San Antonio Protestor Demands

So down here in the predominantly red area of a red state, we do have some protests. A little but of rioting/looting/vandalism (which are not protests) has occurred but comparatively minor and handled by the police. However, we also have a flyer/image of the “demands” being requested:

https://s.hdnux.com/photos/01/12/31/71/19504736/4/rawImage.jpg

I want to commend the person or people who put together than list of requests — demands are never a wise idea in this sphere so that is a second kudo for them. However, much of what they request is a bad idea or already in place.

First, let us address “zero tolerance” policies. These are a terrible idea, and one would hope we’ve learned that lesson from the many times it has been attempted and led to terrible results. A “zero tolerance” policy on drugs led directly to the high incarceration rates. The zero tolerance policy on alcohol shows it goes back generations.

The critical piece missing is: zero tolerance of what, exactly? We have prominent activists and politicians signing on board with claims that not dating someone who doesn’t look like you is racism. This leads either to preferential enforcement or innocent people getting punished. I understand the intent and used to be on the side of zero tolerance policies, but the reality defies the intent. We see elementary kids punished for making guns with their fingers, due to zero tolerance policies. Proclaiming a zero tolerance policy is easy, but having an effective policy is not, and having an effective zero tolerance policy on poorly defined and subjective topic is impossible. Zero tolerance policies on variable things are the tools of dictators and Fascists. They have no place here.

Now the “civilian review board” on force complaints. This is partially a good idea. A fully civilian one is a bad idea because there are things civilians don’t know that matter. This is why we already have an existing review board that consists of both officers and civilians for such complaints. We also have a review process for what are called “line complaints” which are for things like rudeness and “quality of service”. These are internal reviewed by supervisors — as it should be.

Now the next main one:

“We the people ask that all officers involved in the unarmed killing of civilians that are deemed to be unjustified be terminated immediately from duty without pay, legal representation at taxpayer’s expense, and lose their police pension pay.”

A generally reasonable sounding request. However, there are grave issues in there. How does an officer become “involved”? What does “involved” mean? Combine this with a “zero tolerance” and you can see how this can go really bad quite easily. If a cop is inside a domicle and something happens, is the cop in the yard “involved”?

The next question from there is why I brought the zero tolerance idea into it. We would wind up terminating people who did nothing. Further, it loses specificity. You can be involved and trying to defuse a situation, but under this request you get fired. Is that really what we want? I doubt it.

I fully agree with the department not defending an officer who is being directly charged with a crime, or in a civil suit against them. However, for this to work “we the people” need to stop laying it at the department, especially departments that are not involved — such as incidents in other states. I also solidly agree with the loss of pension — if convicted. However, this is sadly a more complex problem because police unions have too much power here.

Since this is specifically to unjustified killings, I do believe that we must stick to the law and that means the presumption of innocence until convicted. Sacrificing innocents is not the route to go. We should not ask police to uphold the law, and not subject them to the same principles we afford any other accused. If an officer “involved” is wrongfully terminated, we will — and should — see the department sued for that. We have to remember here that the situation being described is a very tiny portion of the things that go on and tarring all with the few is not only a terrible notion but counterproductive.

Now 4 is a mix. “…that the rules of engagement be revised for clarity and issued to the police departments with a zero tolerance policy for violators.” First, we only have one department, but aside from that there is nothing specific here. What is “unclear” and needs revised? Absent specifics, that part of the request is of no value. The zero tolerance policy part we’ve covered.

On to #5, the ask for family of unlawfully killed persons to be paid 250k. I understand the sentiment behind it, but it is a bad idea. First, who pays it? We the people do when the department pays. Second, is that it assigns a dollar amount to a life and putting politicians in charge of how much that is, and I’m not comfortable with that. I think that is a bad precedent, we’ve seen that effect in history and it doesn’t turn out well.

Number 6, and end to no-knock except in special cases. I’m fully on board with that. What I’d like to see is clarification on those circumstances and criteria, as well as the existing data.

Now to number 7. This is probably right behind the zero tolerance policy problem in terms of how bad the actual thing is. For clarity:

“We the people ask for a more diverse police force that accurately represents the community they intend to patrol and protect.”

As with the above, we have to ask “what does that mean and how do we measure success?” It doesn’t matter if you agree with the idea or not, you have to have objective measurement of success. What is often mean in these cases is “proportional representation.” For those who have managed to not have that beaten into their consciousness, “proportional representation” is the mistaken notion that if X percent of a population can be identified as a given demographic such as skin color or sex, then any subset of that population should have the same proportions.

San Antonio’s demographics are interesting, and demonstrate the folly of such thinking. We are a majority “hispanic” city — some 62–65% are hispanic. We are also 80% “white”. For those who don’t know how that can be possible: know that “hispanic” is not skin color.

So, do we go by “hispanic” or skin color? Some of you are saying “skin color” because perhaps you think a “white mexican” individual doesn’t exist or doesn’t suffer. I say to those of you: 1) you’re wrong and 2) then you are arguing for the removal of hispanic officers. Because we have a hispanic majority police force, if you want to go by “proportional representation” based on skin color, our police force then needs to be 80% white. Further, if you do you’ve just marginalized “hispanic people.” Which illustrates just one of many problems here.

I will fully stand in opposition to such garbage. Proportional representation is a fools errand at best and inherently racist. There is no scientific data or work to support the notion that every subset of a population must be proportionally represented by race and/or sex. I would like to think Hitler demonstrated how stupid, wrong, and dangerous that argument is, but here we are still fighting it.

Now on to the other half of that request. You can not mandate racial hiring, that is against the law. If you insist on a proportional representation, then if a given group has “hit” its limit, then you then have to refuse to hire someone based on their race or sex. If they are “above” that level then you have to fire people based on their race or sex. Again, this is and should remain, illegal.

Adding to the illegality of it, a department can only select officers from the pool of applicants. I’m pretty sure the people behind this petition are not down for forcing people to become police. Thus there is no mandatory mechanism that is legal and feasible to achieve the vague goal listed.

Now for item 8: a website devoted to 100% transparency on “all police brutality and police complaints of any kind.” Again, this is something you can understand the sentiment of, but is a bad idea. We already do have the data online — it is a Texas wide requirement. But we should absolutely not be publishing that Jan Doe thought Officer Ramirez was rude when he gave her a ticket for speeding.

This is about protecting the people on both sides of that scenario from harassment. Victims need protection from that, and alleged violators do until convicted as well. One need only look at the vitriol filled doxxing and harassment we already see online to recognize that risk is more than merely hypothetical. We would see a new breed of “vigilante” — people who take it upon themselves to persecute people who either make a complaint or are the target of the complaint.

Remember that a complaint is not conclusive despite what the outrage industry wants us to think. One thing we have seen more broadly is that in jurisdictions where officers wear body cameras, a rather large portion of complaints get withdrawn, meaning the complainant changed their mind when they learned there was audio and video evidence to be reviewed. Transparency in data is good, transparency in the reports themselves is terrible.

Now onto #9: polygraphing people for “racist ideology, and discrimination.” Again we get into “what does that mean and how do you objectively define it?”. Remember, we are talking about laws here. Do we fire or refuse to hire a black man who doesn’t want to date an hispanic woman? That has been put forth as both racism and discrimination by prominent politicians and activists. As noted above, proportional representation is racist in that it is based on a notion that there is an inherent functional difference in job performance based on race.

Furthermore, polygraphs are useless for this. Nowhere in this country can you be forced to take a polygraph if accused of a crime. Why? They are not reliable. Furthermore, this would violate Texas state law which expressly and completely forbids their use in all law enforcement and employment use. Thus this is something the City of San Antonio absolutely can not agree to.

And the final one: asking for a forum for a monthly meeting between citizens and police. Good idea, and you can already do that. You have to do that at a local community level and can absolutely do that with the SAPD already. But the police can’t force you to do it — you have to go to them. Various parts of SA already do that, so if you think your neighborhood would benefit from a periodic meeting with police, call them — but not using 911 ;) — and set it up.

So that is an assessment of the requests, and to be clear it is of the requests, not the person or people making them or supporting them. I am grateful this was done, and am only looking at the specific requests made and the merits or demerits of them.

I will say, however, that I do think if you’re going to propose changes to complex systems, you should learn more about the system you propose to change. Some of the things in their request list that I noted above already exist were things I didn’t know, or didn’t know for certain, before looking it up.