Don’t let ‘defund the police’ bog down reforms in reach after George Floyd’s death
The past week has been dominated by talk of whether to “defund the police.”
That’s a shame because the term is both an abstraction and a distraction from the conversation that needs our attention.
Instead of focusing on specific reforms that make sense after the killing of George Floyd and the broader mistreatment of Black people by police, we’re talking about whether to have police at all. If that continues, it risks blocking the real momentum that’s present for change on issues such as rules of engagement, chokeholds, qualified immunity and the influence of police unions.
Indeed, on Friday, Fort Worth Mayor Betsy Price endorsed several significant changes to police orders, including a ban on chokeholds, a requirement that officers use de-escalation tactics and a mandate for officers to intervene if a colleague is using inappropriate force.
The fastest way to stop this movement will be to present citizens with the false choice of police as they are or departments that are so weak they can’t prevent crime.
BEHIND THE STORY
MOREHey, who writes these editorials?
Editorials are the positions of the Editorial Board, which serves as the Fort Worth Star-Telegram’s institutional voice. The members of the board are: Cynthia M. Allen, columnist; Steve Coffman, editor and president; Bud Kennedy, columnist; Ryan J. Rusak, opinion editor; and Nicole Russell, editorial writer and columnist. Most editorials are written by Rusak or Russell. Editorials are unsigned because they represent the board’s consensus positions, not the views of individual writers.
Read more by clicking the arrow in the upper right.
How are topics and positions chosen?
The Editorial Board meets regularly to discuss issues in the news and what points should be made in editorials. We strive to build a consensus to produce the strongest editorials possible, but when we differ, we put matters to a vote.
The board aims to be consistent with stances it has taken in the past but usually engages in a fresh discussion based on new developments and different perspectives.
We focus on local and state news, though we will also weigh in on national issues with an eye toward their impact on Texas or the Dallas-Fort Worth area.
How are these different from news articles or signed columns?
News reporters strive to keep their opinions out of what they write. They have no input on the Editorial Board’s stances. The board consults their reporting and expertise but does its own research for editorials.
Signed columns by writers such as Allen, Kennedy and Rusak contain the writer’s personal opinions.
How can I respond to an editorial, suggest a topic or ask a question?
We invite readers to write letters to be considered for publication. The preferred method is an email to letters@star-telegram.com. To suggest a topic or ask a question, please email Rusak directly at rrusak@star-telegram.com.
Any steps that open the door to a resurgence of the crime levels in American cities decades ago will primarily hurt low-income communities. They shouldn’t have to choose between police forces they can trust and rampant crime that endangers their lives and well-being.
In Fort Worth and, we presume, most cities of similar size and diversity, we’re not going to shut down departments.
And yet by happenstance, Fort Worth could soon be the epicenter of the debate over police spending.
In a July 14 election, the city will ask voters to extend the Crime Control and Prevention District, a taxing entity that collects a half-cent of sales tax to help fund police operations. It was enacted in 1995, after years of high crime had taken a toll on the city.
Now, it generates more than $80 million a year. Much of that goes for equipment and technology, but the funding has become embedded throughout the department’s budget.
With the economic downturn caused by the coronavirus pandemic, the city faces many difficult choices on taxes and spending. These elections typically draw few voters, but Fort Worth residents have a rare chance to weigh in directly on city priorities going forward.
Our city has the opportunity to examine the police department’s mission. After several officers were gunned down in Dallas in 2016, the police chief there at the time, David Brown, gained national attention for saying that “we’re asking cops to do too much in this country.” Among the missions he listed: mental health crises, drug addiction, loose animals and the long-term impact of fatherless families.
Mental health response, in particular, is an area ripe for reform. Police officers do their best, but it shouldn’t be their beat. It’s a noble long-term goal to stand up a new entity that can respond when those with mental illness threaten themselves or others. And it involves a huge number of policy choices, including funding and when to involve police because of the threat of violence.
Other, more granular changes are in reach if the urgency of the protests isn’t lost. Cities must overhaul training procedures so better officers are on the streets to begin with. The militarization of police can be reined in. We can create more citizen oversight and transparency.
We can set strict rules — and serious consequences — around when officers can disable their body cameras. We can restrict chokeholds; Arlington has moved quickly on that.
And we can build toward bigger change. Gov. Greg Abbott has said he’s open to bills addressing training as a start in next year’s legislative session, and lawmakers are thinking through other possibilities.
Perhaps Texas could lead the way in making it easier to fire officers who abuse the public and ensure they don’t get hired elsewhere. And maybe, in time, we can address the ever-increasing number of laws that create tense police interactions for little public gain.
Perhaps “defund the police” has taken hold because “restructure the police” isn’t as catchy or as sweeping as its proponents would like. But it’s a false choice between weakened law enforcement and the violence we see now. Let’s choose to make police better instead.