Share this page!

John Pfaff Profile picture
Twitter logo
8 Sep, 4 tweets, 2 min read
While true that police union fought the mandate, important to note what really happened here.

State law already PREEMPTS local govts from imposing mandates on police/fire. City thought state order gave them authority, but now looks like it might not.

Actually makes story WORSE:
This is a good example of how for years las enforcement unions have effectively lobbied to carve out all sorts of state-level exemptions for themselves (see also: disciplinary record protections).

The lack of accountability is often embedded in state laws.
That’s not to say that union resistance was irrelevant. Who knows why the guidance backtracked on the grounds that police don’t really provide medical care. Maybe it was done as a face-saving way to cave.

But still important to note that this is fundamentally a preemption issue.
And as I’ve argued elsewhere, after years of relative quiet, legislatures—esp in red states—are unleashing a wave of preemption laws to kill local reforms.

theappeal.org/defund-the-pol…

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
　

Keep Current with John Pfaff

John Pfaff Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @JohnFPfaff

John Pfaff Profile picture
14 Sep
Been thinking more about this graph, and I wonder if it shed any light on the NCVS/UCR divergence of the 1970s/1980s. Has anyone seen a paper linking these together?

Because the local fear of crime seems to track the NCVS more than the UCR.
If that's right--that the NCVS seems to track ppl's sense of local safety more than generic safety--I have no idea what it means.

Could mean that the NCVS and Gallup suffer from a shared bias... like a weakened ability to reach those most affected by crime.

But... don't know!
I feel like the NCVS/UCR divergence of the 1960s-1980s is one of the less-acknowledged puzzles with crime data, and it strikes me as a big one:

Did CRIME rise in the 1960s-70s? Or its PERCEPTION? Or police INVOLVEMENT?

Or, perhaps the best suggestion I've seen:
Read 5 tweets
John Pfaff Profile picture
13 Sep
I know I’m in the minority here, but I feel like trying to underplay a historic spike in homicides (and a likely spike in shootings) by pointing out that all OTHER crimes mostly fell is a not a great strategy for reformers.

It actually plays into Tough-on-Crime’s hands.
To argue that crime fell--even when murders really did rise by quite a lot--suggests that "reforms" are a luxury to be indulged in only when crime is low or falling.

We need to lean into the rise, not recoil from it.
Murder went up. By a lot.

On the status quo's watch.

Murder went up in places with no reforms. It went up in places with reforms... but those reforms were always less than their detractors (and many proponents) said.

Tell that story.
Read 5 tweets
John Pfaff Profile picture
9 Sep
This graph always strikes me as so wild, and so important.

Americans from ~2001-onward have been afraid of crime... in general. But not near their home.

Our general fear of crime has little to do with actual risk, which we KNOW to be low. It has to do with generic fearfulness.
And it's REALLY intriguing to see that local fear of crime FELL... in 2020. The 2020 results come from November 2020. By then we were well aware of rising homicides.

This casts fearmongering by tough-on-crime types in a different light, I think.
It's clear that people are aware of the risks they face near their homes... which makes sense, since we spend a lot of time there.

The fearmongering, then, isn't really about making ppl think they are ACTUALLY at risk. Seems like it is more about just making the world ... scary.
Read 4 tweets
John Pfaff Profile picture
7 Sep
Look, this is a preposterous and insulting claim, and contemptuous towards voters.

But here are the numbers.

Victims report ~25% - 33% of rapes. Police arrest ~33% of reports.
DAs don’t convict ~30% of cases.
We lock up ~80% of those convicted.

From offense to lock-up? 6%.
Abbott claims he’s going to “lock them all up.” It’s a preposterous claim utterly untethered from any sort of even vague empirical reality, and reflects a profound contempt towards the very real questions he’s being asked about rape.
Also a good reminder when someone tries to argue that cutting prison populations will trigger a crime spree.

For all the ppl we have in prison, most ppl who break the law aren’t there. The threat of prison is not what keeps violence at bay. It’s just imposed too randomly.
Read 4 tweets
John Pfaff Profile picture
25 Aug
This, from the head of the Chicago PD’s patrol officer union, equating mask mandates to Nazi Germany, is horrific if unsurprising.

But good to look at Catanzara a bit more, bc he undermines the individualistic “bad apples” take on problematic policing.
Catanzara, who has defended the Jan 6 insurrection (and publicly posted vile anti-Muslim rants on FB) was elected by 55% of the officers in May 2020, despite a known record of violations.

He was suspended w/o pay by Feb 2021, and is still facing termination efforts.
Again: 55% voted for a man who was known AT THE TIME to have one of the longest CPD disciplinary records, who would defend insurrection, and who would be suspended 9 months after getting the job.

What does it mean when a majority VOTES FOR the “bad apple”?

That’s… systemic.
Read 7 tweets
John Pfaff Profile picture
24 Aug
That privates are uniquely different from and more powerful than privates strikes me as one of the hardest myths to get ppl to let go of.

I’ve tried to lay out how their incentives are far more similar than different. ImageImageImage
Almost every complaint abt privates can be leveled at publics; since publics hold 93% of all ppl in prison, the public harms are far greater.

Here’s a good example: bed guarantees.

Some privates have contracts that pay for beds even if unused. Seems uniquely private. It’s not.
Over 60% of public prison spending is wages. So if a public prison have slack capacity and we don’t lay off any COs—a common occurrence—then money flows into the public prison even tho the beds are empty.

An identical guarantee, just in the labor contract, not the prison one.
Read 6 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

Like this author's thread?

Get emails when @JohnFPfaff has new unrolls!

Check out other threads from @JohnFPfaff!

Read all threads by @JohnFPfaff

:(