This question is for everyone (especially the Democrats).
No police or military action has taken place yet.
So, how do you think that the local Seattle police, Washington State police and national military should handle this moving forward? Do you want a complete stand down until their demands are met? Would you accept any aggressive means to disperse them? How "specifically" do you want to see this handled?
The notion of eliminating police entirely is purely nutzo and I guarantee you an overwhelming majority of Democrats agree.
"Defunding" is a "nuclear option" to reboot and retool.
Police unions are injecting themselves into politics in ways that go entirely against the needs of the very clientele that they are chartered to serve. The needs of the people ARE "the product" that these unions are responsible for.
And if a city finds it impossible to make their police union follow the stated needs of the people, then both the union and the city are failing in a democratic sense.
I think it would be possible to de-certify individual union locals through civil suit where probable cause can be shown ie: a record of civil rights violations. I am concerned by voices from the far left that are essentially demanding dissolution of police forces in general, which I'm sure you would agree would only result in chaos. I am also sure most Democrats would agree.
We need to redefine and repurpose the police. Ideally, what would I want? THE IMPOSSIBLE, because I would want Sheriff Andy Taylor.
But this is not Mayberry RFD NC in the 1950's.
But we certainly can draw from some of the better ideas re what Sheriff Andy was. He was a public servant, a guardian, as well as a crimefighter.
And let me make something clear. I don't want or expect cops to act like pansies. The rough stuff is great, when applied in its proper place. Sometimes bad guys have to get beat up.
The question is, under what circumstances.
It isn't necessary to get rid of police unions. We need to force police unions to remember what their product is.
The labor that cops perform is supposed to be aimed at helping preserve and create an atmosphere of peace and community trust. They can't do it all but they play an important role, and if they fail to play that role, it's obvious.
And it means that union has failed or is failing.
I am also against getting rid of police unions entirely. We know what LOW pay does to cops.
I use the analogy of underpaid puddle jumper airline pilots, the ones like Frontier Airlines, who pay their rookie pilots 15 bucks an hour. A cop making starvation (right to work) wages is a recipe for cops that are easier to buy off than a Mexican Federale.
If we deunionize police, we will wind up with police who DEFINITELY don't give two ****s about the community.
And we won't even be able to attract cops with 4-year degrees anyway. We would wind up with the absolute worst of the worst instead.
The problem is what police unions believe they are entitled to inject themselves into. Local politics is NOT something a police union deserves to have a say in because local politics is decided by the democratic process, not some internal union meeting headed up by unelected people who do not serve the public interest, therefore it is not in the public interest to even grant a police union the power to oppose public policy in the first place.
Police unions and public sector unions in general need to stick to things like work conditions, pay and benefits, not deciding what police are supposed to do as policy.
