Gallup: 81% of Black Americans Want Police to Retain Local Presence - <AUTHOR> https://news.gallup.com/poll/316571/black-americans-police-retain-local-presence.aspx <comment><USER3> This is a survey by a respected polling company with an overwhelming result that goes against what is clearly the preferred narrative of most people on this site. Naturally, the most upvotes comments are people countering it with anecdotes. I thought people here we were meant to be smart enough to avoid confirmation bias?

<comment><USER4> One thing to keep in mind with open ended polling questions like this is that there is that the questions can shape the response. One interesting display of this is that most Americans don't believe that we should take race into account for college admissions, but most Americans also believe that affirmative action for minorities is beneficial.

I don't know what the preferred narrative here has been on the subject, but I think it's been obvious the vast majority of black folks never wanted police protection to disappear, and the lack of assurance in our interactions with police (confirmed by polls mentioned in the article) demonstrates that reform is something that would be strongly desired.

<comment><USER5> A conclusion based on those polls for affirmative action in college is that people support the general principle of getting more minorities into college, but do not support the current methods applied under affirmative action. When specifics are outlined for respondents the support drops.

This has less to do with the style of shaping the response by what kind of question _s_ are made, and more to do with what the question is. Support for a concept is not the same as support for a specific action. If you ask people to choose between multiple of bad choices in order to achieve a common good then the goal is likely to have a significant higher support than any of the bad choices.

<comment><USER4> Great explanation - and also why we should be wary of headlines touting polls that don't get into the specifics.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> This shouldn't be a suprise. Some people like to pretend that higher crime rates in some areas is strictly due to higher police presence, but it's clearly not the case. I remember after the protests in Baltimore from FreddIe Gray, the police were told to have a much smaller presence, and not do as much proactive policing. It wasn't long before the people who actually live in those neighborhoods were complaining about the increasing crime rate due to a smaller police presence.

<comment><USER7> Well you can't just remove police and think everything is going to be okay.

The police abolitionist movement is calling for removing untrained, armed, and oftentimes extremely racist individuals from the streets and replacing them with social programs, housing, education, healthcare.

You can't just do 10% of the ask here and then be surprised when shit doesn't magically get better.

<comment><USER8> Would it be accurate, then, to say that the "police abolitionist movement" does not want to abolish the police? If that is the case, why call it the police abolitionist movement? It seems like all that does is generate ill-will from people who are potential allies.

<comment><USER9> Re-read the person you're responding to, I think you'll see your response makes no sense. They didn't say "replacing them with nicer cops", they said: replacing them with social programs, housing, education, healthcare.

None of these require cops. Yes, you likely need some form of police force for the very, very edge case scenarios where the others won't do, but abolish police means abolish the police.

<comment><USER8> Unless you assume all cops are "untrained, armed, and oftentimes extremely racist individuals", simply removing those who are would not "abolish the police", which is why I asked.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> This is fascinating because I am myself half black, lived in many communities of mixed demographics and never once heard a friend (of any race) say they want more police at all, ever.

I guess I also don't know anybody who has done a gallup poll or anybody that knows anybody who has ever done a gallup poll in their lives so who knows?

Edit: I don't know how or where these are conducted, or their exact phrasing of their questions, but I'm very curious about that.

Because, some rural areas in America have a "posse" system where volunteers get to ride around armed, sometimes outfitted (by taxpayer money) with bulletproof vests and big stickers for their cars showing their semi-official affiliation with the police (or sheriff's department). On the record, they're only supposed to observe or report yet in practice I'd question why it's crucial in some places to outfit posses with bulletproof through taxpayer money in that case, especially in places that have a very low crime rate?

I only bring this up because if I wanted to tilt a poll, I'd ask folks in areas where this is a possibility, where asking about a reduction in police force implies an increase in these somewhat-sanctioned vigilantes. You wouldn't even have to include it in the question, you'd just have to ask somebody standing in the right spot.

<comment><USER11> I hated the police when I was younger and thought we'd be better with fewer police.

I don't believe that anymore. The emergence of body cameras are amazing because they show just how bad we're constantly being lied to. YouTubers like Donut Operator really opened my eyes.

I think back to my younger years and all the ways I've seen police go out of their way to do things they didn't need to. I've seem some do really shitty things too ... but overall, I think we need to remember they're human beings.

We're all just human beings, and most people join the police because they want to do the right thing. If many of these problem cities, police forces are composed of a large number of minorities too.

Especially during this time, let's try to remember we're all humans here.

<comment><USER12> At the same time, if you look at the police-involved deaths per capita, our neighbors are countries like Iraq and Mali. Other nations in the developed world (and even many who are not) have rates that are far, far lower. The US clearly has something tragically wrong with its policing system.

<comment><USER11> > Iraq

Can we stick to nations that are at least likely to report real numbers? You can say China has fewer police shootings and it might be true or it might not. It's literally impossible to tell when it comes out of a nation with a freedom of speech that exists in their constitution and not in reality.

In the documentary "Iraq: No End in Sight" the original US team that did reconstruction said Baghdad had < 11 people in the morgue each year. After the 2003 invasion, it grew to over 11 per day.

<comment><USER13> I'm confused. Wouldn't the likelihood of lying mean that the real numbers in Iraq are much worse, supporting the criticism of AlotOfReading more rather than less?

<comment><USER14> No, because if Iraq's real numbers are worse, than we are not in their same range.

<comment><USER13> Ah, right. Thanks.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> I'd like to see how this cuts by age. A lot of older folks I talk to see police _very_ differently, and often say "You just don't know how things used to be before the police", which I think really misses what people are asking for ie: redistribution of grossly overbudgeted police departments to _preventative_ measures like better schooling, community centers, and more subtle reactive measures like un-armed "police" (or whatever you want to call this new role).

I also wonder if the question were phrased differently (and more accurately representing what is actually being asked for), more like "Would you support an N% cut to police budgets, which would come from X part of the police budget, to support preventative measures like social services?", if we'd see a different response.

<comment><USER16> NYC tried unarmed "police" to handle minor moving violations and parking. It was a disaster. People bullied them, assaulted them, and/or ignored them.

The sad truth is that people respect police not because of the badge but because of the gun, and because of the threat of violence.

Many of the reform ideas being thrown around lately are ideas that places across the US have already tried.

I think people are saying photos and videos from Chicago, Portland, Seattle, and Kenosha, WI. They're thinking they'll take their chances with the police than with arsonists and rioters.

<comment><USER17> The US is indeed a different place than countries where unarmed police are the norm.

It's a pretty sad realization that perhaps the reason we have such violent police is, in part, because we have such a violent society.

<comment><USER11> Where the hell are unarmed police the norm other than the UK and NZ? I lived in NZ for three years and the police still had guns, just locked in the boot of their cars. Australian cops (lived there for 1 year) had firearms.

Unarmed police are pretty rare on this planet. Even Japanese cops carry guns.

<comment><USER18> Germany has a force separate from the police to handle parking infractions and things of that sort (Ordnungsamt), and they're not armed. I think this is somewhat common in Europe.

<comment><USER19> That specific thing is common in the US, too. Parking enforcement, at least in places populous enough to warrant dedicated parking enforcement personnel, usually don't arm their meter maids.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> The whole "defund the police" movement feels very much in line with the "Luxury beliefs" [1] idea that has been floating around for the past year or so.

[1] [https://nypost.com/2019/08/17/luxury-beliefs-are-the- latest-...](https://nypost.com/2019/08/17/luxury-beliefs-are-the-latest- status-symbol-for-rich-americans/)

<comment><USER21> > The whole "defund the police" movement feels very much in line with the > "Luxury beliefs"

Why do you believe this? It seems to me that reinvesting budgets spent on surplus humvees on more/better school counselors is a perfectly reasonable goal.

<comment><USER22> > It seems to me that reinvesting budgets spent on surplus humvees on > more/better school counselors is a perfectly reasonable goal.

While that sounds great on paper, nothing the schools do is going to make a difference if the family support at home isn't there. You can't just throw money at the problem to make it better.

Anecdotal, but my sister used to work as a teacher & reading specialist in poorer areas. Per my last conversation with her on this topic, she said maybe 20% of the kids have a solid backing from family for education. The rest she had interacted with for one reason or another were a mix of parents who told her it was her job to teach and they wouldn't do that at home; another group of parents that were too drunk/drugged out to even answer the phone or call back; and another that would just swear at her for bothering them at home. All of her co-workers had similar accounts of this happening.

Kids that did want to learn in class were bullied for "acting white" and there were physical fights occurring weekly. She didn't teach high school, she taught 4/5th grade.

For us to make any progress with poorer schools there needs to be a community focus on education, having respect for each other, and having respect for the law. If you grow up for 18 years in an environment without those then nothing matters long term and we end up in the vicious cycle of poverty, crime, imprisonment, broken families and even more kids going through the same thing.

<comment><USER23> _>...we end up in the vicious cycle of __poverty_ _, crime, imprisonment, broken families and even more kids going through the same thing._

Poverty. That's the root issue. But it's cheaper to blame the poverty on bad additudes and poor choices rather than acknowledge the causality goes in the other direction and pony up the cash for programs to break the cycle of poverty.

<comment><USER24> Then home come the poor migrants from China, India, Mexico and even Africa who come to America end up doing so well?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> I wonder if this is 81% of black Americans, or "81% of black Americans who had both the time and inclination to fill out a targeted web survey/ answer a landline phone call related to policing"

I know polls claim to correct for this, but if even the census, mandated by the constitution and backed by federal law and billions of dollars, can significantly under-count black and Latino Americans, I'd be curious to see how well Gallup can do.

All this said, I DO think the majority of people (regardless of their relative melanin levels) would like to see more police in their neighborhoods, with the giant caveat that it's more than simple numbers in most people's minds.

Be wary on conflating a general desire for more police with specific acceptance of current policing.

<comment><USER19> > _81% of black Americans who had both the time and inclination to fill out a > targeted web survey / answer a landline phone call_

Well, yes, that's basically how every poll works. The pollsters come up with what they think is a representative sample population, they send out surveys, some people respond, some don't.

<comment><USER26> Assuming it's similar polling to the UK there are all sorts of weighting and balancing to get truly representative samples within a margin of error.

Where the system is weakest is in the questions asked, as explained by Yes Prime Minister

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0ZZJXw4MTA](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0ZZJXw4MTA)

I can't see the tables gallup produced to make their claim, without those I can't see why it's of any interest.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> Unfortunately, The whole defund the police movement is going to backfire on the Democrats. Safety is pretty important in Maslow's hierarchy of needs. If Democrats get branded as the anti-police party they are going to lose move votes then they are going to gain by the vocal minority opinion.

<comment><USER28> No question - trump is the absolute worst republican you could run it seems. Short run I don't think republicans have a chance.

But feeling / being safe is CRITICAL to folks - they will accept dictatorships to gain safety. The whole abolish ICE / defund the police type platform seems a loser long run for the dems. I'm surprised Biden didn't make a stronger statement distancing himself form this. The violence is really toxic.

I'm a reliable dem voter and significant dem donor this cycle, but if you actually live or have lived in "tough" neighborhoods with higher crime (ie, have had your car broken into multiple times, stolen, experienced violence) then you really do start to prioritize safety.

<comment><USER23> Yes, safety is important. George Floyd should have been able to feel safe. Breonna Taylor should have been safe in her bed. Who's violence are we talking about here? What does high crime neighborhoods have to do with police not killing people wantonly?

<comment><USER29> If you follow the instructions of the police officers you have little reason to not feel safe. If you fight, resist, run etc. you've given up your rights to safety.

<comment><USER30> Essentially - you should follow all orders given by police officers, whether they are justified or not. If you don't, you forfeit all rights to be alive.

How on earth can you possibly say that? Not following the orders of some jacked up power trip officer means you've given up all your rights to be alive?

This has to be the worst take in the entire thread.

<comment><USER31> You follow instructions and then take legal action later.

<comment><USER30> Very easy to say from a distance, not so easy to not resist when someones pointing a gun at you or gripping you so tightly you're being strangled to death.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> It always annoys me when some random unelected, unselected person or people purport to speak on behalf of a community. Half the time the self appointed spokesperson isn't even in the relevant community.

<comment><USER33> Or the "community" is a fiction itself.

</comment></comment><comment><USER34> To improve police presence and interactions wouldn't you actually want to fund the police and make sure they go through proper training to ensure they can handle difficult situations? A lack of funding would probably result in a worse trained police force, no?

<comment><USER35> Defunding the police addresses the overspending. Despite millions of dollars for training, outcomes in police interactions haven't gotten better. Purchasing military surplus is another area they've spent increased budgets on as well.

<comment><USER36> _outcomes in police interactions haven 't gotten better._

By which metric?

<comment><USER37> Well, the number of people killed by officers, and the number of officers killed in the line of duty are both metrics that have remained fairly steady. Overall violent crime rate looks pretty steady as well over the past decade, though it's much decreased from the 2000-2010 rates.

It's not a single-metric question though. Probably not just a 10-20 metric question either.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> This is even more pronounced among so-called fragile communities, where 95% of black residents want to retain police presence, and in the Chicago area, 68% want increased police presence.

[https://news.gallup.com/poll/257798/low-trust-police- complic...](https://news.gallup.com/poll/257798/low-trust-police-complicates- crime-problem-chicago.aspx)

On the other hand, a majority in these communities also say that people have a negative view of the police there.

</comment><comment><USER39> This is why the defund the police people really need a better slogan. You can argue that the police should work differently than they do, but it's just obviously stupid to not have police.

<comment><USER35> "Defund the police" refers to trimming bloated budgets and fully funding other programs that reduce crime such as funding inner city schools, child care for poor parents, etc.

<comment><USER40> Anecdotally from seeing discussions online and interviews on the news (which to be fair has some sample bias that will emphasize more extreme beliefs), a non negligible number of people who say "Defund the police" believe that police should be abolished.

<comment><USER41> There's a case to be made that while a city needs police it maybe doesn't need _these_ police. At some point an organization is so corrupt that it cannot be reformed. I have no problem with plans to reshape law enforcement through complete dissolution of current police departments.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER42> It's probably a mistake to even try to comment here, it feels like wading into a battlefield where words don't even mean what they say.

This survey tells us what I thought we already knew for decades now. Black Americans, particular those living in high poverty and high crime areas, overwhelmingly support _increased_ police funding and increased police presence in their communities.

While some protestors who are carrying signs like "Defund the police" may not take the slogan at face value, the ones spray painting "Fuck 12" or "ACAB" across their local courthouse certainly do, and they do not speak for the people responding to this Gallup poll.

The literal attacks on police (and police infrastructure) appear to be an intentional destabilization effort in order to neuter policing capacity within a community, resulting in increased violent crime (i.e. the "Fergusson effect"). While I think there are many well-meaning and good intentioned peaceful protestors that initially joined with "BLM", the "Defund the police" movement has been hijacked by radical anarchists who professionally organize riots (there's another term for this I won't use) and absolutely believe police should be abolished.

National public perception of BLM which initially spiked positively after Floyd has been decreasing and overall become much more polarized. [1]

[1] - [https://civiqs.com/results/black_lives_matter?annotations=tr...](https://civiqs.com/results/black_lives_matter?annotations=true&uncertainty=true&zoomIn=true)

<comment><USER43> I'm trying to search for professional riot organizers but all I can find is articles debunking the idea that this position exists [1] [2] [3]. Would you mind citing where you heard this?

[1] [https://www.vox.com/2020/6/3/21275720/george-floyd- protests-...](https://www.vox.com/2020/6/3/21275720/george-floyd-protests- outside-agitators-ferguson-civil-rights-movement)

[2] [https://www.snopes.com/ap/2020/06/03/false-claims-of- antifa-...](https://www.snopes.com/ap/2020/06/03/false-claims-of-antifa- protesters-plague-small-u-s-cities/)

[3] [https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/janelytvynenko/paid- pro...](https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/janelytvynenko/paid-protester- myth)

<comment><USER44> >"There are groups paying these looters money to come in and they're getting paid by the broken window," said Chief Mylett.

[https://www.kiro7.com/news/local/bellevue-police-chief- says-...](https://www.kiro7.com/news/local/bellevue-police-chief-says-looters- are-part-organized-crime-ring/HEMXIDSLOZAH5FE7H7BBEDHQB4/)

Buzzfeed, Vox and even Snopes are a bit partisan on this.

<comment><USER45> Yeah, I think Snopes is a much more credible source than the chief of police here.

<comment><USER44> [https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2018/12/13/fact-c...](https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2018/12/13/fact- checkers_choice_to_be_literal_or_contextual_138913.html)

[https://ethicsalarms.com/2017/08/31/snopes-credibility- death...](https://ethicsalarms.com/2017/08/31/snopes-credibility-death-spiral- presenting-the-straw-man-fact-check/)

[https://www.snopes.com/news/2017/08/23/robert-lee- espn/](https://www.snopes.com/news/2017/08/23/robert-lee-espn/)

[https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us- canada-41022954](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-41022954)

[https://www.google.com/search?&q=%22snopes%22+strawman+-site...](https://www.google.com/search?&q=%22snopes%22+strawman+-site%3Asnopes.com)

<comment><USER45> Hoo boy, that's a hot pile of garbage. I'm obviously not going to convince you, but I'll get my hands dirty for the sake of bystanders.

>[https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2018/12/13/fact-c...](https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2018/12/13/fact- checkers_choice_to_be_literal_or_contextual_138913.html)

Yes, fact-checking is hard. You can say things that are literally true but clearly imply false conclusions, or vice versa. And Snopes isn't perfect. I'm not sure what else I'm supposed to be getting here.

>ethicsalarms.com

This is a batshit right-wing conspiracy theory site. Anyone who cites it as an argument should immediately lose all semblance of credibility. Here are some direct quotes from that site that I found within the first 60 seconds of clicking around:

>>>CNN is obviously approaching the election as a partisan mission, and has signaled that fair coverage is not in the cards. The goal is to put Democrats in control of the government.

>>>Pelosi's Democrats have orchestrated one attempted coup after another

>>>There have been 19 Plans to abuse various processes, laws and theories, all put forward and promoted by members of the Democratic Party/"resistance"/mainstream news media alliance since President Trump's election in November of 2016... The desired effect of this barrage, apart from serving the goal of removing an elected President without the bother (and risk) of an election, has been to make it impossible for the President to govern, and to destroy his support among the public.

Yep. Fair and balanced, and definitely not unhinged. Moving on:

>Snopes and BBC articles about a commentator named Robert Lee

As Snopes says:

>There is no dispute that Robert Lee was moved off covering a University of Virginia football game for ESPN because of the coincidence of his name. However, ESPN's intent appeared to have been a desire to avoid prompting public ridicule rather than public offense — a move that ended up subjecting the network (for different reasons) to the very mocking they had hoped to head off.

What else am I supposed to be seeing here? A megacorp attempted to sidestep a potentially awkward situation, and ran into the Striesand effect. Both Snopes and the BBC pointed out that it was maybe misguided, and we all had a chuckle at their expense. Do you think that Disney, of all companies, is a leftist organization, and that Snopes is covering for them?

>Google search for "snopes strawman"

The top results for me are, in order:

1\. A bunch of Reddit results referring people to Snopes as a source because the thing they're arguing against is a made-up strawman.

2\. Snopes's own Facebook page

3\. A blog nitpicking semantics over... Amelia Earhart's bones? [https://tighar.org/wordpress/earhart-project/fact- checking-s...](https://tighar.org/wordpress/earhart-project/fact-checking- snopes/)

4\. ethicsalarms.com, discussed above.

5\. "A Guide to Arguing with a Snopes Denier", from the Houston Press

<comment><USER44> >This is a batshit right-wing conspiracy theory site. Here are some direct quotes from that site that I found within the first 60 seconds of clicking around:

>>CNN is obviously approaching the election as a partisan mission, and has signaled that fair coverage is not in the cards. The goal is to put Democrats in control of the government.

In your view is CNN not partisan?

In regards to Robert Lee, like other misleading fact checks, the objection wasn't that he was fired. People were observing that it was misguided. I think we should be able to have this discussion without terms like "batshit right- wing conspiracy theory".

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_bias_in_the_United_State...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_bias_in_the_United_States#:~:text=The%20study%20found%20that%2093)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER46> Having a demilitarised civilian police force maintaining order through the consent of the public has been a thing since the 1820s. I'd like to see how Americans would respond to a police force formed with a modern version of the peelian principles as its guiding rule set.

In my opinion a huge amount of damage has been done by the deliberate choice to act aggressively and quell the protests by ever greater force, and that damage has been done to the respect of the legitimacy of the power police forces hold. People aren't going to cooperate with a force they see as an armed occupier.

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peelian_principles](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peelian_principles)

<comment><USER47> Nobody is trying to quell protests. I don't know how that misconception is still alive. The problem is the rioting. Nobody would be trying to disperse crowds if everyone was peaceful.

<comment><USER48> > Nobody would be trying to disperse crowds if everyone was peaceful.

That's not really true. There is an area between "lawful protesting" and "rioting" that's usually called civil disobedience. Civil disobedience as usually understood is peaceful, but it's also by design inherently disruptive.

In Austin, TX protestors blocked the main highway through the city. That was obviously incredibly disruptive, but many people believe the city police's forceful response of shooting less-lethal rounds relatively indiscriminately into the crowd was the exact type of response people were protesting against. A large group of trauma doctors in Austin wrote a paper arguing against using these types of rounds for crowd control due to the horrific injuries they treated: [https://www.statesman.com/news/20200816/beanbag-rounds- cause...](https://www.statesman.com/news/20200816/beanbag-rounds-caused- horrific-injuries-austin-doctors-say)

<comment><USER49> Honestly, this is kind of like putting your hand inside the mouth of a crocodile and then complaining that you have been bitten. Or if you start insulting/harassing and physically blocking someone and then start complaining that you were punched as a result.

I would consider civil disobedience something more like as a policeman to refuse to disrupt a peaceful protest, or illegally publishing data (consider Aaron Swartz, Alexandra Elbakyan, Edward Snowden, or Chelsea Manning), or someone like Oskar Schindler.

<comment><USER50> A crocodile is a vicious wild animal. And in your analogy... the police are the crocodiles?

Sorry for being facetious, but the whole point is that people expect police to have some self-control (unlike an animal) and behave better in these situations. If you're a cashier, and a customer is yelling at you, berating you, taunting you, etc. you're expected to try to remain calm and attempt to de-escalate the situation - certainly you're not supposed to attack the person. If anything, police should be held to an even higher standard than this.

<comment><USER49> > And in your analogy... the police are the crocodiles?

No, I would feel safer with a crocodile around actually.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER51> I'm not from US and when I see people claim for abolition of police I can only imagine the world they live in, completely disconnected from reality. Seriously, abolishing police? Is this some kind of demolition-man-like future?

<comment><USER52> If your reality were getting stopped and frisked statistically more because of your color or pulled over more for "looking suspicious", your viewpoint might change. There have been plenty of cases where Black men were "suspiciously" going into their own homes.

[https://www.usatoday.com/story/life/people/2018/07/29/missio...](https://www.usatoday.com/story/life/people/2018/07/29/mission- impossible-star-ving-rhames-says-police-pulled-gun/859126002/)

<comment><USER51> That happens in every country. We call it "Illegal face possession", it's called profiling.

<comment><USER53> What form does it take in your country? Is it based on the amount of melanin in the profiling victim's skin, or are there other arbitrary factors?

<comment><USER51> Sex, race, clothing and general aspect, like everywhere else.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER54> Since many people here are not discussing the actual article, let me copy- paste the author's conclusion:

> It's not so much the volume of interactions Black Americans have with the > police that troubles them or differentiates them from other racial groups, > but rather the quality of those interactions.

> Most Black Americans want the police to spend at least as much time in their > area as they currently do, indicating that they value the need for the > service that police provide. However, that exposure comes with more > trepidation for Black than White or Hispanic Americans about what they might > experience in a police encounter. And those harboring the least confidence > that they will be treated well, or who have had negative encounters in the > past, are much more likely to want the police presence curtailed.

</comment><comment><USER55> There's a good case for defunding the police in parts of the country where crime has gone down, but my impression is the worse police-citizen interactions happen in areas where the police are stretched thin (maybe I'm wrong about this), moreover, when you are trying to reform a provider of an essential service, it is typically better to provide a carrot and a stick (see education reform for instance), otherwise not only do you get organized resistance to the reforms but you also reduce morale. Good morale is important, not only for good performance, but for reducing the siege mentality among the police.

Requiring people to make an extra effort to do their job better (even if the level of better is still below average), while cutting their pay (even if their pay probably should not be as high as it is), seems like setting yourself up for failure.

<comment><USER56> Defunding is a two-part task:

1\. Balkanize police into distinct departments with different training and oversight. The police are tasked with far too many jobs at once and don't do a very good job at any of them.

2\. Redirect some portion of funding to community development and fighting poverty, i.e. crime prevention. Instead of buying military surplus equipment, create after-school programs, ensure that kids get fed, etc.

If a police department is stretched thin, balkanizing should help with that. Having police doing too many things is a big part of the problem.

The police resist reforms constantly. They protect themselves and lie brazenly with little consequence. While morale is certainly something to consider, it's not the elephant in the room. There must be real consequences, and for that there must be real mechanisms of oversight, firing, and prosecution of cops and those who act in bad faith to protect fellow cops.

<comment><USER57> Police don't buy surplus military equipment. The equipment is free, the police only pay for shipping.

<comment><USER56> The police often pay for shipping, maintenance, and kitting out the equipment. They might receive a free stripped-down M16, but they still use their own budgets to make it tacticool. Just an optic and light run $1k or so.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER58> I wonder what surprises this will lead to in the upcoming election, where the Democrats have firmly placed themselves on the side of those wanting to defund the police.

<comment><USER59> I was shocked to see them take that position in any seriousness. I think as more places burn they are starting to see it's a losing narrative. It you are right, it's the side they took.

Bad word choice from the get go though. Should have been reform the police, they went to hard and landed on defund.

<comment><USER56> Defunding is a solution because reform has never worked.

<comment><USER60> Should have picked a better slogan.

<comment><USER56> I think people's lives matter more than critiquing a slogan.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER61> You can want a police presence, you can also want those police to be properly trained in use of force, and you can want a more robust policy for dealing with emergent mental health issues all at the same time. None of those are exclusive of each other.

If I were a police officer or worked in that area of policy, I would be appalled at the degree of correlation that the more frequently people reported seeing the police, the less they wanted to see police around.

This is yet another false and divisive zero sum framing of a complex issue. Everyone deserves quality police service from their municipal and state authorities, police deserve accountability for colleagues that break the law and put good police officers at risk, and everyone deserves policing that is unbiased and increases public safety regardless of race, creed, or any other factor.

<comment><USER62> Police departments and city governments are plagued with corruption, you cannot expect corrupt institution the be capable of fixing itself.

</comment></comment><comment><USER63> This ought not be particularly difficult to understand. Black folks don't want the police to go away, we want the police to generally do the job they are hired for.

But also, we don't have a big problem with the extreme rhetoric against the police because for years and years, in the face of overwhelming evidence of misconduct, there hasn't been meaningful reform. Desperate times, desperate measures.

</comment><comment><USER23> But you don't have to read far to get to this bit:

 _> Fewer than one in five Black Americans feel very confident that the police in their area would treat them with courtesy and respect. While similar to the 24% of Asian Americans saying the same, it is markedly lower than the 40% of Hispanic Americans and the 56% of White Americans who feel this way. This could either stem from Black Americans' own negative experiences with the police or from their familiarity with people who have had negative encounters with law enforcement._

Most Americans (52%) according to the poll, are not very confident that police would treat them with courtesy and respect. That's shameful if you ask me. The power that police wield makes it all the more important that they are respectful in their interactions with the public. But we wouldn't accept that kind of performance in any private business front of house role

<comment><USER60> Considering the nature of many (not most) police interactions (i.e. as a suspect, even just a speeding ticket) what would you consider a reasonable target for "courteous and respectful" interactions? 100%?

I would just find it hard to believe if I've just committed a crime and been arrested by the police that I would be able to describe the interaction as "courteous and respectful", even if the police did everything right.

<comment><USER64> > Considering the nature of many (not most) police interactions (i.e. as a > suspect, even just a speeding ticket) what would you consider a reasonable > target for "courteous and respectful" interactions? 100%?

Yes. I'd aim for 100%.

Obviously that's hard to reach, but I think it's certainly possible to do better than 50%. (Though note that it was presumed 50%, not actual measured 50%, so it's more about perception than necessarily about reality).

As you allude to, many interactions with the police are not in the context of getting arrested. You might be the one to call the police if you need them for whatever reason, you might be just an onlooker, you might randomly see police moving around your city for whatever reason.

But even in cases like speeding tickets, there's no reason for the police not to be courteous and respectful, so long as you behave that way.

<comment><USER60> I'm not disagreeing, it was an honest question and your answer is reasonable.

We should aim for 100%, but it's unlikely we'd ever get there in the real world.

What would make a good metric is having a similar score across all communities as well. Obviously the black and Asian communities have a different perspective and that's something that could be fixed.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER65> It's not surprising that people still want the police around... they just want to be treated equally when they interact with the police.

</comment><comment><USER66> I don't understand the point of this survey. They could have also asked whether people think water is wet or not. The debate here is not about police presence, but (1) what type of presence and (2) what the alternatives are. Absence an alternative, of course people will say they want the same police presence. I would be curious to see if the question is framed along the lines of "Do you want 10% of police budget be spend on mental health" or "Do you want 15% of police budget on rehabilitation and integration", on housing, on schools etc. That will tell is what the trade offs are and what people feel about those trade-offs

<comment><USER67> this wouldn't happen if it weren't for the slogan "abolish the police"

proponents need to accept that it's just bad framing

<comment><USER68> The slogan is defund. I.e. reduce

<comment><USER69> Perhaps the "defund" is so entrenched in the conservative playbook as meaning "eliminate by starving of operating capital" that using "defund" to mean "free up capital to be re-prioritized to other social causes" simply seems nonintuitive or alien to them.

<comment><USER67> also, the dictionary definition of 'defund' means "to withdraw funding from"

if you wanted to campaign on _partially_ defunding the police, then you'd get a different reaction.

i'm not aware of any previous major political movements which used the slogan 'defund X' to mean 'partially reduce funding to, but continue to support sufficiently to ensure proper functioning of X"

so if (a) defund doesn't imply "partially reduce funding" and (b) the word defund has not historically been used that way and (c) plenty of activists say "literally abolish the police" [1] then if people are failing to interpret it the way you'd like, the burden is on proponents to have a better slogan to communicate their message

[1] [https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/12/opinion/sunday/floyd- abol...](https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/12/opinion/sunday/floyd-abolish- defund-police.html)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER70> Black person here. Generally speaking, we just want swift accountability when police do fucked up things.

</comment><comment><USER71> A good precedent to study:

Georgia's Ex-President Explains How He Abolished Police and Brought Down Crime

 _> I Abolished and Rebuilt the Police. The United States Can Do the Same._

[https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/06/11/abolish-police- georgia-...](https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/06/11/abolish-police-georgia- brutality-crime/)

 _> After Georgia's Rose Revolution in 2004, I became president of a failed state. Law enforcement agencies functioned like criminal gangs. Officers demanded bribes, trafficked narcotics and weapons, and worked for political and business elites as a mercenary security force. Georgia was a textbook example of "predatory policing": Police did not perform the basic responsibilities of ensuring public safety, instead enriching themselves and their patrons by extorting citizens. A 2003 survey found that just 2.3 percent of Georgians held a positive view of police.

> Given that reality, police reform was not only a matter of restructuring > institutions or implementing better policies. We had to change the mentality > of a broken, cynical, and fearful society.

> Before people could begin to trust the police, we—the new political > elites—had to earn their trust. Challenging the status quo was not enough. > We had to destroy it and build something better.

> We replaced them with an entirely new force of Patrol Police, who had no > background in law enforcement and thus no ties to old, corrupted elites. > Recruits had to pass a competitive examination and complete a course in > criminal procedure code. They were trained in persuasion, negotiation, and > mediation skills to minimize the use of force.

> In 2005 Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili fired "the entire traffic > police force" of the Georgian National Police due to corruption, numbering > around 30,000 police officers. ... Throughout the reformation, policemen > were presented with new Volkswagen cars and navy blue uniforms, with > "Police" written on the back._

Law enforcement in Georgia (country) - <USER2>

</comment><comment><USER72> I believe what one want is not no police, but rather a non-racist, fair, police. Maybe I missed something, but imho the protests are not for the removal of police, but rather for a police you can trust and rely on, regardless of your look.

<comment><USER73> Is the slogan "defund the police" helpful in this case?

</comment></comment><comment><USER74> Weird that the focus is on that one question, rather than on "Confidence About Receiving Positive Treatment by Police"

</comment><comment><USER75> Of course they do. But they want _police_ , people that are professional and courteous and a net positive for the society they operate in. Not the power tripping racist scum that seems to make up a good portion of the police in the USA (and; unfortunately; elsewhere as well).

Police is a good thing when implemented properly, and a dangerous component that can easily get out of control when allowed to.

</comment><comment><USER76> Wanting police presence != wanting the police to shoot them in the back or choke them, literally, to death. The poll also states:

Fewer than one in five Black Americans feel very confident that the police in their area would treat them with courtesy and respect. While similar to the 24% of Asian Americans saying the same, it is markedly lower than the 40% of Hispanic Americans and the 56% of White Americans who feel this way. This could either stem from Black Americans' own negative experiences with the police or from their familiarity with people who have had negative encounters with law enforcement.

Black americans deserve to enjoy the confidence that 56% of white americans do in terms of being treated with courtesy and respect.

</comment><comment><USER77> I'm not American so I can't know, but how much police presence is "right" in your opinion? Surely no police sounds like a bad thing, doesn't it?

</comment><comment><USER78> This seems like a massive vote of no confidence in policing. A massive 19% of black Americans would like to see less police. i.e. just take their chances. Imagine this in the context of other essential services i.e. 19% of people wanted less hospitals or ambulances.

<comment><USER79> "A massive 19% of black Americans would like to see less police. i.e. just take their chances."

"A massive 19% of overweight Americans would like to eat less food. i.e. just starve."

Suppose there were police hanging out in front of your door all day, and you said you wanted to see less police. Does that mean you want to "just take your chances"?

The question is what the threshold should be before cops feel justified in coming by. Wanting the threshold higher doesn't mean you want it so high they never come.

</comment></comment><comment><USER80> This will only exacerbate the main issue [0].

[0] [https://news.gallup.com/poll/316247/black-americans- police-e...](https://news.gallup.com/poll/316247/black-americans-police- encounters-not-positive.aspx)

</comment><comment><USER81> Why is this allowed on HN, but articles in support of BLM are not? Also, defunding police does not mean completely getting rid of police.

Seriously, why is this article allowed whereas others showing another viewpoint in support of BLM not? This is a real question.

<comment><USER82> When I read "defund the police" I assume that they mean what they are saying. What do you think is meant by the phrase "defund planned Parenthood"?

</comment></comment><comment><USER83> Not sure why this is on HN - can someone fill me in? Maybe I'm missing something

<comment><USER84> Defunding the police has become very popular in the circles many HN commenters frequent, so it's interesting to realize just how niche of a position it is.

<comment><USER83> Are there any good empirical arguments for it?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER85> So I know quite a few people SF who are both anti police and anti second ammendment and it just makes absolutely no sense to me. The craziest thing is half of them seemed to be on the marxist/anti-capitalist spectrum too and I always wondered what their plan would be to enforce those ideals without police or an individaual mandate like the 2'nd ammendment. It boggles the mind.

<comment><USER86> > I always wondered what their plan would be to enforce those ideals without > police

The plan is to replace the police with their own ideology enforcement system, which every totalitarian ideology does by necessity.

You can already see this in action. The defund the police proponents are aggressively pushing for building new de facto police structures that they would control (they won't call them police). The goal, as in all Marxist outcomes (happens every single time without exception), is to replace the existing power structures with new power structures that are aligned to the Marxist outcome they're pursuing and that will help enforce their aims and beliefs. The new police would be involved in things such as cultural & behavioral enforcement for example, they would not be narrowly focused on crime, they would be tasked at assisting the revolution.

They don't want to remove the police per se. They want to replace them. They want their own enforcement systems put into place, that they can control and that are aligned to their ideology. It is a cultural revolution attempt, plain and simple. This is why Antifa is at the center of the riots, they aren't anti-authoritarian, they're merely supposedly anti-Fascism, and they're universally pro-Marxism and openly violent (which tells you everything you need to know); it's nothing more than the escalation of the classic left vs right conflict, with Antifa being a violent militia wing for the extreme left.

<comment><USER87> Good analysis. I suspect you're right, the funding would be diverted from traditional crime investigations to cultural and behavioural enforcement.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> Listen live to our county falling apart in Kenosha WI [https://www.broadcastify.com/webPlayer/30891](https://www.broadcastify.com/webPlayer/30891)

</comment><comment><USER88> This is a horribly spun headline. The question was not whether to "retain presence", it was "Would you rather the police spend more time, the same amount of time or less time as they currently spend in your area?".

And unsurprisingly the answers split with roughly half the respondents saying "same" and the remainder split between "more" and "less". Which is about what you get with any status-quo question like this.

The headline, being phrased along the lines of a protest demand, makes this sound like a majority disagreeing with the premise of the BLM movement, when that's not the question at all.

(It is worth noting, though, that the answers anticorrelate with the amount of actual police work! The more people see the police, the LESS they want them around.)

</comment><comment><USER89> Most people don't want their local grocery store burned.

</comment><comment><USER90> A few people mentioning that a "respected" polling company such as Gallup has methods to correct for potential bias in such polls.

The Gallup Panel is 100,000 members, with weighting being applied "according to gender, age, race, Hispanic ethnicity, education and region".

One of those weights is nullified in this headline, and it's also notable that there is no mention of any direct weighting for economic factors.

Education and region could be considered proxies here, but given the sample and the already reduced weighting, this seems like a result on very weak footing.

</comment><comment><USER91> That's great news since neither major party candidate is proposing to "defund" the police.

</comment><comment><USER92> I wish there were fewer police responding to and investigating bank robberies (in my area).

</comment><comment><USER93> Anarchy is generally not much fun so yeah I can see that.

Good policing > Bad policing > No policing

</comment><comment><USER94> Irrelevant misrepresentation of what "defund the police" is asking for

</comment><comment><USER95> I wonder how many black americans want body cameras to be mandatory and investigated if they are turned off.

<comment><USER87> I read several years ago that policing unions were initially reluctant to wear body cameras but are now very much in favour as they usually provide evidence that supports the police officer's statement of events.

</comment></comment><comment><USER96> Upper middle class morons who've never faced hardships or seen true evil, just lived in their bubble want to feel important and hyper tribalism reinforced via social media anger bubbles makes it a waste of time to have any nuance or discussions. These mobs are ruining primarily low income and minority lives while blue check marks rile them up and media gaslights and fans the flames. Every single city which has had these riots has seen a dramatic upshot in violent crime and economy ravaged. None have recovered since Ferguson

<comment><USER97> Well yes. But it goes both ways. I would argue that the Right doesn't have the ability to have a nuance discussion around this topic either. They read the headline "defund the police" and assume that means less police to deal with violent crimes. "defund the police" means to reallocate resources from police to people better capable of resolving low impact community issues. And let the police deal with violent crimes. If done properly you might see more police resources available to keep the community safe from violent crime.

<comment><USER98> If the staff in your local monopoly grocery store is underperforming, do you defund the store? How about your engineering company? In each case, the solution is to replace/remove under-performers while increasing funding, rather than to defund.

This is what Camden did when they "defunded": dissolve the city police, bringing the city under county sheriff jurisdiction, then pay for new staffing at the county level. They may have been able to save some money because they broke the police union, but in the long term funding increased.

<comment><USER97> But the grocery store doesn't do surgeries or tennis lessons. If the grocery store was responsible for surgeries and doing a bad job, i absolutely would defund them and give the money to surgeons instead. Surgeons are trained at doing surgery. See what i did there? Same applies to police dealing with mental ill people. Mental health professionals should be involved instead.

This sounds like an absurd analogy but only because America doesn't know how to operate community services in any other way than with a heavy police force. It's a failure of imagination and / or unwilling to look at the rest of the world for successful examples of alternative methods.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER99> Sure, no one has suggested police departments as currently constituted should both exist and withdraw from Black neighborhoods, except for police unions applying terrorist negotiating tactics.

More relevant questions

(With regard to "defund the police"): should significant funding and responsibility be redirected from the police to preventive and specialized responsive social services?

(With regard to "dismantle/abolish the police":) Should centralized all- purpose paramilitary local law enforcement agencies be disbanded, with law enforcement responsibilities distributed within specialized agencies whose agents (both armed law enforcement and other) would be domain specialists as well (for law enforcement officers) trained in law enforcement (which also involves transferring non-law enforcement responsibilities and funding more to non-law-enforcememt units.)

<comment><USER14> Ya, that's what anyone intelligent says any time "defund the police" is mentioned (and I completely agree with it, btw). But they should probably choose another slogan if that's what they actually mean. "Defund" in the context of government policy generally means to _eliminate_ via the funding mechanism.

<comment><USER100> The reality is defunding does literally mean completely eliminate to many of the groups calling for defunding. The partial reduction in funding is just a stepping stone. See [https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/12/opinion/sunday/floyd- abol...](https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/12/opinion/sunday/floyd-abolish- defund-police.html), an opinion piece titled "Yes, We Mean Literally Abolish the Police"

<comment><USER99> Note that "defund" and "dismantle/abolish" are separate positions (though many people who hold one as their preferred also view the other as superior to the _stays quo_ , and worse yet while there is a strong tendency in what the language means, the use of each isn't perfectly consistent.)

Which probably shouldn't be surprising since there isn't a single top-down organization behind any of them.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER101> I wonder how many people here have personally been wrongfully shot at by the police versus just watching it on the media? I for one have been shot at several times after being mistaken for carrying a gun when it was really just groceries.

Even I don't want the police defunded.

</comment><comment><USER102> This headline buries the more material difference outlined in the article, which is the major difference between black/Asian Americans and other groups in how likely they feel they are to be treated with respect by the police in any individual encounter.

</comment><comment><USER62> This poll is either disingenuous or misguided - what percent of black Americans want better social services?

The call the defund the police doesn't end with taking money from the police, the goal is to be able to provide more specific services using other departments outside of law enforcement.

<comment><USER103> Why should we assume that this reasoning wasn't factored in by the respondents?

<comment><USER104> Because the call to "defund the police" has been referenced implying it meant "get rid of police" and do nothing else? That's the whole pole... it's not implied that there will be other services provided to go along with the reduction in standard policing.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER105> Many comments talk about training of the police.

there needs to be basic training for citizens as well.

To recognize when to listen to a police officer, how to identify if the officer steps out of line, what rights are afforded, etc.

This lecture from a law school professor was very enlightening to me : NEVER TALK TO THE POLICE - [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE)

<comment><USER7> > there needs to be basic training for citizens as well.

No.

> To recognize when to listen to a police officer, how to identify if the > officer steps out of line, what rights are afforded, etc.

Sure, but no. The police have all the responsibility to de-escalate situations. If they're not doing that then they're the ones in the wrong.

<comment><USER106> > The police have all the responsibility to de-escalate situations

This is an absolutely naive position to take. Police have no such obligation, and citizens should absolutely be educated and informed on their rights.

<comment><USER107> There's even worse legal precedent than not being responsible for de- escalation: [https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/18/us/parkland-shooting- laws...](https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/18/us/parkland-shooting-lawsuit- ruling-police.html)

<comment><USER105> [https://mises.org/power-market/police-have-no-duty- protect-y...](https://mises.org/power-market/police-have-no-duty-protect-you- federal-court-affirms-yet-again)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER108> One of the problems is how police education happens. In Europe, police education starts in high school, you go to a specialized high school for it (and then continue to police college). As a result, the police are much more skilled and professional. You start by studying the law. I don't think you even shoot a gun before you know the law very well.

It's unheard of that the police would say shoot a drunk guy with a knife. The way it happens, is that one of the cops who has more martial arts experience (which is one of the things the cops study, which they can do since their education takes much longer) puts on a protective vest and physically immobilizes the drunk.

In the US, the same situation is very likely to end up with the the drunk having more holes in him than a colander.

What's also funny to me is the extent to which police in the US tackle people. Tackling someone is like the worst idea in the world.</comment>


Mugged by a Mug Shot Online - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/06/business/mugged-by-a-mug-shot-online.html?pagewanted=1&ref=business <comment><USER2> I found out about a month ago that one of these sites had an arrest record for someone with my same first and last name. As luck would have it he also is the same race and approximate age as I am. We don't really look alike but there are plenty of people who might google me based on a resume or something without knowing what I look like and confuse me with him.

The site was high on the first page of results for my name and it was extremely frustrating. I'm about to graduate and look for a job and it was embarrassing to think that that's what potential employers would first see. And yet there was nothing I could do about it -- heck, the person wasn't even me.

I'm all for freedom of information and those sites have a perfect right to exist. However, I'm glad that Google also has recognized that their business model doesn't serve the majority of its customers and pushed down the results. After reading the article I checked the results for my name and verified that the offending site disappeared from the first two pages. It may seem like a small thing but I honestly feel more comfortable talking to recruiters now than previously.

<comment><USER3> A general solution for this kind of problem: get other content above them in Google. This is not hard; mugshot pages and the like have very little PageRank mojo. The only reason they're at the top of the results is that there's nothing else with your name to compete.

All you have to do is make a few interesting things (blog posts, github, etc.) with your name on them and post them to sites like reddit, and they'll easily beat any data-combing reputation smear site.

<comment><USER4> According to the article that isn't true, mugshot sites have high Google scores because people tend to linger on them.

And you are rather missing the point that 99.9% of people don't have GitHub....

<comment><USER3> >According to the article that isn't true, mugshot sites have high Google scores because people tend to linger on them.

I can only speculate about causes, but I also have someone in another state with my name (even a matching middle initial) on mugshot sites, and the tiniest other references to me (my wedding registry for example) knocked it off the top Google results page immediately.

As for 99.9% of people not having a GitHub account: so what? I was giving a suggestion relevant to a typical HN user, not advice for the general population. The general advice is to do things _like_ that. The point is that if a wedding registry on theknot.com (Hell, I'm not even sure I made that wedding registry; it might have been auto-gen'd from our Amazon registry) can outsell the undesirable sites on Google, you can easily make ten results happen that knock it off.

GitHub just happens to be an exceptionally good one for an HNer, since it's the kind of thing that an employer is likely to actually want to see.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> There seem to be two distinct issues here: the fact that these websites publish mugshots, and the fact that they solicit payment to remove the pictures and information.

The first issue is clear, at least to me: this is public information and they have a right to republish it, like it or not.

On the second issue, I don't understand why this is not extortion. Obviously this is because my understanding of what constitutes extortion is faulty. Can any lawyers here explain?

<comment><USER6> Here's why I don't think it's extortion. Imagine you have a neighbor that hates bicycles. You agree to stop riding yours if she pays you $100,000. Is that extortion? Obviously not: you have the right to ride your bicycle regardless of whether or not your neighbor likes it, and you have the right to sell your professional services (not riding a bicycle, in this case) to whomever you like.

(Perhaps she wants to sell it to a like-minded buyer, and you're therefore devaluing the property. Too fucking bad, right?)

A problem that I could see the mugshot sites running into is that they imply guilt, when the mugshots were only for arrests. Intentionally misleading someone seems a lot like libel.

<comment><USER7> "Not doing something" as a professional service?

<comment><USER8> "We put the Pro in procrastination!"

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> One of the local NPR media shows brought up this issue a while back, in regards to both mugshots and arrest records, and the embarrassment these public records can cause to people who were exonerated, or may have been guilty but turned around their lives. The show clearly came down on the side of the press to be able to publish public records, but the hosts were sympathetic to the concerns of people who wound up having their records published and available on Google for All Time.

I always thought the solution was simple - unlike the printed page, web articles don't have to be static. The publishers should allow the subjects of these articles to provide updates to the beat reports (subject to verification of course) to document the disposition of the arrest. You could imagine an article might say "June 1, 2003: Jane Doe arrested for drug positions (insert mugshot/arrest record" followed up "Update Feb 1, 2006: Jane Doe indicated that the case was dismissed, which was verified by court records. Ms. Doe has not been arrested since and documents provided by Ms. Doe (and authenticated by this publication) indicate that she graduated with honors from XX college and has been successfully employed as a mechanical engineer to positive reviews."

That may not help with the extortion racket problem with the mugshot sites, but one would hope that the media outlet websites would rank higher than the mugshot sites on search engines.

<comment><USER10> The thing I don't understand is why the mugshots are being published in the first place in the US. Like it or not, the internet is a permanent record so that mugshot of you at your worst time (but not convicted of anything), will be out there forever in some capacity if it gets published.

<comment><USER11> A little common sense trumps all of these other elaborate comments.

Why are mugshots publicized? To intimidate people. It means the police can coerce someone in to doing something with the threat of an arrest.

The NYTimes seems to be blaming private site owners who have added a little SEO juice, whereas county and government websites usually are written so poorly as to barely be crawl-able. The police are the ones publishing these mugshots online, the other sites are just re-organizing them to be a little more Google bot friendly.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I didn't see mention anywhere in the article regarding why the police releases the mugshots - I'm told by people working in legal professions that it's actually a means of ensuring that the police aren't overstepping their bounds and that people aren't disappearing into jail without a valid conviction in court. By making all of the information public regarding who they arrested the police can't deny arresting them later on; by releasing the information about why he or she was arrested, the public can verify that the police are arresting people for legitimate reasons. This is useful to the public, but I think it's implemented in too naive a fashion. It takes sensitive data about me and broadcasts it out everyone, any one of which could store it indefinitely and rebroadcast it indefinitely.

You can't just not release the information for the aforementioned reasons. You can disallow rebroadcasting the information - if I can't release it to others, then the police could potentially take the information down after a few days, make you disappear, and then we're back at square one.

I think in this case the danger of misuse by third parties outweighs the danger of police abuse. Maybe there's a better way of keeping the police force accountable?

<comment><USER13> First, some counties publish special lists of, for instance, men attempting to or procuring prostitution services aka "johns". So there's probably a fair amount of shaming and threat they get from this. Police are known to threaten arrest because even if they drop all charges just going to jail (especially on a weekend) can be an unpleasant experience, and there's little blowback for them.

Second, if the police want to disappear people, they'll just not save that arrest record. The publishing of a log only is only useful for cases where the police decide to "disappear" you after they've arrested and processed the subject. Even then they could release someone, document it, then pick them up around the corner for "disappearing".

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> It seems to me that this is the fault of employers not doing the proper research. I know if I was in HR or was looking to hire an employee I would pretty much forgo looking at those sites.

For example, what would this website tell me? Potentially, someone with the name of the person (same or not the same) applying for a particular position has had a mug shot. All that tells me is they have been arrested (if it's even the same person), that does not mean they were convicted, they didn't do some minor offense, or they did not as in this case "do their time."

The point is an employer should probably look at confirmed data, if the mugshot is not confirmed, it should really be tossed aside.

<comment><USER15> I agree. People need to assess whatever information they find before acting on it. The more well-known these become, the less influential they should be on any one individual.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> Please, upgrade the link to the single page one [http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/06/business/mugged-by-a- mug-s...](http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/06/business/mugged-by-a-mug-shot- online.html?pagewanted=all)

</comment><comment><USER17> Funny story. I went to a conference earlier this year where I met a very attractive sales rep for a company we were considering working with. She emailed some information a few weeks later and I was going to see about connecting via LinkedIn, so I Google'ed her name. First picture that came up was her mug shot from a DUI. From a professional standpoint I'm sure it haunts her.

<comment><USER18> Confirmation that salesperson drinks heavily doesn't to provide much new information. The most threatening aspect is probably that the mug shot didn't have her wearing makeup.

Also, you were being creepy.

<comment><USER17> Not creepy, just lazy. Googling is faster than using LinkedIn's search.

But not going to lie, we all Google people's names. Still nothing creepy about it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Good luck having them removed from the Wayback Machine too! [http://web.archive.org/liveweb/http://www.florida- mugshot.co...](http://web.archive.org/liveweb/http://www.florida- mugshot.com/Counties/Hillsborough-County/Arthur-Murray.1214743.html)

<comment><USER18> It is public record. Search rank is what matters, not binary availability.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> Single page:

[http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/06/business/mugged-by-a- mug-s...](http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/06/business/mugged-by-a-mug-shot- online.html?pagewanted=1&ref=business&_r=0&pagewanted=all)

</comment><comment><USER20> Looks like Google is finally doing something about this. [http://blog.codeguard.com/google-cracks-mughshot- sites/](http://blog.codeguard.com/google-cracks-mughshot-sites/)

</comment><comment><USER21> Now because of hackernews "Maxwell Birnbaum" record is viewed 90 times in last one hr.

</comment><comment><USER22> for a long time, the Bill Gates wiki page had a picture of his mugshot as the primary photo (now it's relegated to the middle of the page)

<comment><USER23> Sure, do what Bill gates did with Microsoft, charity and make north of $100 billion and then others will laugh at a 40+ year old traffic arrest.

Now if you're trying a job and they are another 100 applicants....

<comment><USER18> Actually Bill Gates had to do was get a few million dollars from his rich parents, to put his past behind him.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> I believe having the photos linger after they are no longer relevant or applicable is libel. Even posting the mugshots originally can be construed as libelous. IANAL, but I would hope the technology will adapt (ie sites only publish if the mugshots are 'current' and that is subjective but not too unclear -- when a record is expunged they cease to be useful v. their damages as defamation; and sites be able to delete them when they are not current immediately - even automatically). Otherwise I see no reason why are not liable. Sue them, justice then legislature will follow in a decade or so.. Seriously though I think that's how it works..

</comment><comment><USER25> No ones hitting this from what I consider to be the right angle. Let me digress for a moment.

I was arrested in Miami in November 2003 at the FTAA protest in Miami. Spent a night in jail, and eventually all charges were dropped. Read this if you want more info, [http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miami_model](http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miami_model).

The point is that in my case, I was arrested and I am proud of that. I'll grant that "protestor" sounds more admirable than "had drugs on them". But I think they are similar in some ways.

The first and most obvious similarity is the overly-militarized police force in the US. This is the essence of the Miami Model, a now 10-year old strategy of approaching domestic protest movements militaristicly at the local police level rather than as citizens movements. By applying the same tactics to _all_ law enforcement, we end up with situations of over prosecution for things like possession of drugs and paraphernalia that continue to haunt people for years. For what are minor issues (had a joint or some pills on them, throw em in jail) peoples lives are ruined.

So to the point I want to address is that it doesn't matter, of at least it shouldn't and it's getting better.

Yes, I expect to be Googled and screened when working at a new job. That happened so long ago that no reference really pops up in reference to @geuis (though no doubt it will now) but for me it doesn't matter since it was a protest/civil rights issue that I freely talk about).

But just how the stigma of smoking weed in the past doesn't really matter for jobs that matter anymore, the same thing is increasingly true for other recreational drugs. You did E and acid for a bit? Ok, but what kind of engineer/sales/etc person are you? If anything, I think exposure to certain drugs makes people more valuable because you can't help but learn something from it. I know I did.

My questions would be like, "So I found this and this, can you talk about that a bit?" This is to determine if they are detrimental addicts (no hire) or just recreational/past users.

I'll admit that my vision is blindered because I live in SF, lived in the Miami area, am a liberal, and work in technology. But I count myself as a bell weather of sorts. If the rest of the US is flagging behind in a modern mindset, then eventually they will catch up.

Anyway, I guess I'll wrap this up by saying that if someone has a record or doesn't fit into the ordinary pegs and holes, consider other factors when people look for work. Who knows what things you might have in your own past that you were lucky to avoid being arrested for.

<comment><USER26> It's less about "modern mindsets" and more about simple decision making heuristics. If you've got a stack of resumes for apparently competent candidates and 10 seconds of Google-fu turns up blog comments and OS code commits for most candidates with reasonably distinctive names and MugshotsOnline for another one, you're probably not going to invite the latter candidate in to explain their views on occasional recreational drug use.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> If it really is public information then it's perfectly OK to publish it. Complain to the politicians if you don't like arrest records being public. If you're supposed to have a "clean" record then you should just lie to your employer and say "I wasn't convicted". That's what a cleaned record does anyway. Mr. Birnbaum would have been telling as much of a lie by not mentioning his conviction like he'd hoped to.

</comment><comment><USER27> The thing that's especially repugnant is how the money changers can collude to do deny access to the financial system based on their arbitrary morals. Companies that collect payments should not be able to stand in for a court in determining if the activities of their clients are lawful or allowable.

Though the mugshot stuff is kind of lame, too. Taking care of it might be as simple as not making the record public unless there's a plea or guilty verdict.

</comment><comment><USER28> Google is under no freedom of information restrictions; it is a business. They can choose to rank mug shot sites high. They can choose to accept or not accept AdWords money for mug shot related businesses.

<comment><USER13> They shouldn't be _choosing_ to rank mug shots highly. They should be following algorithms that return results that people want.

On the second part, sure, they could decide mugshot sites are not eligible for AdWords, but it's not great to have Google deciding who can make advertising money. OTOH, they're already doing this so I suppose they could take some sort of ethical stance here.

<comment><USER28> I generally agree. It's interesting, though, to think how much they in fact do probably alter results. I'm sure people "want" things that don't appear on the first page, because there'd be a general freak out if they did. I think they probably have more cultural latitude in determining which ads they'll accept than which results they'll display.

Another option they have is to simply set the cost of mug shot related ad clicks higher. Since their pricing determinations are somewhat mysterious, it would be harder to critique them for that. Ultimately, it would probably come down to an ethical stance for them, because they would just be making less money as a result of what I would consider to be a more ethical decision. As it is, they are making money off of a system that appears to be wrecking careers.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> When I see stuff like this, I feel so very very fortunate to have an extremely common name. It is extortion however to charge to remove images as far as I'm concerned.

</comment><comment><USER30> Those revenge porn sites that were just banned in California had the same business model.

<comment><USER31> More interestingly, the main lawyer fighting against those revenge porn sites was doing so on behalf of a company with the same business model. Smart tactic on their part - they got a bunch of free positive advertising in the press whilst helping to shut down the sites which were most controversial and therefore most likely endanger their business model.

<comment><USER18> One of the sites covered here wasn't even a lawyer, the perp was impersonating.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> one day, somehow, the bastard behind ripoffreport.com will get the karma ass fkng that he deserves.

if anyone will burn in hell, it will be him.

</comment><comment><USER33> Isn't this extortion?

<comment><USER34> From the friendly article: "But it can't be extortion as a matter of law because republishing something that has already been published is not extortion."

</comment></comment><comment><USER35> Here's an Evil Idea for a open source equivalent: foss-testing.org. Innocuous name, but it chains together user identities with checkins they've made that were 1) style violations 2) turned out to be bugs 3) turned out to be later security issues.

What do I care whether I have a style violation? Well, it's about using the dark patterns to make your "user page" (collected from publically available information so legally proof) sound as bad as possible. Similar to the consumeraffairs deal where every review is bad. So your prospective employer searches for "Bob Bobson" and sees a nice, professionally designed page that claims:

Bob Bobson has trouble following best practices for code styling, which could indicate a problem with following corporate standards: link to 37 instances of inconsistent naming/indentation/brace style on github

Bob Bobson has 7 github repositories where he has checked in 90% of the source. This may indicate a "lone wolf" that does not play well with others

Bob Bobson has 14 open issues in github trackers. This may indicate lack of following through on a project

Bob Bobson has closed 41 github issues immediately as "wontfix". This may indicate a technologically orientated user that is insensitive to user and customer needs

We've analyzed Bob Bobson's commit messages, and assigned it a English Comprehension Score of 4 (out of 10). This may indicate a communication problem.

Failing anything else, you can smear Bob Bobson by the projects he associates with.

Bob Bobson has contributed to TOR. The TOR tool is associated with child pornographers and drug traffickers.

Bob Bobson has contributed to KDE. The KDE project has 523,123 outstanding bugs. We're not directly saying it's Bob's fault, but you know...

Of course, you can't start off writing all negative smear about everyone. You want to start out by being positive, writing cool blogs about how your company analyzes OSS. Maybe buy some licenses for expensive static analyzers and share the results. Make some cool pages about Linus' or Guido's checkins. Maybe even sponsor a few OSS projects or OSS people.

How does this make money? Well, Bob Bobson does not like to be known as a team player. Would Bob Bobson like to dispel that conclusion based on publically available data in our proprietary algorithms? Well, as it happens we also sell a "TeamWork Evaluation Survey", where if you think your team work skills have improved you under go a comprehensive psychometric test (signed off on by our team of psychometric specialists) that verifies your team work skills. Of course, such a test is expensive, but isn't the $199 worth it to be given a prominent "Team Work: Gold Badge" score? All that other stuff we said about you being a bad team player will go away.

</comment><comment><USER23> _> >He added that the sites do, in fact, run afoul of a Google guideline, though he declined to say which one_

BULLSH*T. Everyone is guilty and Google chooses when to use the hammer for profit or good press. That's how much integrity their results have. Google has known about these sites for ages, yet after NYT writes all of the sudden they are not relevant for users. Total BS.

Also the business of asking MC, VISA and Paypal to terminate services stinks, we saw this with Wikileaks.

Their business is repulsive, personally I'd favor a $5 wrench [http://xkcd.com/538/](http://xkcd.com/538/) removal service over this.</comment>


Ask HN: Is Meego and the N9 a game changer? - <AUTHOR>

I'm sure by now, you've heard of Nokia's upcoming Meego smartphone. I, for one, think it looks absolutely stunning. It's nice to see Meego finally getting its time to shine, however I'm not sure if it will be widely embraced (think WP7).<p>What do you all think? <comment><USER2> I think Meego is a lot closer to loyal Symbian/Nokia users' needs than WP7. Therefore, the N9 has the potential to sell more units when it's launched than Nokia's first 1-2 WP7 models, even without an ecosystem behind. But if it sells in big numbers, the ecosystem might start growing as well. There seem to be quite a lot of QT developers that are excited about it.

But if Nokia wants Meego to really succeed (and they might not because of the partnership with MS), and compete with Android and iOS, they need to push it hard to other manufacturers, the same way Google has done, and Microsoft as well with WP7.

This is critical in Meego's long term success and accelerating the growth of the ecosystem behind it. Nokia is still big, and it still has many fans, but I really doubt they can become a _strong_ 3rd platform unless they get at least a few other manufacturers to use Meego as an alternative to Android.

LG has already said they'll build a Meego device. If they could get a few more on board it would be great. They also need to push it as a direct Android competitor in other areas, such as in cars, in TV's, and wherever Android has been used these days. Meego is the only other OS that can be on any device that Android can be on. I like Android, but I'd love to see some direct competition from Meego in all areas.

</comment><comment><USER3> More like _game over_.

I was geniunely excited about Maemo, but Nokia made too much money in the early part of the century and became a bloated bureaucracy. They made a few good decisions, but plenty of misteps and blunders too.

Simply the fact that they're going ahead with this orphan platform rather than using those resources to bring forward WP7 devices makes them look stupid.</comment>


Free project management templates from the US Military - <AUTHOR> http://kkovacs.eu/free-project-management-template-mil-std-498 <comment><USER3> Also of interest may be some of the manuals published at NASA's Software Engineering Laboratory:

Manager's Handbook for Software Development: <http://homepages.inf.ed.ac.uk/dts/pm/Papers/nasa-manage.pdf>

Recommended Approach for Software Development: [http://homepages.inf.ed.ac.uk/dts/pm/Papers/nasa- approach.pd...](http://homepages.inf.ed.ac.uk/dts/pm/Papers/nasa-approach.pdf)

A lot of really important work was done at SEL and they kept meticulous records on _how_ they did the work and what worked for them.

The old-school, pre-Agile Manifesto stuff isn't a perfect match for how most teams like to work today, but it's still full of wisdom and deep knowledge. A lot of it grew out of aerospace and defence projects, which is why there is such a heavy emphasis on planning and control to cope with complexity. These days the SEI is probably the home of that strand of software engineering thought.

<comment><USER4> Thanks Jacques, looks very interesting, indeed!

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> This is good stuff. I was wondering, does any one know about similar standards for system design and implementation?

I would be interested in seeing MIL standards or NASA best practices related to infrastructure (telecom, data, etc) design and implementation management.

</comment><comment><USER6> The problem with most template sets is that they make the user still do a ton of work. Not just understanding the details of their own project, but a ton of writing work. And, to be honest, a lot of tech people don't like to write or always write well. Also, some templates just replace one big blank page with lots of smaller blanks, which can still stump you when it comes time to write.

A few years ago I attempted to solve the problem by creating ReadySET Pro. It's a different kind of template set that is faster/more agile to use. People who have used it say that it is like taking a multiple-choice test instead of an essay exam, so no stumpers. That's because I spent a year writing high- quality project document text that you can reuse and tweak to fit your project. It's almost feels like cheating. You can get four free templates at readysetpro.com.

<comment><USER7> The tech guys don't fill that crap out, they hire lackeys to push the paper. The DoD is an elaborate scam to employ secretaries.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Thanks for posting this on HN, porker! :)

</comment><comment><USER8> I converted all the html from the zip file to markdown, if anyone cares. It's on github.

<https://github.com/bradfa/MIL-STD-498>

</comment><comment> excuse-me The JSF (joint strike fighter) C++ coding standards are also a good starting point <http://www.jsf.mil/downloads/down_documentation.htm>

They are a bit heavy handed on "thou shalt not" - but if you use them as guide - and really think if breaking a rule is worth it in a specific case - <USER2> are good conservative practice.</comment>


Financial Trading At The Speed Of Light - <AUTHOR> http://spectrum.ieee.org/computing/it/financial-trading-at-the-speed-of-light

<comment><USER2> But not at the speed of neutrinos in Europe? What's next, Ethernet cables that are longer than six inches?

<comment><USER3> Some market participants are already able to execute trades at FTL speeds.

<http://www.nanex.net/Research/fantaseconds/fantaseconds.html>

I'd like to use their hardware so that my parallel code can receive messages before they are sent.

<comment><USER4> I seriously question the quality of nanex infrastructure in general ... they may have had a clock shift (if they left NTP running)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> They mentioned a lot of colos, but you can actually lease space in the NYSE building itself. You don't get much faster than parking your server next to the one logging the transactions!

<comment><USER6> From the article:

 _One reason the high-frequency traders can beat others to the punch is that they often locate their computers in data centers run by the exchanges. The New York Stock Exchange, for example, moved its computer infrastructure last year to a facility it built in Mahwah, N.J., where it also leases space to trading firms. It can command premium prices for that space because close physical proximity means fast access to the exchange's raw trading data. Most other market participants don't see that data until milliseconds later, after it's been consolidated and combined with information from other exchanges._

<comment><USER7> This underscores the weakness of TFA. "often locate their computers" really should read "always locate their computers" in data centers run by the exchanges. Any high frequency trader that does not is, well, decidedly second tier or worse.</comment></comment></comment>


Tahoe-LAFS encrypted cloud filestorage - <AUTHOR> http://allmydata.org/trac/tahoe-lafs <comment><USER2> If you want to know anything more about this system, we are having a get together at PyCon tonight at 10pm in Room F (thanks warner!) and then presenting at the RSA Conference at the beginning of March (search the agenda for "tahoe").</comment>


How to Use Signal Without Giving Out Your Phone Number - <AUTHOR> https://theintercept.com/2017/09/28/signal-tutorial-second-phone-number/ <comment><USER2> > In this article I explain how to create a second Signal number that is safe > to publish on your Twitter bio and business cards, so strangers have an easy > way to contact you securely, while your primary phone number remains > private.

Article summary. Decent enough idea but article only very vaguely matches title. I guess technically you're no longer giving out _your_ phone number.

</comment><comment><USER3> tl;dr: you still need _a_ phone number, which you need to keep control of.</comment>