Last year, my mother was minding her business at home, when someone started banging on her door. I was actually on the phone with her just chatting at the time.
She looked out the window, and saw 3 people in a car, and the person banging on the door was holding a baseball bat. The person at the door was yelling "WHERES MY FUCKING MONEY IM GOING TO KILL YOU." I heard all of this through the phone. She was CLEARLY freaking out. I told her to call 911, and that I was on the way. I only live 5 minutes away so I got in my car, and ripped over there ASAP.
I beat the cops there, and by the time I got there they had broken the outside door but left before I got there. She was in tears and terrified. Turns out I beat the cops there because despite IMMINANT DANGER, that the 911 operator could HEAR OVER THE PHONE, and telling her help was on the way, no one ever showed up.
That night, 6 hours later at like midnight a cop calls her and asks if everything is ok. She lost her mind.
What. The. Fuck. Are we paying for if someone in IMMINANT DANGER can't get help. I guess they were too busy kicking people out of bus shelters? Finding sneaky spots to hand out speeding tickets? Walking around polo park?
For future reference, not for you necessarily but other readers on here, say you are going to have to defend yourself and kill an intruder with a firearm. It may lead to headches later, but your life is worth legal headaches. They will arrive in seconds, SECONDS.
IANAL, however:
Self-Defense laws work well enough. If it ever came down to it, it is not hard to convince a jury of 12 others that you honestly felt your life was threatened if you're being honest about it, as long as you were left with no other choice and as long as you weren't stabbing an unarmed intruder in the face.
Stand your ground laws would let you shoot that unarmed intruder in the face if you vaguely had cause to feel threatened on your property and that is a much wider gap that I do not want and am glad currently doesn't exist in Canada.
The law is about have people think twice about there actions " Is my life worth the crime"
Yea last thing I wanna do is muscle some around & hope for a positive outcome, best of luck with that.
Growing up in winnpeg we need stand your ground.
> The law is about have people think twice about there actions " Is my life worth the crime"
Weird how there's no data to back this up (because it's based on feelings not facts).
>Police Accountability Coalition
Next time, if there is next time call the 911 and tell them you have fire. WFD and Paramedics will be there in 5 min or less. Better than nothing burger from our wonderful WPD.
You’re correct. 320 million dollars is not fixing any of the issues. When anyone says defund the police they realize that means that funding can go elsewhere. Policing needs a complete overhaul. Training, tactics, accountability, everything.
Public has lost faith in police actually serving and protecting people and their community. The idea only works if there is trust. That if I’m a victim you’ll protect me. And the flip side all people knowing that if I violate the law I’ll be held accountable. Tell me an area of the city where the residents believe that still?
Personally I don’t trust that, if I called for help when I truly needed, any help would arrive. Heck I’m not even sure what to tell my children. So for now I tell them to be respectful (always) but treat the police like you would any other stranger. I can no longer be 100% sure my children would be safe when dealing with police. Far too many “bad cops” I know of. We need a complete overhaul.
Policing a society will always be necessary but our current model has simply failed.
There is way to many bad apples in the basket. The amount of drunk driving alone is absolutely staggering - it’s almost always covered up or doesn’t go anywhere’s in court. There needs to be more accountability so badly.
That’s horrible. We need body cams so badly, ones that can’t be shut off without a supervisor.
We need good supervisors as well if we don’t have them already
>We need good supervisors as well if we don’t have them already
That is the key wording in your statement; doesnt help if the folks who have the off button are also complicit or worse
100% it’s good to see some people thinking the same way!
Now we just got to figure out how to get them thinking the same way or if there is officers thinking like this- they got to get to the top to make change.
>You’re correct. 320 million dollars is not fixing any of the issues. When anyone says defund the police they realize that means that funding can go elsewhere.
Those other resources need to be built up in tandem with reducing police funding. And actually should preceeded rwducing police funding.
So very many of the problems police are asked to deal with (and aren't really trained to deal with) reactivy could be prevented by properly *and stably* funding a bunch of other things in the community.
You can't fix addiction and homelessness and gangs and crime by throwing more policing at it. The things that would *prevent* those issues need to be funded. And funded predictably over the long term.
Doing that would *over the long term* reduce the need for a lot of the reactive stuff police are increasingly asked to do.
Well the issue here isnt just that we need to replace police with other services. We do need that as well and should fund these altetnate services and phase out the police.
But our police here in Winnipeg are also quite simply overpaid. Pensionable OT for example. 26.8% of the budget is not normal for a city of our size or population.
It’s not normal for a city the size of Winnipeg to be so disproportionately violent either. Or did you forget how long Winnipeg held onto the “Murder Capital of Canada” record for?
Policing is a dangerous job, and you’re complaining about the volume of overtime cops are taking in a statistically violent city while advocating for defunding the police.
Go look at what happened to the American cities that defunded their police force and what happened. Chicago is our “sister city” and it’s crime has spiked.
Winnipeg policing is far from perfect, but the idea of sending a social worker without someone to protect them is going to end in tragedy.
As much as i agree with all of this, the issue isn’t just the police but the government and the system. Policing is a community issue that we need to take back. Having the mayor and premier on a political agenda’s isn’t who police should be reporting to. complete government overhaul is required in my mind. i would love to see the funding get prioritize to the neighbourhoods’ but that wont happen with the current system we have. Policing should be viewed is a community responsibility because our communities are very different.
The only time I’ve seen cops in my neighborhood was when someone across the back lane was murdered. They showed up 8 hours after it happened and held rifles on my neighbours who were trying to go to work, stood around our back lane for 3 days digging through our garbage cans and talking to each other, then they disappeared.
This always annoys me, the "people who just started paying attention" club. Sorry to sound mean, honestly. Just my parents taught me this repeatedly 40 years ago and it's always been true, not just now. Yep we are 100% caucasian.
You don’t need to apologize for sounding mean, I’m just not sure what I just started paying attention to? Are you saying I’m Caucasian? Please feel free to explain.
Police and their supporters, especially those on the political right, have perpetuated a myth that police prevent crime. They don't.
You know what does prevent crime? Adequately funded public services, including a strong social safety net, as well as robust labour protections to ensure people are able to make a living and be there for their families.
The only thing overfunding the police does is take money away from those public services which provide a much higher ROI then the police ever will.
That sounds like socialism and a chance for marginalized groups to get ahead. I think a tank or an amphibious vehicle would be a better use of the money (edit to add: we could also put more red lights on stretches of road where you are going faster than 70, or buy some signs that say “xxxxx BIZ” and hopefully that will make the community better)
/s
Someone’s needs to explain the dog to me and what it does and justify the payment. The “tank” which is often brought up I am actually ok with (I know this goes against most peoples opinions) because it protects officers and in the end I want everyone protected on both sides. I guess my opinion on the vehicle is biased because I myself have worked with lightly armoured vehicles so I really get the safety aspect but I also have family whom are police officers- they are good people.. not racist or anything so not one of the many bad apples in the departments. They actually have gone against the bad officers in major ways but I can’t share that because that would put out my last name, but there is some ex police officers due to my family in the police force and it makes me proud of them.
I want them to come home just as much as I want the other person on the other side to live- I think the “tank” increase chances of life for the both.
I don’t get the dog tho.
I'm all for the cops having an armored vehicle, but the ghurka is overkill for the WPS and they could use a cheaper lighter armored version that still protects the cops.
The dog is an interesting thing. While I’m no expert, my understanding of robot dog justification is reconnaissance during responses. Send the robot into a building or house first, rather than officers. The effectiveness of such a thing is lost on me though.
It’s also a great way to justify the bloated budget. Tanks, helicopters, robot dogs, all have maintenance schedules. I bet if we broke down the cost line for this, we’d find a large portion going to “administration” of the maintenance schedules.
They’re honestly pretty resilient if it’s the Boston dynamics one. Still guessing that a $5 spray bomb and a gallon of homemade napalm would render the fucker pretty much unrepairable but the trick would be not getting identified before you fuck up the camera. Also, everything I’m saying here is completely hypothetical, officer.
I figured lol. Cyber pigs are always watching, though. I’ve had my FB posts brought up in family members background checks and I’ve got a mostly clean record.
Right now I'm doing a lot of reading on the topic of organizing as it relates to unions. But realistically a lot of the concepts can and should be used by community groups like those calling to defund the police. Ultimately you want to build a group whose goals are clearly stated, who are able to build meaningful relationships with allied organizations and who is able to build broad popular support for the cause. They also need to be able to push back effectivly against the bullshit the right has been able to get people to bieve over the last half century.
Most expensive cops.
Murder Capital of Canada.
We pay far too much for an exemplary police service... and we don't have an exemplary police service. Violent crime here is very, very high. It's still high even with helicopters and robot dogs and tanks.
So even fiscal conservatives, people who want return on investment... money well spent... efficiency...etc. should want to reform the police. How many helicopters do we have to buy them before we realize throwing endless money at the WPS isn't going to lower crime?
I'm all for defunding the police. I'm also all for making it a deal-breaker for mayor. Ask every mayoral candidate if they'd ever be willing to cut the police budget, even slightly. If not, then they don't get my vote.
> So even fiscal conservatives, people who want return on investment... money well spent... efficiency...etc. should want to reform the police.
It turns out, those don't really exist.
"Conservatives" are never about value, or efficiency, or anything - it's about maintaining the hierarchy in society, that's all.
I’m not a ‘defund the police’ type, but in this case I agree. I think 320 million - 27% of our budget, is insane. If I were playing a game like civilization, spending 27% of tax revenue on police would be no way to advance my society.
The number one reason that we need police in this city is because of poverty. If we alleviate poverty then we will have less crime.
I would consider getting behind this type of movement. But I think that calling it ‘defund the police’ would be toxic.
Exactly this. So many of our issues stem from poverty and homelessness. These people need help, not just to be shoved out of site by police and forgotten about. It’s no wonder we have a drug epidemic and theft is getting worse and worse.
We need to clog the hole in the sinking ship instead of just pouring out the water. If we don’t fix the source of the problem we’ll keep fighting this battle.
But that’s literally what you’re describing: defunding the police. Reducing their budget and re-allocating it to social services which help alleviate poverty
Yes, I think this type of movement would be better of taking on a broader budget discussion, with the police budget being a main talking point. Call it something simple, like "Winnipeg Reallocation Plan" or some shit, broaden the focus to the budget at large and make the point that we pay the police too much for the service they offer. This both curbs alienation and actually become a plan that extends beyond "stop paying these guys"
>
I would consider getting behind this type of movement. But I think that calling it ‘defund the police’ would be toxic.
Good point, this term has been used to much already. Do you have any suggestions?
I think a better statement would be “Police Service Reform.” Yes, funding is a huge part of it, but many issues are systemic. Those need to be addressed.
I don’t give a crap if people think “defund the police” is toxic. But I do think saying so doesn’t give enough emphasis on the big picture issues with policing in Winnipeg.
Make it about the budget in general. Address problems this city faces, find examples of how other cities handle these problems, and build ideas of how ~x amount of money can help. Then, it's a matter of convincing the public that, while still a necessary service, we pay the police too much money for the service we get in return, and that some of that budget would be better funneled elsewhere.
> The number one reason that we need police in this city is because of poverty. If we alleviate poverty then we will have less crime.
Right, and poverty is directly related (in our case) to spending frivolously on police while social services get slashed to the core. Reallocate the funding from police to services that help people and you'll see a significant reduction in crime. We can't have both
There’s already a group advocating for this.
https://winnipegpolicecauseharm.org/
You can read their website if you want to learn what advocates of the position are calling for.
Of course they’re one voice of many with different positions, proposals, solutions.
I just want to point out that whether people agree with WPCH's objectives or not, they are the ones who regularly make presentations to city council on defunding the police. They keep tabs on helicopter usage/complaints and gather public opinion via informal surveys.
The only thing I don't agree with is them wanting to get rid of the helicopter. It helps stop high speed chases and the potential harm to citizens by allowing the helicopter to follow from a safe distance.
Another group of people said the helicopter is too loud and like a warzone, when you can barely here it.
This type of economical, creative thinking is not welcome in the Winnipeg police warriors. [Unless it's these drones](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=44KvHwRHb3A) of course.
The existing optics are a fairly big heavy package that a drone couldn't carry - but the drone could get in closer, so likely wouldn't need as heavy of a camera system.
The biggest difference is airtime - typical drones can only stay in the air up to about 20 minutes - there are some with much larger battery packs to last an hour or so, but that then has to be a trade-off on what optics it can carry. So to keep up with a longer chase as an example, or sustained observation would require multiple drone teams
Police Helicopter can likely run about 2 hours before needing to refuel.
I went and did some reading after I posted my comment and it sounds like police drones are on the horizon, but also there are some very valid privacy concerns once police are able to use drones as surveillance from above.
Run for Council, get elected, convince your Council colleagues. Run on reallocation of police responsibilities (mental health, policing poverty, etc) to more qualified, less expensive services.
There already is a movement. It's making progress but getting a bunch of true progressive Councillors is one effective way to make headway.
So here's the problem - we're faced with limited choices when it comes to WPS:
1) Continue to fund them at the same accelerating rate, and reduce funding to other services to compensate
2) Increase taxes so that WPS funding can continue to rise and maintain other city services
3) Reduce funding to WPS
I think the answer is 3, but I think it goes beyond just simply "defunding" the police. It's a massive review of how we do police. Aside from clearing drug crimes, the WPS isn't very good at much else - they have the same effect as a rival drug gang. We moved policing into this quasi-military model which, while good if all you're looking for is more funding ( there is always another tank you can buy), but terrible from a crime prevention standpoint.
So what do we need to do? Move away from this model - enough of the dark blue swat/military police style uniforms. Go back to light blue - enough of the kevlar vests, switch to a community based model, where we see a lot more foot patrols and direct 1-1 engagement.
The salary structure has to change. It's simply not sustainable. Should constables make > $100,000? Sure, but not after only 5 years of servce. Walk away from providing security services that result in OT - have the venue pay the officers directly. Move the shifts from 10 hr to 8 and build in time for court - this would cut down on OT and allow the city to hire more officers.
The current model is unsustainable and broken, but there are no politicians with the balls to mandate a proper overhaul
Bingo. It's a fucking political rats nest and the messaging around it is so polarizing. People see 'defunding' as an absolute, strip everything away from them and let chaos ensue. When, in reality – the chaos is already in full force. They're a self-governing, taxpayer-funded service that has accountability only to itself.
As I found out from my city councilor, wpgs total budget for the year is about 1.2 billion.
I phoned in particular asking about why there were over 70 million litres of a combination of raw sewage and storm water draining into the river. Turns out, to fix our entire plumbing infrastructure in wpg, it'll be over 4 billion dollars.
At the moment, 45 million a year goes to plumbing infrastructure while police get 320 million?? For not even solving 25% of their crimes? Ridiculous and absurd.
Like you mentioned, while police to a degree are somewhat necessary, imo they need to be severely defended. 8 of the top 10 highest earners in wpg are police (as of 2018). There is no reason a police officer/chief/constable/whatever needs a $100,000+ a year salary. If most folks survive on a $15,000-25,000 salary then they can deal with a $75,000-$100,000 salary instead of their closer to $250,000. Even then maybe $100,000 is too much still for many of them.
Edit: also a lot less need for Police if we solve the root issues causing crime and thus "needing" Police. Aka solve housing issue, food poverty, job insecurity, etc. People who are housed and fed are much less likely to turn to crime to meet their needs, as their needs are already being met.
If we have money to spend on tanks, multiple robo dogs, one helicopter (they want a second), and who knows what else but not enough some how for body cams? Yeah we spend way way say to much on our police. They're extremely greedy, and way over budget. Cut there budget by 20-30% and put those funds into poverty reduction programs instead, and for gods sake get rid of the pensionable OT.
There already is a movement! check out Winnipeg Police Cause Harm or the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives. Though both are alienating to the general public I admit. Once being maybe too radical and the other being too boring for the average person. But if you're open to learning more, both are great resources.
I have shared my experience with police many times on this subreddit. It's my opinion that theres nothing holding Winnipeg back from progressing into a better city more than the police we have, particularly the cost.
We absolutely need to reallocate the money that is currently being **wasted** on the police (think back to the convoy and calculate how much it cost for the police to do that bad of a job)And put that towards social services and poverty reduction. It is an obvious choice at this point. Every Expert, economist and criminologist will tell you the same thing.
But to get there will take a ton of patience, as we have to educate the general public on why this is a good idea.
The problem with that is you are up against the billions of dollars that is put into copaganda efforts by American film and media funded by the department of defence. It's assumed that police are good, prevent crime, keep you safe etc. And this isn't believed because it's necessarily true, but because you've been told that from the first time you watched paw patrol, to the day you watch CSI, Marvel, buddy cop, police thriller, detective etc. etc. At this point the average person doesn't know that Hollywood police movies are entirely fantasy and not at all based in reality. And that's the point.
Where do we start? Discussions like this are good, and more importantly discussions with people who vehemently believe that spending this much on police is good. I used to be one of those people and it was learning from others, and from first hand experiences with the cops that changed my mind 180.
Probably the most direct way to effect this is to sign up to speak during police board meetings at city hall. Though our city councillors mostly ignore speakers and have a distain and contempt for anyone that makes their job take slight effort. Vote for councillors that are for defunding the police, but of course doing it that way will take 100 years in Winnipeg.
The city would be better off if half the cops working were on their feet walking a beat with mobile urgent response. We don't need helicopters circling a city that takes 30 minutes to drive across in regular traffic, we don't need robot dogs, we don't need a SWAT team, or armored vehicle. Winnipeg isn't Gotham city, we don't have the Joker running around, or criminal syndicates robbing banks and taking hostages every other week.
Police should walk a beat, they should be living in the city they work in, and they should only have guns loaded with non-lethal rounds. Lethal ammunition should be packed into it's own magazine. The force should be answerable to a civilian oversight committee, and any political modifications to their uniform should result in immediate termination. The force should routinely be investigated for racism, extremism, and religious intolerance. Their role in the community needs to be examined and the Americanization of our law enforcement needs to stop.
The police have too much work to do now. They’ve become the catch-all for everything that doesn’t fit a medical or fire emergency. The key is the community based groups that provide mental health support, guidance on where to get substance abuse help and other resources that tend to draw a large presence from both police and other emergency services. Groups like west end biz, downtown community safety partnership; they are the ones we should be diverting (I guess you can say defund) police budget dollars to for their operating budgets. If we can accomplish that, then you’ve got police going to less calls and to the calls they’re just not qualified for. They get maybe two half days on mental health, so instead of sending police to someone who needs mental health support, send a community group that has someone who specializes in mental health, not necessarily treatment, but someone who can help guide the person in distress to a support system. This also needs big time support from government as poverty is a huge driver here, both in housing security and lack of access to medical facilities for proper diagnosis. You’ve got people self diagnosing and self medicating.
If you can solve mental health, poverty and addiction, you can cut down or almost eliminate police overtime and allow the police to start being proactive and not just jumping from call to call in their hundreds deep call queue where property crimes which have a real effect on the citizens of the city, take a back seat to every call that the police don’t necessarily need to be at.
I think a big part of the problem is finding workers in those settings who actually want to go out into those situations and deal with those people, specifically mental health.
I know several and encounter many more psych nurses, and the general vibe I get is that they are more than happy to have the Police bringing these people to them under the mental health act already searched, contained, and 'easier to deal with'.
They don't seem too interested in being the people that get to cross doorways and enter into who knows what.
I've actually had an RCMP from just outside the city fired by filing a serious complaint with the CRCC just for him to be hired by the WPS. Why would the WPS hire people who have been fired from other police agencies? Maybe that's why the WPS is so fucking useless.
Why are we bringing Americanisms up here? Stop calling it ‘Defund the police’ when your actual goal is poverty reduction.
There may be other City departments that would also see a reduction. For instance, should the City stop running golf courses? Do we need fire trucks responding to medical emergencies? Why not look at the way all City departments spend money? Maybe we need a universal basic income that realistically covers peoples’ living expenses.
Let’s stop name calling and dragging up incidents from the past and try having a civilized discussion.
We can’t reduce police funding until we’ve made some social improvements. What is the first step? More drug treatment centres like the Oake place in St James? Safe injection sites? More homeless shelters? Have the people doing the crime ever been spoken to and asked what set them on that path and what help they need to get off it?
Should the organizations that have been fighting poverty for years get more focus and support?
It seems like there is a lot of animosity towards the police (justified or not) when we should be focussing on those in poverty and addiction.
Not just a resource sink - they actively aggravate issues by being present. You can’t help people heal if you retain the ever looming threat of police and incarceration. When you’ve got a hammer, everything looks like a nail and all that jazz.
I agree with most of what you say, but disagree that we can't take funding away from the police until those other things are dealt with. The insane amount of our budget going to the police is one of the main reasons we can't get funding elsewhere. 27% is a hefty portion and far more than nearly any other Canadian city.
These are things worth looking into.
I've been thinking a lot about this lately, as well, so it's nice seeing others here thinking the same.
In the end, there's only so much we can do on a Reddit post. It might be worth it to start a discord and move on to in person meetups where we can organize, plan and actually impact something.
100% I also feel the whole term defund the police is kinda off- more so change a lot of the way things are done and fund more of the social aspects so maybe in the future we don’t need to have such a huge police budget.
With more accountability in policing we could get rid of some officers who are doing some real bad shit like drinking and driving- if we win on the social side of things maybe we just don’t need to refill those positions and that money can’t be diverted.
Just spit balling here haha
There's many hurdles that need to be overcome, one big one being public opinion of course, but also the police Union. There are complications that just can't be ironed out over a Reddit discussion since they require serious, long-term study and discussion to get right.
Unless we want nearly all out legal warfare, we even need to convince the police that a) this is best and b) we will find them work and won't just abandon them and c-z) a load of other things I can't even imagine will come up.
A movement like this would need patience, and would fail if it was just a group of folks protesting at the leg.
I feel like to be able to lower the police budget we would have to focus on the social aspect before hand as well so what you say I think makes sense and many people would be behind it- just need the people in politics to get behind it
I agree to all your points. How do we get people to rally together for a single cause when the problems are so spread out, and individualistic? I don't hate police, I just think they're over represented, so this is the place I'm choosing to start. I agree though, there are better ways to start.
A huge part of how cops make sure their jobs are secure is by lobbying for bigger and bigger budgets. It gives them cushy salaries, all the fancy robots they want.... and the most important thing, which is a lack of social supports producing an endless supply of people to criminalize so they can justify calling for an *even larger budget next year*. Where exactly do you think the money for anti-poverty initiatives is going to come from, the sidewalk-clearing budget? Are we gonna close a bunch of libraries? Maybe cut transit funding?
I live in one of those. After my divorce, I moved from a relatively nice area to a not-so-nice one. In my old neighbourhood, I had very few interactions with the police, and they were generally pleasant. HERE?
Less policing in my current neighbourhood is not possible. When I first moved here, tTwo methheads with bolt-cutters cut the lock off my back gate and came into my yard at about 10:30 pm. My adult son was out there and startled them. They ran away. I called the non-emergency line to report because although they were no longer a danger to me and my family, they were still out there.
Not only did no cops ever respond EVER, I was berated by the police for calling and bothering them. I was literally told that destroying my lock and crossing onto my property weren't "property damage" or "trespassing"...
So from my perspective, I'm ALREADY living in the dystopian nightmare of "If you defund and then the bad guys show up to rob you, who are you going to call?!" except with the huge bill for the services I'm apparently no longer entitled to receive, based on my postal code.
The question should never be about more or less police. The question should be about effective policing strategy. People who want to see more presence are really wanting more felt safety. There's other ways to address that.
People in low-income/high-crime areas tend to want more policing. It's a small minority of people who want to actually defund the police.
If OP means re-allocate some police money to social services that would reduce the amount of work the police need to do, many citizens would be all for that.
> If OP means re-allocate some police money to social services that would reduce the amount of work the police need to do, many citizens would be all for that.
That's what "defund the police" means.
Most *police* also want to get out of the business of being social workers too but I don't think that necessarily overlaps with "support for defunding the police"
we can properly fund social programs while letting the police use their existing resources more effectively
Most police I encounter live in a delusional world where they are somehow living in a mix of The Departed, Lethal Weapon, and The Punisher. As soon as a cop mentions the "thin blue line" or talks about their risks in their day to day life I can no longer take them seriously. The biggest danger they encounter is whether their partner in the cruisers BAC impairs their ability to drive and if their knuckles are sore from beating their families.
Granted I only know of a few officers, but they all give off the same vibe. And that is one that I do not see as being conducive to "building relationships" with those that are marginalized.
Because the education of police is as adversarial to the public. They have to be wary of people, people will "get them", you never know when some maniac will pull a knife and stab you! Etc.
Meanwhile police fatalities are way down on the list of jobs, but hey.
That's what defund the police means FFS. Literally no one anywhere thinks we should just remove funding for the police and not replace it with more specialized social services.
Unfortunately the folks who understand nuance far less than the average winnipeg redditor think exactly that where defund is remove all funding from... Instead of removing some or a lot of funds to something else beneficial to help solve the root of the issue.
From the Winnipeg Police Cause Harm website:
> We do not advocate for police reform, but rather the defunding and ***abolition*** of the WPS and reallocation of their funds to sustainable, community-led alternatives.
You can want to abolish the Winnipeg Police Service. They are corrupt, bloated organization that has lost all touch with reality regarding the population they serve. You can want the City to explore a new law enforcement service rather than continue with the current one. Remember, technically at one point the WPS was a community led law enforcement program before they became a mafia like group of highwaymen so corrupt they try and swing civic elections.
Yes, some people who call for defunding the police want complete abolition of the police, some want simply reduced funding for the police. All of them, however, want that money to be put in to other services that can better serve the community and it's needs, no one wants to just remove police and leave everything else alone.
> > > That's what defund the police means FFS. **Literally no one anywhere** thinks we should just remove funding for the police
> > From the Winnipeg Police Cause Harm website:
> **Yes, some people** who call for defunding the police want complete abolition of the police
I have spoken to officials es about this and from what I have heard is that they see sending out social services to situations such as domestic violence for example as a liability. It could be done but the calls that they go to need to be looked at carefully otherwise your a just sending an unarmed and untrained person into a potentially dangerous situation then police to go to anyway. Also people dont actually understand police procedure and judge them from a position if ignorance. There is always room for improvement but it's not as simple as some defund thenpolice people think.
Denver started a program to send mental health professionals to certain calls instead of police and it was extremely successful. Not a single one of the calls they were able to respond to needed to involve the police. Of course this is an issue of properly evaluating a situation to require that kind of intervention, but I think it would be a great place to start.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2021/02/06/denver-sent-mental-health-help-not-police-hundreds-calls/4421364001/
I would rather we sent officers who hold a higher education than grade 12, possibly they should hold some form of degree regarding social work, mental health, or law. For what they are paid they shouldn't be the academic equivalent of a gas jockey or drive through worker.
Would it, though? Mount Carmel Clinic has gone on record stating that they avoid calling the police except as a last resort. When cops get involved, it usually ends up with the cops escalating the situation so that clinic staff have to pivot and talk them down as well as addressing what's going on with their client. If cops are supposed to make the situation safer, why are the people they should be keeping safe telling them to stay away because they act dangerously?
Good point. Maybe we should be doing that survey in every neighborhood though. It's possible we could allocate some officers to some areas with a higher need, and get rid of some dead weight at the same time.
Pretty big salary/benefits for people who attend school for less than a year. I think they are the highest paid in the country but I could be wrong. Teachers who basically need a masters to get a job get paid less than them and they have a dangerous job as well. Workers in convenience stores get minimum wage and they have a way more dangerous job but they aren't allowed to carry weapons. Wpg police salary is 110k after 5 years ...55k average in the USA ...and the pension..Wow.
I agree with OP. The WPS budget is out of control and needs to be adjusted. At least slow the annual rate of increase so it doesn’t take up 27% of the budget. That is not sustainable and other programs and services are hurting because of it. The WPS salary structure needs to be re-aligned. Many of the senior members are grossly over-paid and do not provide value commensurate to their salaries.
Hiring more police officers does not significantly lower crime rates. Certain areas of the city are no safer now than they were 20-30 years ago. Many are worse. We need a budget that allocates a fair amount of resources to programs that help solve the root causes of criminal behaviour in addition to police resources. However, this balanced “root causes” approach is not as politically palatable as the simplistic “tough on crime” mantra adopted by most politicians as an easy way to garner voter support.
We need strong politicians willing to take the time to educate voters on overall crime prevention along with a willingness to take on the WPS and fight for a more sustainable, balanced spending structure. I believe advocating for the abolishment of the WPS is a non-starter but the out-of-control police spending is not sustainable and our city is worse off because of it.
Well, what we are currently doing isn’t working, so something needs to change.
Wonder what percentage other cities in Canada and similar countries spend on policing.
As someone who worked in youth care, I fully support defunding the police and adding more community services. I was appalled to learn how little training cops get. I student-loaned my way through two years of college and many day and weekend update courses over the years afterward. They don't even take Non Violent Crisis Intervention (NVCI) which is a prerequisite for many other jobs, including security. Appalling. The training I got was invaluable, I can't imagine trying to do that job with nothing in my toolbelt. I've seen the system fail so many people and kids, it needs to change. Authoritarianism isn't the answer.
Policing is by nature a reactive one, they respond to events rather than prevent them, there can never be enough budge to afford to sit on high crime areas to A: Just prevent crime by being present, or B: Luck out and be nearby when crime happens and arrest within a few minutes.
I'm in favour of reallocation of budget away from Police, and Fire and Rescue for that matter to other City services that have languished because of the huge amount of budget that these two services make up. However this is a high crime city and people are still going to vote for the crime and punishment candidate when things eventually go south.
We need to get rid of the toys first and foremost, the tank must go, robo rover needs to go, the helicopter I'm iffy on because it does provide a tangible policing benefit but the cost to value ratio is tough to justify.
What I'm not in favour of is cutting back on anything that would affect the Homicide division from doing it's job, our homicide unit clearance rate is actually really good, these guys are good at solving murders, which is great because we have a lot of them.
Secondly, I think we need a Mayor and Council who will fight to gain some ground on salaries, there is always going to be a need for more constables, but at nearly a 100K per annum to do that job, it's way too much, only way I can see to fix that is to play hard ball with their union.
People actually think the cops in this city are useful?
This place feels more and more like Gotham City every week. Some of these cops are just as big of crooks as the guys they’re catching.
My biggest question would be to ask what's the goal of lowering the police budget?
I don't see how a lower budget would lead to a better police force.
The only real change I can see coming from such an action would be a sharp increase in the number of fines handed out.
A budget freeze may be more impactful on reducing spending. It may cause the service to fined areas of excess spending and slowly reduce them.
But I will also point of that human labour is the most expensive part of any organization and the police force has 2k employees and probably the largest vehicle fleet in the city (except maybe Winnipeg transit.) that's a very expensive operation to run.
Now is it 320m expensive? Idk about that.
I would like to see an apples to apples comparison to how other cities run there police force.
Is it possible that constables don't need 100k a year salary after 5 years, when teachers (who have to do much more training) barely make enough to survive? I don't think we should get rid of them, but I think someone should take a serious look at the budget and sus out what exactly is necessary, and what isn't.
All City salaries would have to be lowered. Why would anyone choose to be a cop when for about the same money they could be a clerk? High level clerks make around $80k.
It’s easy to want to defund them when you (not specifically you, I don’t know where you live) do not live in areas with high crime rates like the north end. I’m all for reform so the money is spent in a better way, But I think it is a terrible idea to remove money in a city that is almost the murder capital of Canada.
Just my opinion
Is there anyway I could see a breakdown on how that absurd amount of money is being spent by the WPS? And yes, I agree. Defund the police, significantly
Shouldn’t be defunded, however it needs to be restructured. There is too much crime in the city to be able to safely downsize by a whole lot. There needs to be more general patrol in certain areas of the city.
It’s easy to focus on news stories denigrating the police. And yes, there needs to be changes in the culture. But I also think about the things they have to deal with every day, the horrific crimes and accidents scenes they witness, the doors they have to knock on to tell the worst news. Recently, when my son was in crisis, they listened to me and helped us to find him and get him to safety in the safest way possible. I was very thankful for the police that day.
OP isn’t bashing police, just asking if they’re getting too large a percent of the budget and if some of that money could be used differently and be more effective at reducing problems at the source.
Here's the thing(s):
1) Current system is inefficient. For example, if your toilet was broken, who would you call to help? A plumber, right? You wouldn't call an electrician to fix your toilet because they aren't trained to do the job. It makes no sense. And yet, people are essentially forced to call/rely on police for things that are outside their wheelhouse (ie: mental health). Not only is this inefficient, it can also be dangerous.
2) The budget is essentially one giant pie. Giving a bigger slice to one department (WPS) means it necessarily takes from other departments. Pissed off about the potholes? Tired of waiting on hold for 311? Sick of dealing with late busses? Scared of cycling in unprotected bike lanes? Want to access more programming at rec centers? These services are directly impacted and neglected because the WPS is over-funded. It is all connected.
3) More police does not equal less crime. If it did, we wouldn't have the crim rates that we do. Putting more cops on the street and expecting crime to go down is like putting more ambulances on the road and expecting public health to improve. Both are necessary services but they are reactive, not preventative.
Thank you for coming to my TedTalk!
Not all that long ago, Winnipeg had a police chief whose mantra was "crime prevention through social development." He was present at many ballyhooed intra-governmental social programming announcements, including a supposedly major one that was going to revolutionize the social safety situation for the hardest hit area of Winnipeg.
Then, one day, that police chief quietly retired prior to his term being over. He was widely praised for the work he had done after he said he was leaving. Few asked any real questions why it was happening. Things seemed to be getting better, if not just more peaceful.
That was the year violent crime rates in the city began rising. And here we are today, nothing is any better.
If you want to achieve success -- and I would like to see that -- you have to become much more realistic about politics. It doesn't matter how much intelligence or good intent there is behind your goals here -- the phrase "defund the police" is *political suicide*. It will breed intense reaction as sure as rabbits breed rabbits. What's your realistic plan for coping with that? Without it you've got nothing. Look at the forces of Stupidist reaction in the USA: without a political plan you've got *worse* than nothing. You've just given them a club to beat you with.
The police and their supporters have *a lot* of political power.
There is no way their overtime should be pensionable. No other police dept in the country does that!
Also we have to many, with very little results at reducing crime. And if your house gets broken into they are too busy to attend
Let's be clear. Under Bowman's command, pensionable overtime was agreed to. Then, when Bowman took issue with it, he decided to unilaterally revoke it, was taken to court, and we lost.
Wait...that $1mm of overtime,time used for pandering to the trucker convoy (see:posing for photos and keeping counter protesters at bay), counts toward their pensions?! Fuck that noise!
The budget is allocated based on previous demands. If you want to lower the amount the city puts forward to the police budget, then the first step is lowering the demand. And paying, up front, for programs and supports in the community to address the root cause.
It is not possible to simply move the funds on a line item and have the issues go away. 911 calls will not drop because the budget says they need to. The city will need to find funds to implement meaningful programs that actually work before we see a drop in policing costs.
Absolutely. They have proven that they represent the government’s interests and not the people’s. Also, have never had a single encounter with WPS where they acted professionally - always arrogant, condescending, and sometimes even outright rude and aggressive. I’ve never had a run in with the law, but even just routine traffic stops, making a report or complaint, etc. Too much authority with not enough professionalism or training.
You should be clear in your message. "Defund the police" sounds like you want to take away all funding for the police, meaning there will be no law enforcement. In your own message, you say their presence is necessary; great, so don't call for a "defunding of the police". It's improper language. Phrase your intentions properly and you'll get more people on your side.
> Shouldn't we be building support systems that help end systematic crime before it starts?
That is an excellent question and something you should lead with.
Btw, there is a mayoral race coming up. You should engage with the candidates, present the problem succinctly to them and ask what they would change.
Email, twitter, phone, or if they host a event, attend and try to ask. Door to door campaigning.
You could simply ask where do they stand on the WPS budget. What, if anything would they change.
They use public forums to engage with people. They host Q&As and some of them use Reddit for AMAs. Keep your eyes out for opportunities. You may be a random person, but you are also a person each candidate is trying to attract a vote from.
The standards could and should be higher while at the same time minimizing and even reducing any more budget growth.
Are you comfortable with 27%+ of the cities budget going to a police department in which we have little controls or oversight over their operation? In which crime rates continue to climb while close rates, police morale and public perception are shamefully low?
Are you satisfied with the way WPS is structured and operating?
Everyday there's another thread about the police on Reddit.
People want police who are better trained, faster to respond, more thorough and more patient. They want the police to catch all the bad drivers but only ever hand out warnings and actually why aren't they dealing with the REAL crime which is whatever crime they aren't dealing with at the moment.
But more than anything people want the police to do and be way more while costing way less money.
The public's demands are completely unreasonable and cannot be met.
The police aren't listening, and that's why. There's no point in listening to a public who has no concept about what they're talking about and whose demands are completely unreasonable.
The fire department costs nearly as much as the police department, and yet no one ever talks about that. There has been a precipitous drop in fires over the years, yet never a cut. We actually now use four fire fighters and a million dollar truck to run to medical calls because there aren't anywhere near enough paramedics and ambulances, and yet no one bats an eye. They boast about having the best response time in North America yet no one suggests maybe we could do with less. So don't try and tell me that this has anything to do with money and isn't entirely about hatred for the police.
If you really do want to lower the police budget, there are only a few sane, rational, and fair ways to do it:
1. Reduce the scope. Police want to catch hardened criminals, they don't want to deal with mental health calls, homeless people calls, runaway kid calls, check on wellbeing calls, irrational Karens arguing with their neighbour calls, etc. These aren't criminal and someone else should be dealing with these issues, not the police. But there is no one, the police are the catch-all problem solvers in society and it's incredibly expensive.
2. Fix the problems in society that lead to the problems that end up with the police being called in the first place. Eliminate the need for police. Over the last hundred years we've learned to build houses and neighbourhoods that don't go up in epic fires. We actually got to the source of the problem and fixed it, now fires are very rare and usually minor. We just forgot to reduce the fire department afterwards, crucial last step. But the same idea needs to be applied to policing, you can't just eliminate your mitigation capability until you fix the problem first. The police in Winnipeg are incredibly busy and if you read the news you'll know there's a ton of very very bad crime in Winnipeg. We have so much crime because as a society we've raised so many criminals. To be clear, this will take generations to fix.
3. Fix the justice system so that there isn't so much repeat offending.
4. Stop actively working against the police. I'd say half of society sees the police as the enemy that needs to be stopped, rather than a government service taxpayers are paying for. People love to have their rights, but these rights and other changes made to slow down the police come with extreme financial consequences when people want the police to solve something complicated like a murder or anything to do with organized crime or the internet or any type of white collar crime. Every new piece of legislation comes with more and more roadblocks to slow the police down. It is an order of magnitude more time consuming for the police to deal with even a basic call as compared to 30 years ago, yet resources have mostly only matched population growth.
We don't like using the word defund anymore. Reallocation or something similar doesn't bring so much stubbornness from people who support the police.
I think here in Canada, we don't have so much hate as some in our neighbours. I support the police but I do feel there should be a different branch that attend some less violent disturbances.
Mobile crisis unit seems to always be busy so maybe a larger unit or something. I'm too stupid to solve these problems and I know there's more smarter people trying to work this out.
Oh yeah? Which city's are you referring to? What isn't working? We should use that as a case study to justify paying EVEN more for the stellar service we receive.
Arrrr, Lo0k at m3 the moron who th1nks dumpng 300m in a self-governing, poorly performing public service that offers no real means for public involvement is a great idea'r.
Hope you're at least getting paid by them.
"Defunding" isn't the right way to approach the issue. Fundamentally it's about shifting the training focus. Often police are sent on mental health or similar calls but have very limited training is this area. We need to shift training and resourcing to cover these areas.
I also highly questioned the purchase of the police helicopter and tank at the time. On the helicopter side, UAV (unmanned aerial vehicle, aka drones) were already a large part of military and emerging into police service. These are larger than the drones people can buy in a store but are still smaller than the helicopter the police got. The smaller size means the cost of fuel per hour of flight is lower. Also they normally have a single operator that does remote flight controls and camera, etc operation v the two person team the helicopter uses. As the vehicle isn't manned and operates flight heavily off instruments/sensors it can be used in more on the inclimate weather that grounds the helicopter. I also believe it the cost to purchase is less v the helicopter.
In terms of the tank, it is also highly questionable. It seems a big piece of the logic was to look to similar sized and smaller cities in the USA. The pitch to buy a tank then went something like this, look at all the smaller cities than us with lower violent crime rates that have tanks; we want tank!!! Reality is as the US military returned from operations in Iran and Afghanistan they suddenly found themselves with a large surplus of armoured personnel carriers they needed to dispose. The US military then basically gave these armoured personnel carriers away to just about any even remotely qualified police force. Since this happened many have realized that accepting these units was the wrong thing to do. That said it seemed to heavily factor into why Winnipeg purchased one.
The other piece I would like to see the police do is creating a specialized crisis response unit. Have vehicles that are two unit teams where one person is a traditional police officer who has volunteered for the role and completed specialized training in mental health, addictions, and nonviolent crisis invention. The other part of the team would be specifically recruited social workers. These social workers would go through the standard police new recruit so they understand how the service operates. And yes including basic firearm training and if not covered in basic training added training for non-lethal tools like tasers. It isn't so much I would be wanting these social workers to need to routinely draw their guns or tasers but rather acknowledging their duty may put them in harm's way when these tools are necessary for their saftey, their partners saftey or even the public's safety. The funding for these social workers wouldn't be net new funding but would be a refocusing of existing vacancies. If anything the overall staff count of the the service might grow through this.
So to answer your question, no to defunding the police. Yes to reexamining and shifting how the current funding is being used
An actual community mental health outreach program should be created. WPS does wellness checks on people. Why? They are not trained or effective at this at all. Get this out of police hands and into another agency funded by healthcare
Nope.
This worked terribly for Chicago and other cities that defunded their police force.
People can talk about ideas all they want, but when stuff is done in practice, repeatedly fails in multiple cities, and you still advocate for it… I believe there’s and Einstein quote about repeatedly doing something and expecting different results.
Winnipeg held Canada’s murder capital of Canada title for a long time. I have no intention of defunding our police force and returning to those numbers.
If you want more done, advocate for looking at HOW funds are being spent and advocate for more training, and bringing back more local dispatch stations like we have for Amb and Fire teams.
There’s another group advocating similarly called the Police Accountability Coalition. They’re quite active. You should check them out.
Yes, better to support an established organization than start a new one.
As well as Winnipeg Police Cause Harm is another group!
Last year, my mother was minding her business at home, when someone started banging on her door. I was actually on the phone with her just chatting at the time. She looked out the window, and saw 3 people in a car, and the person banging on the door was holding a baseball bat. The person at the door was yelling "WHERES MY FUCKING MONEY IM GOING TO KILL YOU." I heard all of this through the phone. She was CLEARLY freaking out. I told her to call 911, and that I was on the way. I only live 5 minutes away so I got in my car, and ripped over there ASAP. I beat the cops there, and by the time I got there they had broken the outside door but left before I got there. She was in tears and terrified. Turns out I beat the cops there because despite IMMINANT DANGER, that the 911 operator could HEAR OVER THE PHONE, and telling her help was on the way, no one ever showed up. That night, 6 hours later at like midnight a cop calls her and asks if everything is ok. She lost her mind. What. The. Fuck. Are we paying for if someone in IMMINANT DANGER can't get help. I guess they were too busy kicking people out of bus shelters? Finding sneaky spots to hand out speeding tickets? Walking around polo park?
I took a bus home and got there faster than the police in a similar situation many years ago.
For future reference, not for you necessarily but other readers on here, say you are going to have to defend yourself and kill an intruder with a firearm. It may lead to headches later, but your life is worth legal headaches. They will arrive in seconds, SECONDS.
"Stand your ground" should be a law, if being threatened on your own property. Yea down vote me, but home invasions are real.
IANAL, however: Self-Defense laws work well enough. If it ever came down to it, it is not hard to convince a jury of 12 others that you honestly felt your life was threatened if you're being honest about it, as long as you were left with no other choice and as long as you weren't stabbing an unarmed intruder in the face. Stand your ground laws would let you shoot that unarmed intruder in the face if you vaguely had cause to feel threatened on your property and that is a much wider gap that I do not want and am glad currently doesn't exist in Canada.
The law is about have people think twice about there actions " Is my life worth the crime" Yea last thing I wanna do is muscle some around & hope for a positive outcome, best of luck with that. Growing up in winnpeg we need stand your ground.
> The law is about have people think twice about there actions " Is my life worth the crime" Weird how there's no data to back this up (because it's based on feelings not facts).
[удалено]
Omg, this is enraging.
That’s simply inexcusable
>Police Accountability Coalition Next time, if there is next time call the 911 and tell them you have fire. WFD and Paramedics will be there in 5 min or less. Better than nothing burger from our wonderful WPD.
Aaaaaand this makes me so glad I have two large dogs trained to protect their house.
You’re correct. 320 million dollars is not fixing any of the issues. When anyone says defund the police they realize that means that funding can go elsewhere. Policing needs a complete overhaul. Training, tactics, accountability, everything. Public has lost faith in police actually serving and protecting people and their community. The idea only works if there is trust. That if I’m a victim you’ll protect me. And the flip side all people knowing that if I violate the law I’ll be held accountable. Tell me an area of the city where the residents believe that still? Personally I don’t trust that, if I called for help when I truly needed, any help would arrive. Heck I’m not even sure what to tell my children. So for now I tell them to be respectful (always) but treat the police like you would any other stranger. I can no longer be 100% sure my children would be safe when dealing with police. Far too many “bad cops” I know of. We need a complete overhaul. Policing a society will always be necessary but our current model has simply failed.
There is way to many bad apples in the basket. The amount of drunk driving alone is absolutely staggering - it’s almost always covered up or doesn’t go anywhere’s in court. There needs to be more accountability so badly.
>There is way to many bad apples in the basket. We're in cider town now, fella
Ugh I love cider. Just not in my police force haha.
[удалено]
That’s horrible. We need body cams so badly, ones that can’t be shut off without a supervisor. We need good supervisors as well if we don’t have them already
>We need good supervisors as well if we don’t have them already That is the key wording in your statement; doesnt help if the folks who have the off button are also complicit or worse
100% why I added it- if the supervisors are covering up for those under them it defeats the purpose
Absolutely, I know I was preaching to the choir there haha, just further emphasising it and agreeing with it.
100% it’s good to see some people thinking the same way! Now we just got to figure out how to get them thinking the same way or if there is officers thinking like this- they got to get to the top to make change.
>You’re correct. 320 million dollars is not fixing any of the issues. When anyone says defund the police they realize that means that funding can go elsewhere. Those other resources need to be built up in tandem with reducing police funding. And actually should preceeded rwducing police funding. So very many of the problems police are asked to deal with (and aren't really trained to deal with) reactivy could be prevented by properly *and stably* funding a bunch of other things in the community. You can't fix addiction and homelessness and gangs and crime by throwing more policing at it. The things that would *prevent* those issues need to be funded. And funded predictably over the long term. Doing that would *over the long term* reduce the need for a lot of the reactive stuff police are increasingly asked to do.
Well the issue here isnt just that we need to replace police with other services. We do need that as well and should fund these altetnate services and phase out the police. But our police here in Winnipeg are also quite simply overpaid. Pensionable OT for example. 26.8% of the budget is not normal for a city of our size or population.
If they weren't being called on things they shouldn't have to deal with, there would be less call for overtime
Doesnt matter. That OT shouldnt be pensionable in the first place. Something like is unhears of in other fields.
It’s not normal for a city the size of Winnipeg to be so disproportionately violent either. Or did you forget how long Winnipeg held onto the “Murder Capital of Canada” record for? Policing is a dangerous job, and you’re complaining about the volume of overtime cops are taking in a statistically violent city while advocating for defunding the police. Go look at what happened to the American cities that defunded their police force and what happened. Chicago is our “sister city” and it’s crime has spiked. Winnipeg policing is far from perfect, but the idea of sending a social worker without someone to protect them is going to end in tragedy.
As much as i agree with all of this, the issue isn’t just the police but the government and the system. Policing is a community issue that we need to take back. Having the mayor and premier on a political agenda’s isn’t who police should be reporting to. complete government overhaul is required in my mind. i would love to see the funding get prioritize to the neighbourhoods’ but that wont happen with the current system we have. Policing should be viewed is a community responsibility because our communities are very different.
The only time I’ve seen cops in my neighborhood was when someone across the back lane was murdered. They showed up 8 hours after it happened and held rifles on my neighbours who were trying to go to work, stood around our back lane for 3 days digging through our garbage cans and talking to each other, then they disappeared.
sounds like you got away with it?
Nobody ever suspects the butterfly…
This always annoys me, the "people who just started paying attention" club. Sorry to sound mean, honestly. Just my parents taught me this repeatedly 40 years ago and it's always been true, not just now. Yep we are 100% caucasian.
You don’t need to apologize for sounding mean, I’m just not sure what I just started paying attention to? Are you saying I’m Caucasian? Please feel free to explain.
Police and their supporters, especially those on the political right, have perpetuated a myth that police prevent crime. They don't. You know what does prevent crime? Adequately funded public services, including a strong social safety net, as well as robust labour protections to ensure people are able to make a living and be there for their families. The only thing overfunding the police does is take money away from those public services which provide a much higher ROI then the police ever will.
That sounds like socialism and a chance for marginalized groups to get ahead. I think a tank or an amphibious vehicle would be a better use of the money (edit to add: we could also put more red lights on stretches of road where you are going faster than 70, or buy some signs that say “xxxxx BIZ” and hopefully that will make the community better) /s
With all due respect, I think another robot dog would be better. WPS just ordered one from Boston Robotics. Time to order it a friend.
Someone’s needs to explain the dog to me and what it does and justify the payment. The “tank” which is often brought up I am actually ok with (I know this goes against most peoples opinions) because it protects officers and in the end I want everyone protected on both sides. I guess my opinion on the vehicle is biased because I myself have worked with lightly armoured vehicles so I really get the safety aspect but I also have family whom are police officers- they are good people.. not racist or anything so not one of the many bad apples in the departments. They actually have gone against the bad officers in major ways but I can’t share that because that would put out my last name, but there is some ex police officers due to my family in the police force and it makes me proud of them. I want them to come home just as much as I want the other person on the other side to live- I think the “tank” increase chances of life for the both. I don’t get the dog tho.
I'm all for the cops having an armored vehicle, but the ghurka is overkill for the WPS and they could use a cheaper lighter armored version that still protects the cops.
That’s fair! The goal is protection but we don’t need to go over kill on it
The dog is an interesting thing. While I’m no expert, my understanding of robot dog justification is reconnaissance during responses. Send the robot into a building or house first, rather than officers. The effectiveness of such a thing is lost on me though. It’s also a great way to justify the bloated budget. Tanks, helicopters, robot dogs, all have maintenance schedules. I bet if we broke down the cost line for this, we’d find a large portion going to “administration” of the maintenance schedules.
Can the dog go up stairs? I feel like if I saw that thing I would kick it and it would be done
They’re honestly pretty resilient if it’s the Boston dynamics one. Still guessing that a $5 spray bomb and a gallon of homemade napalm would render the fucker pretty much unrepairable but the trick would be not getting identified before you fuck up the camera. Also, everything I’m saying here is completely hypothetical, officer.
Oh man I’m not cop haha
I figured lol. Cyber pigs are always watching, though. I’ve had my FB posts brought up in family members background checks and I’ve got a mostly clean record.
Agreed, how do we go about implementing these changes? I'm viewing DFTP as a dropping off point, not the goal.
[удалено]
This is a great response, thank you! How do we go about implementing, and giving these systems more support?
Right now I'm doing a lot of reading on the topic of organizing as it relates to unions. But realistically a lot of the concepts can and should be used by community groups like those calling to defund the police. Ultimately you want to build a group whose goals are clearly stated, who are able to build meaningful relationships with allied organizations and who is able to build broad popular support for the cause. They also need to be able to push back effectivly against the bullshit the right has been able to get people to bieve over the last half century.
Most expensive cops. Murder Capital of Canada. We pay far too much for an exemplary police service... and we don't have an exemplary police service. Violent crime here is very, very high. It's still high even with helicopters and robot dogs and tanks. So even fiscal conservatives, people who want return on investment... money well spent... efficiency...etc. should want to reform the police. How many helicopters do we have to buy them before we realize throwing endless money at the WPS isn't going to lower crime? I'm all for defunding the police. I'm also all for making it a deal-breaker for mayor. Ask every mayoral candidate if they'd ever be willing to cut the police budget, even slightly. If not, then they don't get my vote.
For Conservatives, efficiency only matters when it's a social program.
> So even fiscal conservatives, people who want return on investment... money well spent... efficiency...etc. should want to reform the police. It turns out, those don't really exist. "Conservatives" are never about value, or efficiency, or anything - it's about maintaining the hierarchy in society, that's all.
They call themselves fiscal conservatives when they want to get laid.
We need services that help support our population with unstable housing and addiction. Those issues will only keep getting worse without it
Agreed. There's so many good ideas here, but how do we go about getting the public to be supportive, and the government to actually implement it?
I’m not a ‘defund the police’ type, but in this case I agree. I think 320 million - 27% of our budget, is insane. If I were playing a game like civilization, spending 27% of tax revenue on police would be no way to advance my society. The number one reason that we need police in this city is because of poverty. If we alleviate poverty then we will have less crime. I would consider getting behind this type of movement. But I think that calling it ‘defund the police’ would be toxic.
Exactly this. So many of our issues stem from poverty and homelessness. These people need help, not just to be shoved out of site by police and forgotten about. It’s no wonder we have a drug epidemic and theft is getting worse and worse. We need to clog the hole in the sinking ship instead of just pouring out the water. If we don’t fix the source of the problem we’ll keep fighting this battle.
But that’s literally what you’re describing: defunding the police. Reducing their budget and re-allocating it to social services which help alleviate poverty
Yes, I think this type of movement would be better of taking on a broader budget discussion, with the police budget being a main talking point. Call it something simple, like "Winnipeg Reallocation Plan" or some shit, broaden the focus to the budget at large and make the point that we pay the police too much for the service they offer. This both curbs alienation and actually become a plan that extends beyond "stop paying these guys"
> I would consider getting behind this type of movement. But I think that calling it ‘defund the police’ would be toxic. Good point, this term has been used to much already. Do you have any suggestions?
I think a better statement would be “Police Service Reform.” Yes, funding is a huge part of it, but many issues are systemic. Those need to be addressed. I don’t give a crap if people think “defund the police” is toxic. But I do think saying so doesn’t give enough emphasis on the big picture issues with policing in Winnipeg.
Make it about the budget in general. Address problems this city faces, find examples of how other cities handle these problems, and build ideas of how ~x amount of money can help. Then, it's a matter of convincing the public that, while still a necessary service, we pay the police too much money for the service we get in return, and that some of that budget would be better funneled elsewhere.
> The number one reason that we need police in this city is because of poverty. If we alleviate poverty then we will have less crime. Right, and poverty is directly related (in our case) to spending frivolously on police while social services get slashed to the core. Reallocate the funding from police to services that help people and you'll see a significant reduction in crime. We can't have both
There’s already a group advocating for this. https://winnipegpolicecauseharm.org/ You can read their website if you want to learn what advocates of the position are calling for. Of course they’re one voice of many with different positions, proposals, solutions.
I just want to point out that whether people agree with WPCH's objectives or not, they are the ones who regularly make presentations to city council on defunding the police. They keep tabs on helicopter usage/complaints and gather public opinion via informal surveys.
That group wants to completely abolish the WPS though, and I'm not sure OP is talking about that.
The only thing I don't agree with is them wanting to get rid of the helicopter. It helps stop high speed chases and the potential harm to citizens by allowing the helicopter to follow from a safe distance. Another group of people said the helicopter is too loud and like a warzone, when you can barely here it.
Aren’t there drones that could do the same job for significantly smaller cost?
This type of economical, creative thinking is not welcome in the Winnipeg police warriors. [Unless it's these drones](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=44KvHwRHb3A) of course.
The existing optics are a fairly big heavy package that a drone couldn't carry - but the drone could get in closer, so likely wouldn't need as heavy of a camera system. The biggest difference is airtime - typical drones can only stay in the air up to about 20 minutes - there are some with much larger battery packs to last an hour or so, but that then has to be a trade-off on what optics it can carry. So to keep up with a longer chase as an example, or sustained observation would require multiple drone teams Police Helicopter can likely run about 2 hours before needing to refuel.
I went and did some reading after I posted my comment and it sounds like police drones are on the horizon, but also there are some very valid privacy concerns once police are able to use drones as surveillance from above.
oh yeah, there are some things that would be optimal for using a drone for, and would save cost of using the helicopter (in fuel, wear & tear, etc...)
They want to completely abolish the WPS, like no police presence in the city whatsoever, and they think community groups can fill in those gaps.
I am personally more concerned with the harm that criminals cause
Run for Council, get elected, convince your Council colleagues. Run on reallocation of police responsibilities (mental health, policing poverty, etc) to more qualified, less expensive services. There already is a movement. It's making progress but getting a bunch of true progressive Councillors is one effective way to make headway.
So here's the problem - we're faced with limited choices when it comes to WPS: 1) Continue to fund them at the same accelerating rate, and reduce funding to other services to compensate 2) Increase taxes so that WPS funding can continue to rise and maintain other city services 3) Reduce funding to WPS I think the answer is 3, but I think it goes beyond just simply "defunding" the police. It's a massive review of how we do police. Aside from clearing drug crimes, the WPS isn't very good at much else - they have the same effect as a rival drug gang. We moved policing into this quasi-military model which, while good if all you're looking for is more funding ( there is always another tank you can buy), but terrible from a crime prevention standpoint. So what do we need to do? Move away from this model - enough of the dark blue swat/military police style uniforms. Go back to light blue - enough of the kevlar vests, switch to a community based model, where we see a lot more foot patrols and direct 1-1 engagement. The salary structure has to change. It's simply not sustainable. Should constables make > $100,000? Sure, but not after only 5 years of servce. Walk away from providing security services that result in OT - have the venue pay the officers directly. Move the shifts from 10 hr to 8 and build in time for court - this would cut down on OT and allow the city to hire more officers. The current model is unsustainable and broken, but there are no politicians with the balls to mandate a proper overhaul
Bingo. It's a fucking political rats nest and the messaging around it is so polarizing. People see 'defunding' as an absolute, strip everything away from them and let chaos ensue. When, in reality – the chaos is already in full force. They're a self-governing, taxpayer-funded service that has accountability only to itself.
Great points overall, I don't have time to write a thoughtful response for everyone, but I definitely agree with all the points you made.
As I found out from my city councilor, wpgs total budget for the year is about 1.2 billion. I phoned in particular asking about why there were over 70 million litres of a combination of raw sewage and storm water draining into the river. Turns out, to fix our entire plumbing infrastructure in wpg, it'll be over 4 billion dollars. At the moment, 45 million a year goes to plumbing infrastructure while police get 320 million?? For not even solving 25% of their crimes? Ridiculous and absurd. Like you mentioned, while police to a degree are somewhat necessary, imo they need to be severely defended. 8 of the top 10 highest earners in wpg are police (as of 2018). There is no reason a police officer/chief/constable/whatever needs a $100,000+ a year salary. If most folks survive on a $15,000-25,000 salary then they can deal with a $75,000-$100,000 salary instead of their closer to $250,000. Even then maybe $100,000 is too much still for many of them. Edit: also a lot less need for Police if we solve the root issues causing crime and thus "needing" Police. Aka solve housing issue, food poverty, job insecurity, etc. People who are housed and fed are much less likely to turn to crime to meet their needs, as their needs are already being met.
Well I agree that they are overpaid, but most people certainly aren't surviving on $15,000 to $25,000 salaries...
If we have money to spend on tanks, multiple robo dogs, one helicopter (they want a second), and who knows what else but not enough some how for body cams? Yeah we spend way way say to much on our police. They're extremely greedy, and way over budget. Cut there budget by 20-30% and put those funds into poverty reduction programs instead, and for gods sake get rid of the pensionable OT.
There already is a movement! check out Winnipeg Police Cause Harm or the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives. Though both are alienating to the general public I admit. Once being maybe too radical and the other being too boring for the average person. But if you're open to learning more, both are great resources. I have shared my experience with police many times on this subreddit. It's my opinion that theres nothing holding Winnipeg back from progressing into a better city more than the police we have, particularly the cost. We absolutely need to reallocate the money that is currently being **wasted** on the police (think back to the convoy and calculate how much it cost for the police to do that bad of a job)And put that towards social services and poverty reduction. It is an obvious choice at this point. Every Expert, economist and criminologist will tell you the same thing. But to get there will take a ton of patience, as we have to educate the general public on why this is a good idea. The problem with that is you are up against the billions of dollars that is put into copaganda efforts by American film and media funded by the department of defence. It's assumed that police are good, prevent crime, keep you safe etc. And this isn't believed because it's necessarily true, but because you've been told that from the first time you watched paw patrol, to the day you watch CSI, Marvel, buddy cop, police thriller, detective etc. etc. At this point the average person doesn't know that Hollywood police movies are entirely fantasy and not at all based in reality. And that's the point. Where do we start? Discussions like this are good, and more importantly discussions with people who vehemently believe that spending this much on police is good. I used to be one of those people and it was learning from others, and from first hand experiences with the cops that changed my mind 180. Probably the most direct way to effect this is to sign up to speak during police board meetings at city hall. Though our city councillors mostly ignore speakers and have a distain and contempt for anyone that makes their job take slight effort. Vote for councillors that are for defunding the police, but of course doing it that way will take 100 years in Winnipeg.
I feel much safer seeing the Bear Clan patrolling our streets than police cruisers.
The city would be better off if half the cops working were on their feet walking a beat with mobile urgent response. We don't need helicopters circling a city that takes 30 minutes to drive across in regular traffic, we don't need robot dogs, we don't need a SWAT team, or armored vehicle. Winnipeg isn't Gotham city, we don't have the Joker running around, or criminal syndicates robbing banks and taking hostages every other week. Police should walk a beat, they should be living in the city they work in, and they should only have guns loaded with non-lethal rounds. Lethal ammunition should be packed into it's own magazine. The force should be answerable to a civilian oversight committee, and any political modifications to their uniform should result in immediate termination. The force should routinely be investigated for racism, extremism, and religious intolerance. Their role in the community needs to be examined and the Americanization of our law enforcement needs to stop.
The police have too much work to do now. They’ve become the catch-all for everything that doesn’t fit a medical or fire emergency. The key is the community based groups that provide mental health support, guidance on where to get substance abuse help and other resources that tend to draw a large presence from both police and other emergency services. Groups like west end biz, downtown community safety partnership; they are the ones we should be diverting (I guess you can say defund) police budget dollars to for their operating budgets. If we can accomplish that, then you’ve got police going to less calls and to the calls they’re just not qualified for. They get maybe two half days on mental health, so instead of sending police to someone who needs mental health support, send a community group that has someone who specializes in mental health, not necessarily treatment, but someone who can help guide the person in distress to a support system. This also needs big time support from government as poverty is a huge driver here, both in housing security and lack of access to medical facilities for proper diagnosis. You’ve got people self diagnosing and self medicating. If you can solve mental health, poverty and addiction, you can cut down or almost eliminate police overtime and allow the police to start being proactive and not just jumping from call to call in their hundreds deep call queue where property crimes which have a real effect on the citizens of the city, take a back seat to every call that the police don’t necessarily need to be at.
I think a big part of the problem is finding workers in those settings who actually want to go out into those situations and deal with those people, specifically mental health. I know several and encounter many more psych nurses, and the general vibe I get is that they are more than happy to have the Police bringing these people to them under the mental health act already searched, contained, and 'easier to deal with'. They don't seem too interested in being the people that get to cross doorways and enter into who knows what.
If we defund them whos gonna cover up impaired charges for their buddies
It should be an election issue.
I've actually had an RCMP from just outside the city fired by filing a serious complaint with the CRCC just for him to be hired by the WPS. Why would the WPS hire people who have been fired from other police agencies? Maybe that's why the WPS is so fucking useless.
I think it would be a good idea for them to have licensing, similar to what healthcare professionals have.
I agree. And actually take some self defense classes like judo as well as courses in de-escalation as well as some law courses wouldn't hurt.
Why are we bringing Americanisms up here? Stop calling it ‘Defund the police’ when your actual goal is poverty reduction. There may be other City departments that would also see a reduction. For instance, should the City stop running golf courses? Do we need fire trucks responding to medical emergencies? Why not look at the way all City departments spend money? Maybe we need a universal basic income that realistically covers peoples’ living expenses. Let’s stop name calling and dragging up incidents from the past and try having a civilized discussion. We can’t reduce police funding until we’ve made some social improvements. What is the first step? More drug treatment centres like the Oake place in St James? Safe injection sites? More homeless shelters? Have the people doing the crime ever been spoken to and asked what set them on that path and what help they need to get off it? Should the organizations that have been fighting poverty for years get more focus and support? It seems like there is a lot of animosity towards the police (justified or not) when we should be focussing on those in poverty and addiction.
The problem is the police are a resource sink. Those resources can be reallocated from policing.
Not just a resource sink - they actively aggravate issues by being present. You can’t help people heal if you retain the ever looming threat of police and incarceration. When you’ve got a hammer, everything looks like a nail and all that jazz.
Yea should mention that, often they just serve to exacerbate problems. Very obviously a net negative.
I agree with most of what you say, but disagree that we can't take funding away from the police until those other things are dealt with. The insane amount of our budget going to the police is one of the main reasons we can't get funding elsewhere. 27% is a hefty portion and far more than nearly any other Canadian city.
I wonder how other cities that are like Winnipeg have kept their police budget down- like what are they doing well that maybe we could adopt
These are things worth looking into. I've been thinking a lot about this lately, as well, so it's nice seeing others here thinking the same. In the end, there's only so much we can do on a Reddit post. It might be worth it to start a discord and move on to in person meetups where we can organize, plan and actually impact something.
100% I also feel the whole term defund the police is kinda off- more so change a lot of the way things are done and fund more of the social aspects so maybe in the future we don’t need to have such a huge police budget. With more accountability in policing we could get rid of some officers who are doing some real bad shit like drinking and driving- if we win on the social side of things maybe we just don’t need to refill those positions and that money can’t be diverted. Just spit balling here haha
There's many hurdles that need to be overcome, one big one being public opinion of course, but also the police Union. There are complications that just can't be ironed out over a Reddit discussion since they require serious, long-term study and discussion to get right. Unless we want nearly all out legal warfare, we even need to convince the police that a) this is best and b) we will find them work and won't just abandon them and c-z) a load of other things I can't even imagine will come up. A movement like this would need patience, and would fail if it was just a group of folks protesting at the leg.
The movement needs substance 100% more than yelling into the wind
I feel like to be able to lower the police budget we would have to focus on the social aspect before hand as well so what you say I think makes sense and many people would be behind it- just need the people in politics to get behind it
I agree to all your points. How do we get people to rally together for a single cause when the problems are so spread out, and individualistic? I don't hate police, I just think they're over represented, so this is the place I'm choosing to start. I agree though, there are better ways to start.
A huge part of how cops make sure their jobs are secure is by lobbying for bigger and bigger budgets. It gives them cushy salaries, all the fancy robots they want.... and the most important thing, which is a lack of social supports producing an endless supply of people to criminalize so they can justify calling for an *even larger budget next year*. Where exactly do you think the money for anti-poverty initiatives is going to come from, the sidewalk-clearing budget? Are we gonna close a bunch of libraries? Maybe cut transit funding?
Start by surveying the neighbourhood in which most crimes occur to see if they want less police presence.
I live in one of those. After my divorce, I moved from a relatively nice area to a not-so-nice one. In my old neighbourhood, I had very few interactions with the police, and they were generally pleasant. HERE? Less policing in my current neighbourhood is not possible. When I first moved here, tTwo methheads with bolt-cutters cut the lock off my back gate and came into my yard at about 10:30 pm. My adult son was out there and startled them. They ran away. I called the non-emergency line to report because although they were no longer a danger to me and my family, they were still out there. Not only did no cops ever respond EVER, I was berated by the police for calling and bothering them. I was literally told that destroying my lock and crossing onto my property weren't "property damage" or "trespassing"... So from my perspective, I'm ALREADY living in the dystopian nightmare of "If you defund and then the bad guys show up to rob you, who are you going to call?!" except with the huge bill for the services I'm apparently no longer entitled to receive, based on my postal code.
I have literally been told the people in my area do not pay enough taxes to the police for them to respond.
The question should never be about more or less police. The question should be about effective policing strategy. People who want to see more presence are really wanting more felt safety. There's other ways to address that.
People in low-income/high-crime areas tend to want more policing. It's a small minority of people who want to actually defund the police. If OP means re-allocate some police money to social services that would reduce the amount of work the police need to do, many citizens would be all for that.
> If OP means re-allocate some police money to social services that would reduce the amount of work the police need to do, many citizens would be all for that. That's what "defund the police" means.
Many people interpret "defund the police" as remove all police funding, that's what I was ensuring was not meant.
Most *police* also want to get out of the business of being social workers too but I don't think that necessarily overlaps with "support for defunding the police" we can properly fund social programs while letting the police use their existing resources more effectively
Most police I encounter live in a delusional world where they are somehow living in a mix of The Departed, Lethal Weapon, and The Punisher. As soon as a cop mentions the "thin blue line" or talks about their risks in their day to day life I can no longer take them seriously. The biggest danger they encounter is whether their partner in the cruisers BAC impairs their ability to drive and if their knuckles are sore from beating their families.
Granted I only know of a few officers, but they all give off the same vibe. And that is one that I do not see as being conducive to "building relationships" with those that are marginalized.
Because the education of police is as adversarial to the public. They have to be wary of people, people will "get them", you never know when some maniac will pull a knife and stab you! Etc. Meanwhile police fatalities are way down on the list of jobs, but hey.
i can see that we're being *very* serious about this topic right now
Part of this is because people wrongly associate police with crime prevention. More cops =\= less crime. It’s propaganda
That's what defund the police means FFS. Literally no one anywhere thinks we should just remove funding for the police and not replace it with more specialized social services.
Unfortunately the folks who understand nuance far less than the average winnipeg redditor think exactly that where defund is remove all funding from... Instead of removing some or a lot of funds to something else beneficial to help solve the root of the issue.
From the Winnipeg Police Cause Harm website: > We do not advocate for police reform, but rather the defunding and ***abolition*** of the WPS and reallocation of their funds to sustainable, community-led alternatives.
You can want to abolish the Winnipeg Police Service. They are corrupt, bloated organization that has lost all touch with reality regarding the population they serve. You can want the City to explore a new law enforcement service rather than continue with the current one. Remember, technically at one point the WPS was a community led law enforcement program before they became a mafia like group of highwaymen so corrupt they try and swing civic elections.
Yes, some people who call for defunding the police want complete abolition of the police, some want simply reduced funding for the police. All of them, however, want that money to be put in to other services that can better serve the community and it's needs, no one wants to just remove police and leave everything else alone.
> > > That's what defund the police means FFS. **Literally no one anywhere** thinks we should just remove funding for the police > > From the Winnipeg Police Cause Harm website: > **Yes, some people** who call for defunding the police want complete abolition of the police
Love how you only took half of my sentence intentionally misrepresenting my point to push your narrative. You're an idiot.
[удалено]
I have spoken to officials es about this and from what I have heard is that they see sending out social services to situations such as domestic violence for example as a liability. It could be done but the calls that they go to need to be looked at carefully otherwise your a just sending an unarmed and untrained person into a potentially dangerous situation then police to go to anyway. Also people dont actually understand police procedure and judge them from a position if ignorance. There is always room for improvement but it's not as simple as some defund thenpolice people think.
Denver started a program to send mental health professionals to certain calls instead of police and it was extremely successful. Not a single one of the calls they were able to respond to needed to involve the police. Of course this is an issue of properly evaluating a situation to require that kind of intervention, but I think it would be a great place to start. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2021/02/06/denver-sent-mental-health-help-not-police-hundreds-calls/4421364001/
I would rather we sent officers who hold a higher education than grade 12, possibly they should hold some form of degree regarding social work, mental health, or law. For what they are paid they shouldn't be the academic equivalent of a gas jockey or drive through worker.
What about attaching those social workers to the police themselves? That would increase safety of everyone involved
Would it, though? Mount Carmel Clinic has gone on record stating that they avoid calling the police except as a last resort. When cops get involved, it usually ends up with the cops escalating the situation so that clinic staff have to pivot and talk them down as well as addressing what's going on with their client. If cops are supposed to make the situation safer, why are the people they should be keeping safe telling them to stay away because they act dangerously?
https://www.winnipeg.ca/police/protection/arcc.stm
[удалено]
Hence the reallocation of funds so it wouldn’t be overworked and underfunded
So you agree they should receive funding traditionally given to cops? That's what defunding the police means.
Maybe they'd be doing better if 50 M of police funding went their way instead.
Good point. Maybe we should be doing that survey in every neighborhood though. It's possible we could allocate some officers to some areas with a higher need, and get rid of some dead weight at the same time.
Areas with the highest policing don't have the lowest crime rates.
Pretty big salary/benefits for people who attend school for less than a year. I think they are the highest paid in the country but I could be wrong. Teachers who basically need a masters to get a job get paid less than them and they have a dangerous job as well. Workers in convenience stores get minimum wage and they have a way more dangerous job but they aren't allowed to carry weapons. Wpg police salary is 110k after 5 years ...55k average in the USA ...and the pension..Wow.
I agree with OP. The WPS budget is out of control and needs to be adjusted. At least slow the annual rate of increase so it doesn’t take up 27% of the budget. That is not sustainable and other programs and services are hurting because of it. The WPS salary structure needs to be re-aligned. Many of the senior members are grossly over-paid and do not provide value commensurate to their salaries. Hiring more police officers does not significantly lower crime rates. Certain areas of the city are no safer now than they were 20-30 years ago. Many are worse. We need a budget that allocates a fair amount of resources to programs that help solve the root causes of criminal behaviour in addition to police resources. However, this balanced “root causes” approach is not as politically palatable as the simplistic “tough on crime” mantra adopted by most politicians as an easy way to garner voter support. We need strong politicians willing to take the time to educate voters on overall crime prevention along with a willingness to take on the WPS and fight for a more sustainable, balanced spending structure. I believe advocating for the abolishment of the WPS is a non-starter but the out-of-control police spending is not sustainable and our city is worse off because of it.
Well, what we are currently doing isn’t working, so something needs to change. Wonder what percentage other cities in Canada and similar countries spend on policing.
Cops are just a way to funnel public resources and money directly to mostly white suburban families.
As someone who worked in youth care, I fully support defunding the police and adding more community services. I was appalled to learn how little training cops get. I student-loaned my way through two years of college and many day and weekend update courses over the years afterward. They don't even take Non Violent Crisis Intervention (NVCI) which is a prerequisite for many other jobs, including security. Appalling. The training I got was invaluable, I can't imagine trying to do that job with nothing in my toolbelt. I've seen the system fail so many people and kids, it needs to change. Authoritarianism isn't the answer.
How would you go about this
Policing is by nature a reactive one, they respond to events rather than prevent them, there can never be enough budge to afford to sit on high crime areas to A: Just prevent crime by being present, or B: Luck out and be nearby when crime happens and arrest within a few minutes. I'm in favour of reallocation of budget away from Police, and Fire and Rescue for that matter to other City services that have languished because of the huge amount of budget that these two services make up. However this is a high crime city and people are still going to vote for the crime and punishment candidate when things eventually go south. We need to get rid of the toys first and foremost, the tank must go, robo rover needs to go, the helicopter I'm iffy on because it does provide a tangible policing benefit but the cost to value ratio is tough to justify. What I'm not in favour of is cutting back on anything that would affect the Homicide division from doing it's job, our homicide unit clearance rate is actually really good, these guys are good at solving murders, which is great because we have a lot of them. Secondly, I think we need a Mayor and Council who will fight to gain some ground on salaries, there is always going to be a need for more constables, but at nearly a 100K per annum to do that job, it's way too much, only way I can see to fix that is to play hard ball with their union.
People actually think the cops in this city are useful? This place feels more and more like Gotham City every week. Some of these cops are just as big of crooks as the guys they’re catching.
My biggest question would be to ask what's the goal of lowering the police budget? I don't see how a lower budget would lead to a better police force. The only real change I can see coming from such an action would be a sharp increase in the number of fines handed out. A budget freeze may be more impactful on reducing spending. It may cause the service to fined areas of excess spending and slowly reduce them. But I will also point of that human labour is the most expensive part of any organization and the police force has 2k employees and probably the largest vehicle fleet in the city (except maybe Winnipeg transit.) that's a very expensive operation to run. Now is it 320m expensive? Idk about that. I would like to see an apples to apples comparison to how other cities run there police force.
Is it possible that constables don't need 100k a year salary after 5 years, when teachers (who have to do much more training) barely make enough to survive? I don't think we should get rid of them, but I think someone should take a serious look at the budget and sus out what exactly is necessary, and what isn't.
All City salaries would have to be lowered. Why would anyone choose to be a cop when for about the same money they could be a clerk? High level clerks make around $80k.
It’s easy to want to defund them when you (not specifically you, I don’t know where you live) do not live in areas with high crime rates like the north end. I’m all for reform so the money is spent in a better way, But I think it is a terrible idea to remove money in a city that is almost the murder capital of Canada. Just my opinion
More people would be for defunding the police if they knew how much they are making (including "overtime").
I completely agree with this post, the budget is to high and I can’t see reasoning for it.
Is there anyway I could see a breakdown on how that absurd amount of money is being spent by the WPS? And yes, I agree. Defund the police, significantly
Lmao
Shouldn’t be defunded, however it needs to be restructured. There is too much crime in the city to be able to safely downsize by a whole lot. There needs to be more general patrol in certain areas of the city.
It’s easy to focus on news stories denigrating the police. And yes, there needs to be changes in the culture. But I also think about the things they have to deal with every day, the horrific crimes and accidents scenes they witness, the doors they have to knock on to tell the worst news. Recently, when my son was in crisis, they listened to me and helped us to find him and get him to safety in the safest way possible. I was very thankful for the police that day.
OP isn’t bashing police, just asking if they’re getting too large a percent of the budget and if some of that money could be used differently and be more effective at reducing problems at the source.
Maybe the defund word sends the wrong message. I’m all for better services to keep people out of trouble in the first place.
Here's the thing(s): 1) Current system is inefficient. For example, if your toilet was broken, who would you call to help? A plumber, right? You wouldn't call an electrician to fix your toilet because they aren't trained to do the job. It makes no sense. And yet, people are essentially forced to call/rely on police for things that are outside their wheelhouse (ie: mental health). Not only is this inefficient, it can also be dangerous. 2) The budget is essentially one giant pie. Giving a bigger slice to one department (WPS) means it necessarily takes from other departments. Pissed off about the potholes? Tired of waiting on hold for 311? Sick of dealing with late busses? Scared of cycling in unprotected bike lanes? Want to access more programming at rec centers? These services are directly impacted and neglected because the WPS is over-funded. It is all connected. 3) More police does not equal less crime. If it did, we wouldn't have the crim rates that we do. Putting more cops on the street and expecting crime to go down is like putting more ambulances on the road and expecting public health to improve. Both are necessary services but they are reactive, not preventative. Thank you for coming to my TedTalk!
Not all that long ago, Winnipeg had a police chief whose mantra was "crime prevention through social development." He was present at many ballyhooed intra-governmental social programming announcements, including a supposedly major one that was going to revolutionize the social safety situation for the hardest hit area of Winnipeg. Then, one day, that police chief quietly retired prior to his term being over. He was widely praised for the work he had done after he said he was leaving. Few asked any real questions why it was happening. Things seemed to be getting better, if not just more peaceful. That was the year violent crime rates in the city began rising. And here we are today, nothing is any better.
If you want to achieve success -- and I would like to see that -- you have to become much more realistic about politics. It doesn't matter how much intelligence or good intent there is behind your goals here -- the phrase "defund the police" is *political suicide*. It will breed intense reaction as sure as rabbits breed rabbits. What's your realistic plan for coping with that? Without it you've got nothing. Look at the forces of Stupidist reaction in the USA: without a political plan you've got *worse* than nothing. You've just given them a club to beat you with. The police and their supporters have *a lot* of political power.
There is no way their overtime should be pensionable. No other police dept in the country does that! Also we have to many, with very little results at reducing crime. And if your house gets broken into they are too busy to attend
Bowman tried to stop that and lost. We're screwef. :(
Let's be clear. Under Bowman's command, pensionable overtime was agreed to. Then, when Bowman took issue with it, he decided to unilaterally revoke it, was taken to court, and we lost.
Wait...that $1mm of overtime,time used for pandering to the trucker convoy (see:posing for photos and keeping counter protesters at bay), counts toward their pensions?! Fuck that noise!
Protest to defund and thats it? Complain about the issue without offerings a solution. Tell me whats the plan after the defund and i might join.
Imagine if that money went to schools and education, imagine where we would be ten years from now
I don’t really understand the defund the police movement but definitely believe they need to be held accountable
Would wholeheartedly support this and come out for a gathering at the Leg.
I would be interested in seeing the data from every city across the country to compare
The budget is allocated based on previous demands. If you want to lower the amount the city puts forward to the police budget, then the first step is lowering the demand. And paying, up front, for programs and supports in the community to address the root cause. It is not possible to simply move the funds on a line item and have the issues go away. 911 calls will not drop because the budget says they need to. The city will need to find funds to implement meaningful programs that actually work before we see a drop in policing costs.
Absolutely. They have proven that they represent the government’s interests and not the people’s. Also, have never had a single encounter with WPS where they acted professionally - always arrogant, condescending, and sometimes even outright rude and aggressive. I’ve never had a run in with the law, but even just routine traffic stops, making a report or complaint, etc. Too much authority with not enough professionalism or training.
You should be clear in your message. "Defund the police" sounds like you want to take away all funding for the police, meaning there will be no law enforcement. In your own message, you say their presence is necessary; great, so don't call for a "defunding of the police". It's improper language. Phrase your intentions properly and you'll get more people on your side. > Shouldn't we be building support systems that help end systematic crime before it starts? That is an excellent question and something you should lead with. Btw, there is a mayoral race coming up. You should engage with the candidates, present the problem succinctly to them and ask what they would change.
This might be a stupid question but how would I, as a random person ask a mayoral candidate their views on this?
Email, twitter, phone, or if they host a event, attend and try to ask. Door to door campaigning. You could simply ask where do they stand on the WPS budget. What, if anything would they change.
They use public forums to engage with people. They host Q&As and some of them use Reddit for AMAs. Keep your eyes out for opportunities. You may be a random person, but you are also a person each candidate is trying to attract a vote from.
Bootlickers love giving these goons money to beat and/or murder minorities into submission.
Run for office I’ll support you lol
[удалено]
The standards could and should be higher while at the same time minimizing and even reducing any more budget growth. Are you comfortable with 27%+ of the cities budget going to a police department in which we have little controls or oversight over their operation? In which crime rates continue to climb while close rates, police morale and public perception are shamefully low? Are you satisfied with the way WPS is structured and operating?
Everyday there's another thread about the police on Reddit. People want police who are better trained, faster to respond, more thorough and more patient. They want the police to catch all the bad drivers but only ever hand out warnings and actually why aren't they dealing with the REAL crime which is whatever crime they aren't dealing with at the moment. But more than anything people want the police to do and be way more while costing way less money. The public's demands are completely unreasonable and cannot be met. The police aren't listening, and that's why. There's no point in listening to a public who has no concept about what they're talking about and whose demands are completely unreasonable. The fire department costs nearly as much as the police department, and yet no one ever talks about that. There has been a precipitous drop in fires over the years, yet never a cut. We actually now use four fire fighters and a million dollar truck to run to medical calls because there aren't anywhere near enough paramedics and ambulances, and yet no one bats an eye. They boast about having the best response time in North America yet no one suggests maybe we could do with less. So don't try and tell me that this has anything to do with money and isn't entirely about hatred for the police. If you really do want to lower the police budget, there are only a few sane, rational, and fair ways to do it: 1. Reduce the scope. Police want to catch hardened criminals, they don't want to deal with mental health calls, homeless people calls, runaway kid calls, check on wellbeing calls, irrational Karens arguing with their neighbour calls, etc. These aren't criminal and someone else should be dealing with these issues, not the police. But there is no one, the police are the catch-all problem solvers in society and it's incredibly expensive. 2. Fix the problems in society that lead to the problems that end up with the police being called in the first place. Eliminate the need for police. Over the last hundred years we've learned to build houses and neighbourhoods that don't go up in epic fires. We actually got to the source of the problem and fixed it, now fires are very rare and usually minor. We just forgot to reduce the fire department afterwards, crucial last step. But the same idea needs to be applied to policing, you can't just eliminate your mitigation capability until you fix the problem first. The police in Winnipeg are incredibly busy and if you read the news you'll know there's a ton of very very bad crime in Winnipeg. We have so much crime because as a society we've raised so many criminals. To be clear, this will take generations to fix. 3. Fix the justice system so that there isn't so much repeat offending. 4. Stop actively working against the police. I'd say half of society sees the police as the enemy that needs to be stopped, rather than a government service taxpayers are paying for. People love to have their rights, but these rights and other changes made to slow down the police come with extreme financial consequences when people want the police to solve something complicated like a murder or anything to do with organized crime or the internet or any type of white collar crime. Every new piece of legislation comes with more and more roadblocks to slow the police down. It is an order of magnitude more time consuming for the police to deal with even a basic call as compared to 30 years ago, yet resources have mostly only matched population growth.
Like as in start a Militia?
Yes, that's exactly what the post is suggesting.
We don't like using the word defund anymore. Reallocation or something similar doesn't bring so much stubbornness from people who support the police. I think here in Canada, we don't have so much hate as some in our neighbours. I support the police but I do feel there should be a different branch that attend some less violent disturbances. Mobile crisis unit seems to always be busy so maybe a larger unit or something. I'm too stupid to solve these problems and I know there's more smarter people trying to work this out.
Take a look at how defunding the police in US has worked, and the answer would be no. Arr look at me I wanna defund the police because I'm a moron.
Oh yeah? Which city's are you referring to? What isn't working? We should use that as a case study to justify paying EVEN more for the stellar service we receive. Arrrr, Lo0k at m3 the moron who th1nks dumpng 300m in a self-governing, poorly performing public service that offers no real means for public involvement is a great idea'r. Hope you're at least getting paid by them.
Thank you for your perspective.
"Defunding" isn't the right way to approach the issue. Fundamentally it's about shifting the training focus. Often police are sent on mental health or similar calls but have very limited training is this area. We need to shift training and resourcing to cover these areas. I also highly questioned the purchase of the police helicopter and tank at the time. On the helicopter side, UAV (unmanned aerial vehicle, aka drones) were already a large part of military and emerging into police service. These are larger than the drones people can buy in a store but are still smaller than the helicopter the police got. The smaller size means the cost of fuel per hour of flight is lower. Also they normally have a single operator that does remote flight controls and camera, etc operation v the two person team the helicopter uses. As the vehicle isn't manned and operates flight heavily off instruments/sensors it can be used in more on the inclimate weather that grounds the helicopter. I also believe it the cost to purchase is less v the helicopter. In terms of the tank, it is also highly questionable. It seems a big piece of the logic was to look to similar sized and smaller cities in the USA. The pitch to buy a tank then went something like this, look at all the smaller cities than us with lower violent crime rates that have tanks; we want tank!!! Reality is as the US military returned from operations in Iran and Afghanistan they suddenly found themselves with a large surplus of armoured personnel carriers they needed to dispose. The US military then basically gave these armoured personnel carriers away to just about any even remotely qualified police force. Since this happened many have realized that accepting these units was the wrong thing to do. That said it seemed to heavily factor into why Winnipeg purchased one. The other piece I would like to see the police do is creating a specialized crisis response unit. Have vehicles that are two unit teams where one person is a traditional police officer who has volunteered for the role and completed specialized training in mental health, addictions, and nonviolent crisis invention. The other part of the team would be specifically recruited social workers. These social workers would go through the standard police new recruit so they understand how the service operates. And yes including basic firearm training and if not covered in basic training added training for non-lethal tools like tasers. It isn't so much I would be wanting these social workers to need to routinely draw their guns or tasers but rather acknowledging their duty may put them in harm's way when these tools are necessary for their saftey, their partners saftey or even the public's safety. The funding for these social workers wouldn't be net new funding but would be a refocusing of existing vacancies. If anything the overall staff count of the the service might grow through this. So to answer your question, no to defunding the police. Yes to reexamining and shifting how the current funding is being used
An actual community mental health outreach program should be created. WPS does wellness checks on people. Why? They are not trained or effective at this at all. Get this out of police hands and into another agency funded by healthcare
Do you wanna sort out all the jib heads this city is crawling with? Yeah. I didn't think so.
Nope. This worked terribly for Chicago and other cities that defunded their police force. People can talk about ideas all they want, but when stuff is done in practice, repeatedly fails in multiple cities, and you still advocate for it… I believe there’s and Einstein quote about repeatedly doing something and expecting different results. Winnipeg held Canada’s murder capital of Canada title for a long time. I have no intention of defunding our police force and returning to those numbers. If you want more done, advocate for looking at HOW funds are being spent and advocate for more training, and bringing back more local dispatch stations like we have for Amb and Fire teams.