costs that have to be dealt with by an already shallow tax dollar pool.

• Democrats and Republicans continue the push towards wanting to get their enemies censored on social media, in the media, and in public life in general because "if that guy thinks different than me, then he is my enemy".

My point is that the Republicans and Democrats have failed to build an America that the rest of the world wants to be like. We used to be the envy of the world, now look at us. We're a laughing stock. We're still a great nation and we should all be proud to live here, but we shouldn't be proud about the "leaders" that "represent" us anywhere in this country. They've failed us, yet we somehow keep rewarding them because a majority of voters gave been lead to believe that voting for anyone other than a two-party system is a wasted vote. But is it really? Because the way I see it, my vote doesn't matter anyway since the politicians have their own agenda that they wish to impose on us.

These days, I fear that there are fewer and fewer things that we as Americans can agree on and that's all thanks to the politicians who divided us and the radicals who have been elevated to power.

I love this country and want to see it better off, but the current slate of "leaders" is a detriment to our nation and society as a whole.

[DColeKC]

Every single Republican is in this for themselves and not the country. I watched the debate last night and was repulsed by the stuck-up attitude of Ramaswamy and the constant shouting at each other. Doug Burgum appealed to me the most out of the pack. He was the most clear-minded and provided the most clear answers about everything despite having an Achilles tendon that's broke and likely being high on pain killers. But I know he has no path to the nomination.

Meanwhile, we have a President who's less coherent and walks far more unsteadily than my 85-year-old grandfather with Alzheimers.

Are these really our choices? None of this projects the strength that even Bush and Obama had. Such a sad state of affairs.

Meanwhile...

• Americans grow further and further apart due to the extremes of political parties taking the reins and constant accusations of being a "communist" if you're on the left and a "fascist" if you're on the right.

• The inner-cities and rural communities suffer from high vacancy and high poverty rates brought on by the partisan governments that control them and continually make everything about partisan politics and an "us versus them" mentality.

• School districts across the country are slouching because of lack of funding and having a curriculum that set our kids up for success. The culture war surrounding gender, books, and sexuality in class is ridiculous. Do I believe kids in grade school should be taught and exposed to that stuff. Absolutely not. Do I think this is more appropriate for middle and high school? Yes. But in all cases, children need to learn the things that'll make them successful in the future. Give them the knowledge that could make them the next big scientist, peacemaker, Nobel-prize winner, artist, architect, engineer, inventor, business leader, etc. Schools should not be places of propaganda spewed by the left or right, but unfortunately, they have become that.

• Law enforcement is under attack (the police by many in the Democratic Party and the FBI may many in the Republican Party).

• 911 systems in major cities are understaffed and overwhelmed that callers are placed on hold and in multiple cases, every second counts.

• The IRS is getting 87,000 new investigative agents that'll ultimately penalize lower-income folks.

• The government continues to send billions of dollars in aid to Ukraine to fight Russia, but we aren't doing the same for our inner-cities and rural communities. If we were lead by smart people, both can be done at the same time.

• Inflation continues to be a persistent problem that has made us all poorer in the past year thanks to slow wage growth, higher petroleum and energy prices, and more expensive items in the stores thanks to the higher energy costs.

• The Fed continues to jack up interest rates to get inflation under control, but such a result hasn't been had yet putting potentially millions of Americans in a precarious situation when it comes down to loans and interest rates.

• Democratic cities have a growing homelessness, drug use, and mental health issue that's resulting in poor media attention by those on the right, using our most vulnerable being used as political pawns and become victims of failed policy.

• Republican states are shipping migrants to Blue cities and Blue states as a way to "own the Libs" on the immigration issue while not actually trying to come to the table to build a border wall/fence/surveillance system that reduces the amount of illegal border crossings.

• Republicans are continuing to repeat lies that the 2020 election was stolen from Donald Trump while Democrats harp on the issue that these people are insurrectionists (which some are and some had bad intentions). But the Democrats forget that they too made a big fuss when Trump became President in 2016 by saying that the election was stolen from Hillary Clinton by the Russians. And as this issue flips back and forth, both sides will forget because "well, we're in power now".

• Republicans want to push for a nationwide abortion ban at 6 weeks while Democrats want a nationwide, taxpayer-funded, on-demand abortion service up to the moment of birth. Both are radical ideas. Let the PEOPLE in EACH STATE decide this issue, not a bunch of bureaucrats in Washington and certainly not in the state houses of individual states. The PEOPLE will decide an issue like this.

• The fentanyl crisis continues to grow more worrisome.

• Healthcare costs continue to be high and out of reach for many Americans, leaving many to choose between having a roof over their heads and having food to eat or getting the care they need to be healthier.

• Chronic health issues continue to rise. Obesity continues to lead to more heart disease and premature deaths every year. Diagnoses of disorders like ADHD, PTSD, Alzheimers, Parkinsons, and Cancer, rage on giving people little hope.

• Transportation systems within our cities are struggling to keep up with maintenance, having a strong workforce, and maintaining an on-time schedule.

• Highways continue to be widened in a money-spending blitz that never fixes an issue, but always drives up maintenance costs that have to be dealt with by an already shallow tax dollar pool.

• Democrats and Republicans continue the push towards wanting to get their enemies censored on social media, in the media, and in public life in general because "if that guy thinks different than me, then he is my enemy".

My point is that the Republicans and Democrats have failed to build an America that the rest of the world wants to be like. We used to be the envy of the world, now look at us. We're a laughing stock. We're still a great nation and we should all be proud to live here, but we shouldn't be proud about the "leaders" that "represent" us anywhere in this country. They've failed us, yet we somehow keep rewarding them because a majority of voters gave been lead to believe that voting for anyone other than a two-party system is a wasted vote. But is it really? Because the way I see it, my vote doesn't matter anyway since the politicians have their own agenda that they wish to impose on us.

These days, I fear that there are fewer and fewer things that we as Americans can agree on and that's all thanks to the politicians who divided us and the radicals who have been elevated to power.

I love this country and want to see it better off, but the current slate of "leaders" is a detriment to our nation and society as a whole.

Great post. Hard for me to find anything I strongly disagree with. The fact we are going to have two shitty choices is pathetic.

Only thing I see to nitpick is the idea that we are somehow a "laughing stock". We need to make some improvements in all facets but it's hard to argue that we're not still the best country in the world considering all the factors. We take in half the worlds immigrants each year and have the most diverse population. What this country is supposed to be is still a fantastic concept, but as we've learned, very hard to execute without issues along the way.

[FangKC]

I agree about the "laughing stock" comment. I hear politicians throw that out (Trump being the worst offender). I have American friends who live overseas and others are natives of foreign countries. I have talked with them about impressions of the USA and they have never said the USA is a laughing stock. Americans forget that all countries have problems. The USA has recovered economically better than any other country in the world. Even with our rate of inflation, it is less than most others.

The laughing stock comment is used to incite anger in the populace. It's the playground equivalent of "everyone is laughing at you" that brings back everyone's childhood fear that they don't fit in or are being made fun of behind their back. It's a primal human fear. When you hear any politician or leader using it they are actively manipulating you.

The two biggest problems facing the USA are income inequality and polarization caused by political operatives. The fuel on the fire has been social media. The first causes many of our residents to have resentment towards others. The second is simply a manipulation of those resentments to the extent that family, friends, and neighbors who got along fine at one time cannot do that any longer.

The biggest thing my foreign friends don't understand is our gun violence and the worship of guns by so many.

[Highlander]

These days, I fear that there are fewer and fewer things that we as Americans can agree on and that's all thanks to the politicians who divided us and the radicals who have been elevated to power.

I love this country and want to see it better off, but the current slate of "leaders" is a detriment to our nation and society as a whole.

Your post was depressing. Because it's largely true.

I will add by suggesting that the most polarizing of representatives showing up (mostly on the right) are the result of a polarized news media. Cable news and subsequently social media has brought with them a news media that is basically a propaganda machine with something to fulfill practically everyone on either side of the political spectrum's confirmation bias. As a result, we no longer really discuss the "issues". We cannot agree on what the issues even are or whether or not something is or isn't even a problem, we cannot discuss the genesis of the problems we face because of the gas lighting by said media (on both sides of the spectrum), nor can we discuss the facts as both sides show up with different facts and statistics nor can we ever compromise to effect a solution. Political compromise is becoming a thing of the past as some of the more radical politicians simply are there to play their own high stake games (ie Tubervilles position on military promotions or anything Boebert or Greene are involved in).

What is really sad is that real issues like Health Care are rarely discussed any more despite our health care system still being absolutely deplorable. And the system (or lack of one) is still a major source of financial distress for so many people.

Whatever the reasons, we are on track to get Biden and Trump again in 2024. It's astounding that can happen in a nation of 320 million people.

[DColeKC]

I agree about the "laughing stock" comment. I hear politicians throw that out (Trump being the worst offender). I have American friends who live overseas and others are natives of foreign countries. I have talked with them about impressions of the USA and they have never said the USA is a laughing stock. Americans forget that all countries have problems. The USA has recovered economically better than any other country in the world. Even with our rate of inflation, it is less than most others.

The laughing stock comment is used to incite anger in the populace. It's the playground equivalent of "everyone is laughing at you" that brings back everyone's childhood fear that they don't fit in or are being made fun of behind their back. It's a primal human fear. When you hear any politician or leader using it they are actively manipulating you.

The two biggest problems facing the USA are income inequality and polarization caused by political operatives. The fuel on the fire has been social media. The first causes many of our residents to have resentment towards others. The second is simply a manipulation of those resentments to the extent that family, friends, and neighbors who got along fine at one time cannot do that any longer.

The biggest thing my foreign friends don't understand is our gun violence and the worship of guns by so many.

I'm not sure where I heard this but someone once said it's weird that the rest of the world is so obsessed with this country because most Americans pay little to no attention what's going on in other countries politically.

The gun situation in this country is wild. On one hand, I understand and support the historical value of gun ownership. Guns were literally the tool we used to even become a free country, so it's so damn engrained in comparison to other countries with different pasts. I support the 2A but have no problem tightening up access. Some pro 2A people are just completely against any changes at all. The anti-gun people don't help at all. They can't even take the time to learn about the basics of guns making their arguments void.

[phuqueue]

The actual evidence is the responses they're getting from potential recruits and those who are leaving the profession. Also, most PD's are not asking for more money, they're not using this staffing shortage to get a larger budget, they'd just like to fill the existing roles they have open with the existing budget they have.

I've shared stories featuring quotes from those who are trying to hire. You might not like it, but this would be no different than featuring quotes from medical staffing recruiters, you just have a non-favorable attitude towards police so surely if cops who are in charge or hiring other cops say something, you're going to claim that it's not proof.

Ok, so the "actual evidence," still, is just the anecdotes offered by cops. You can keep saying it and adding more of these quotes to the pile, but it doesn't transform into actual data through rote repetition. I'm going to skip quoting the rest of your post in the interest of not taking up a ton of screen space with quoted text, but your NPR link at the bottom is still just more of the same, the meat of it is still just cops anecdotally complaining about anti-police sentiment. Even the headline is "Cops Say Low Morale And Department Scrutiny Are Driving Them Away From The Job," which is fine, but just because they say it doesn't make it true. The article itself notes that police have been experiencing recruiting issues since prior to the defund movement. How to explain that? It also talks about a survey, which might have provided genuine data on the question of retirements/departures, except that it doesn't, because, for one thing, it's a survey of police departments, not individual officers, and for another, it doesn't even ask those departments why officers are leaving. Maybe somebody has collected real data, for example, from exit interviews, indicating that an increasing number of cops are quitting because of anti-cop sentiment, but you haven't provided anything like that here, and neither does this article.

Even if that exit interview data exists, I would be less convinced that cops have any special insight into why people aren't joining in the first place, because it's not like they are out there canvassing the general population to find out why people who never applied to become a cop in the first place made that decision. But maybe some police department or cop organization actually has commissioned some kind of survey like that, and the results would be interesting. You could go look for that if you are hellbent on proving your point (though a single survey would only provide a snapshot in time, so to prove the point that anti-cop sentiment is driving a staffing shortage, you would need a series of surveys dating back to prior to the defund movement to establish a baseline).

If it will satisfy you, I will acknowledge, in the interest of intellectual honesty, that in its overall vagueness, your argument that defund/anti-cop sentiment is "a factor" in staffing shortages is almost certainly true on some level. It is extraordinarily likely that there is at least one person in the country who would have become a cop if they were more "respected," and to the extent that one opening has gone unfilled, it is by definition "a factor." So I don't doubt that some departing cops have stated in their exit interviews that this is the reason they're leaving. Maybe some new recruit has abruptly dropped out upon suddenly realizing that some people hate cops. The anecdotes themselves that cops are relying on in insisting that defund is driving staffing shortages are probably true. The question is whether this is occurring to an extent that is actually meaningful at the level of a major city police department (since, after all, this conversation originally began when ATKC suggested that defund was responsible for shenanigans on Grand) or nationally. I still strongly doubt that it is, but as I said before, I would actually love to learn that cops are intentionally defunding themselves, so please prove me wrong (with something other than cops themselves complaining).

[DColeKC]

The actual evidence is the responses they're getting from potential recruits and those who are leaving the profession. Also, most PD's are not asking for more money, they're not using this staffing shortage to get a larger budget, they'd just like to fill the existing roles they have open with the existing budget they have.

I've shared stories featuring quotes from those who are trying to hire. You might not like it, but this would be no different than featuring quotes from medical staffing recruiters, you just have a non-favorable attitude towards police so surely if cops who are in charge or hiring other cops say something, you're going to claim that it's not proof.

Ok, so the "actual evidence," still, is just the anecdotes offered by cops. You can keep saying it and adding more of these quotes to the pile, but it doesn't transform into actual data through rote repetition. I'm going to skip quoting the rest of your post in the interest of not taking up a ton of screen space with quoted text, but your NPR link at the bottom is still just more of the same, the meat of it is still just cops anecdotally complaining about anti-police sentiment. Even the headline is "Cops Say Low Morale And Department Scrutiny Are Driving Them Away From The Job," which is fine, but just because they say it doesn't make it true. The article itself notes that police have been experiencing recruiting issues since prior to the defund movement. How to explain that? It also talks about a survey, which might have provided genuine data on the question of retirements/departures, except that it doesn't, because, for one thing, it's a survey of police departments, not individual officers, and for another, it doesn't even ask those departments why officers are leaving. Maybe somebody has collected real data, for example, from exit interviews, indicating that an increasing number of cops are quitting because of anti-cop sentiment, but you haven't provided anything like that here, and neither does this article.

Even if that exit interview data exists, I would be less convinced that cops have any special insight into why people aren't joining in the first place, because it's not like they are out there canvassing the general population to find out why people who never applied to become a cop in the first place made that decision. But maybe some police department or cop organization actually has commissioned some kind of survey like that, and the results would be interesting. You could go look for that if you are hellbent on proving your point (though a single survey would only provide a snapshot in time, so to prove the point that anti-cop sentiment is driving a staffing shortage, you would need a series of surveys dating back to prior to the defund movement to establish a baseline).

If it will satisfy you, I will acknowledge, in the interest of intellectual honesty, that in its overall vagueness, your argument that defund/anti-cop sentiment is "a factor" in staffing shortages is almost certainly true on some level. It is extraordinarily likely that there is at least one person in the country who would have become a cop if they were more "respected," and to the extent that one opening has gone unfilled, it is by definition "a factor." So I don't doubt that some departing cops have stated in their exit interviews that this is the reason they're leaving. Maybe some new recruit has abruptly dropped out upon suddenly realizing that some people hate cops. The anecdotes themselves that cops are relying on in insisting that defund is driving staffing shortages are probably true. The question is whether this is occurring to an extent that is actually meaningful at the level of a major city police department (since, after all, this conversation originally began when ATKC suggested that defund was responsible for shenanigans on Grand) or nationally. I still strongly doubt that it is, but as I said before, I would actually love to learn that cops are intentionally defunding themselves, so please prove me wrong (with something other than cops themselves complaining).

Who else is there to better answer why we can't fill those roles than those currently in them or those who recently left them? 43% of the officers who left the Portland PD said the "defund" movement and how they were treated by the local government was a major factor in them leaving. According to exit interviews.

I can't figure out why you're willing to die on this hill and are so pompous with your responses. It's just ludacris to pretend the reasons I've mentioned are not serious factors. Have you talked to any cops in person? Oh wait, that's not scientific. If I posted a poll of 1000 people who have recently left the profession, you'd say.. but that's just one thousand cops and of course cops are going to cop. https://mynorthwest.com/3778599/money-n ... s-confirm/

Here's a poll of 10,000 active police officers from 2020 conducted by a law enforcement training agency. https://www.police1.com/police-jobs-and ... uTcMG7bm5/

How long have you been in LE - 44.6% more than 20 years. 28.7% 13-20 years.
Would you encourage your son or daughter to go into law enforcement? 80.3% said NO.
Why?
88% selected lack of departmental support;
83% selected overall lack of respect for the profession;
63% selected increased legal liability;
63% selected duties of the job have changed for the worse;
58% cited concerns for officer safety.

If cops who have been in the game for a long time wouldn't recommend becoming a cop, what do you think a younger person looking to get into the work force thinks?

I'll drop it at this point because you're going to twist and manipulate everything I post. You're by far the most left leaning person on this forum and consistency prove it.

[phuqueue]

Who else is there to better answer why we can't fill those roles than those currently in them or those who recently left them? 43% of the officers who left the Portland PD said the "defund" movement and how they were treated by the local government was a major factor in them leaving. According to exit interviews.

See, now that is a good data point. It's a little bit incomplete (how many of those officers could have been expected to leave anyway? Is "how they were treated by the local government" your own shorthand for local government endorsing anti-police sentiment, or is it a vague catchall that includes other sources of dissatisfaction separate from defund that muddle the overall relevance of the number?), but it's a good start. You should use more stuff like that in the future.

I can't figure out why you're willing to die on this hill and are so pompous with your responses. It's just ludacris to pretend the reasons I've mentioned are not serious factors. Have you talked to any cops in person? Oh wait, that's not scientific. If I posted a poll of 1000 people who have recently left the profession, you'd say.. but that's just one thousand cops and of course cops are going to cop. https://mynorthwest.com/3778599/money-n ... s-confirm/

This is an interesting xzibit. This website appears to be associated with a rightwing talk radio station and isn't actually sharing the exit interviews that it has "exclusively obtained," so we just have to accept their reporting on it at face value, but it's something. It's still incomplete in the same way as your Portland point, though. Some quick googling reveals that, although the number of departures is definitely up, a majority of those retirements/resignations still would have taken place at the pre-2020 rate of departures. So we're really only talking about the excess, not the total number. And within that excess, we're only talking about cops who would not have left if not for anti-cop sentiment. So it's a fraction of a fraction. How large is that fraction of a fraction? Obviously you think it is "serious." Fair enough. It's impossible to pin down how many of the excess left because of anti-cop sentiment, but given that we are drilling down into ever-smaller numbers here, I am less convinced that it is that meaningful -- especially for the purpose of drawing a straight line to carplay on Grand, which was the origin of this conversation.

At most, if you make some very generous, unrealistic assumptions, you're looking at about 5% of officers leaving SPD over anti-cop sentiment during this period. In fairness, I would grant that 5% is meaningful, but that's the hypothetical ceiling, not the actual number. It requires you to assume that this sentence ("Approximately 42% of the police officers exiting Seattle cited local government as the main reason for leaving, with the city council, King County Prosecutors Office, the local media, Mayor Bruce Harrell, Governor Jay Inslee, and anyone involved with the “Defund the Police” movement mentioned in multiple different interviews") is talking exclusively about defund and that cops would have had no other beefs with local government (but one obvious one that immediately comes to mind is vaccine mandates), it requires you to assume that because they cited it, they would not have left anyway due to other reasons (an intuitively appealing but not necessarily correct assumption), and it requires you to assume that none of these cops was replaced by a new recruit specifically because of defund (an assumption that you might readily accept, but it is still just an assumption). Seattle also embraced defund with a lot more enthusiasm than most of the country, so it's probably an outlier example. Whatever is the actual number of cops who were driven out of SPD specifically because of defund, it is likely this number is lower in most other cities, including KC.

Here's a poll of 10,000 active police officers from 2020 conducted by a law enforcement training agency. https://www.police1.com/police-jobs-and ... uTcMG7bm5/

How long have you been in LE - 44.6% more than 20 years. 28.7% 13-20 years.
Would you encourage your son or daughter to go into law enforcement? 80.3% said NO.
Why?
88% selected lack of departmental support;
83% selected overall lack of respect for the profession;
63% selected increased legal liability;
63% selected duties of the job have changed for the worse;
58% cited concerns for officer safety.

If cops who have been in the game for a long time wouldn't recommend becoming a cop, what do you think a younger person looking to get into the work force thinks?

This one I think is less interesting. There's a difference between not encouraging someone else to enter your profession and leaving yourself, or actually convincing somebody else not to enter it. I discourage every person I meet from doing what I do, and for what are in my opinion better reasons than "lack of respect," but I don't think I have ever convinced a single person, and I'm still here myself. People grumble over things they don't like, but grumbling isn't indicative of actually doing anything about it, or getting anybody else to (see also: the political left).

I'll drop it at this point because you're going to twist and manipulate everything I post. You're by far the most left leaning person on this forum and consistency prove it.

How dare you(?)

[Metro]

It's nice to see Q is serious about crime. What a total joke.


https://nypost.com/2024/02/18/us-news/k ... ers-thugs/

[Anthony_Hugo98]

It's nice to see Q is serious about crime. What a total joke.


https://nypost.com/2024/02/18/us-news/k ... ers-thugs/

Yeah, calling ones who shoot blindly into a crowd with illegal firearms because of a minor dispute “Thugs” is an accurate description. The Mayoral commentary is not exactly helping this situation.

The priority of City leaders at this point should be working with State leadership to properly allocate resources for KCPD, instead of just a blank check, and having the Board actually set goals for KCPD to help better solve these problems in KC.

[brewcrew1000]

It's nice to see Q is serious about crime. What a total joke.


https://nypost.com/2024/02/18/us-news/k ... ers-thugs/

I just don't understand how the word thug is now a racist term, the definition of a thug is a violent, aggressive person, especially one who is a criminal.

[Metro]

It's nice to see Q is serious about crime. What a total joke.


https://nypost.com/2024/02/18/us-news/k ... ers-thugs/

I just don't understand how the word thug is now a racist term, the definition of a thug is a violent, aggressive person, especially one who is a criminal.

It's not. I don't understand why the mayor decided to interject himself in this way. We have serious issues with crime and feels like there isn't an adult in the room.

[Highlander]

It's nice to see Q is serious about crime. What a total joke.


https://nypost.com/2024/02/18/us-news/k ... ers-thugs/

I just don't understand how the word thug is now a racist term, the definition of a thug is a violent, aggressive person, especially one who is a criminal.

It's not. I don't understand why the mayor decided to interject himself in this way. We have serious issues with crime and feels like there isn't an adult in the room.

While not defending the mayor, he does have broad constituency and has a political tightrope to walk. And the state of Missouri has never been an ally to Kansas City. It has a largely (at least IMO) rural and insular governance that has no empathy with issues unique to cities.

[shinatoo]

I just don't understand how the word thug is now a racist term, the definition of a thug is a violent, aggressive person, especially one who is a criminal.

It's not. I don't understand why the mayor decided to interject himself in this way. We have serious issues with crime and feels like there isn't an adult in the room.

While not defending the mayor, he does have broad constituency and has a political tightrope to walk. And the state of Missouri has never been an ally to Kansas City. It has a largely (at least IMO) rural and insular governance that has no empathy with issues unique to cities.

This. And "thug" is a dog whistle for intercity black youth. And while it may not mean that to you, Metro, there are plenty of people that it does. Especially when spoken by a white, rural, conservative politician. My opinion is that the governor's AND the mayor's statements were innocuous.