Skip to main content

Hey Minnesotans: Come To Oklahoma; Police Disbanders: Get Serious


I’d like to take this opportunity to invite anyone from Minnesota, especially those from Minneapolis, to come to Oklahoma. Here's the thing: you’d better come fast. Once your police force is dismantled, and unless it is immediately replaced by another suitable law enforcement organization, how long do you think will it be before your city will quickly resemble a third world country, a dystopian hellscape, or perhaps the mythical old west? It’s not difficult to imagine, in a city with no police force, a scene from The Dark Knight Rises becoming a reality. 


Oklahoma is far from perfect. Our police are far from perfect, just like our citizens. We’re trying to be a top ten state. We haven’t met that goal in all areas yet. But we are also not in danger of declaring the rule of law dead and buried. We realize that lawlessness and anarchy are not better for society than even an imperfect police force, especially one constrained by law and disciplined by courts. Our police have made mistakes. But in Oklahoma, we know that even major reforms do not require disbanding the police entirely. 


I could understand if a city felt that their police department was so corrupt or so dominated by union culture - culture that protects even the bad cops above ordinary citizens - that they needed to start from scratch like Camden, NJ did. It is worth noting that even in Camden, not every officer in a corrupt department was bad. 100 officers from the old force were rehired onto the new force. If your police department is fundamentally corrupt, then by all means, clean house. 


Rebooting the police, up to and including transitioning to an entirely new entity with new people in charge, without collective bargaining, and with the right people in place to make sure that cops police each other as well as the citizens they are hired to defend, sounds like the starting point for fixing a clearly broken institution. Defund the police, on the other hand, sounds like the kind of empty demand your petulant daughter screams before she slams the door to “run away” from home. She knows her demands won’t be met, but it feels good to scream. And it does feel good to scream in the wake of horrific crime and abuses. 


Your daughter comes home because she’s not allowed to cross the street. Cities will come back because the “cure” of anarchy is worse than the disease. If the police are truly disbanded, and not replaced with an equivalent force, the city will either burn or be left to outlaws. The upstanding citizens will flee. Food will become scarce as grocers and restauranteurs look for a safer place to do business.   


Defunding the police - not cutting funding, but defunding into oblivion - is so patently absurd that it allows whole swaths of the country to ignore serious criticisms and solutions. Serious problems deserve serious people proposing serious solutions. Indeed, many have been proposed, and were gaining traction. But when these groups are pressured into apologizing for their reasonable solutions because they are not extreme enough, many will dismiss the entire cause. The only people who can afford to take police abolition seriously are either criminals or those who live in high-income and gated communities (which are overwhelmingly white) with private security. The attention of the nation is firmly on the racial and police problems facing the country. Don’t waste the opportunity for real reform by pitching a ridiculous utopia that can never exist. 


Many serious proposals are not only justified, they are moral imperatives. For instance, reducing qualified immunity so that people hurt by police can seek justice in civil courts is a critical change. So too is union reform that decouples politicians overseeing police from union control, and allows bad cops to be fired and prosecuted as a matter of course, rather than only when communities riot. Using de-escalation to avoid using force, and reserving deadly force for the most extreme circumstances as a very last resort are so obvious, it’s a wonder they haven’t always been the norm. But when the absurd is cheered and chanted, it gives those who could be persuaded by serious proposals an excuse to turn their attention elsewhere, ensuring that nothing gets done. 


I don't think that’s what the defund-the-police crowd wants. I hope they are not agents of chaos, sowing the seeds of perpetual unrest. I fear we are seeing a few dogmatic zealots reciting a creed, and a multitude of frightened followers, who feel they must bow to avoid being labeled racists. To them I would ask, what do you hope to achieve? If it is positive change, please rethink your actions. Create pragmatic proposals for effective restructuring and help us figure out how to root out evil. Give people reason to listen and act, not turn away during this time of absolute need. If the serious people with the serious proposals are afraid to contradict the zealots, and temper their fervor with reason, their good ideas will never be heard over the noise. 


I would also like to take this opportunity to specifically invite any good police officers whose jobs are being eliminated by the Minneapolis City Council to our great state. Oklahoma City has a shortfall of police officers. So does Tulsa. What do we mean by “good” police officers? Those who respect the rule of law. Those who will protect all citizens regardless of color or political views. Those who will stand up to bullies - in their own ranks and elsewhere. Those who do not use force out of cowardice, but only when it is truly warranted (as it sometimes sadly is). Those who will create a culture where good cops prosper and bad cops are kicked to the curb, or arrested. Good cops: we know you’re out there. We invite you to join the many good cops already serving Oklahoma.


Mike Davis is a Research Fellow at 1889 Institute. He can be reached at mdavis@1889institute.org


The opinions expressed in this blog are those of the author, and do not necessarily reflect the official position of 1889 Institute.

Popular posts from this blog

1889 Institute's Statement Regarding School Closures

The 1889 Institute, an Oklahoma think tank, has released the following statement regarding Joy Hofmeister’s proposal to keep schools closed for the remainder of the school year. We at the 1889 Institute consider Joy Hofmeister’s proposal to close Oklahoma’s schools for the rest of the school year a gross overreaction to the coronavirus situation. Even in the best of times and circumstances, suddenly shifting every student in the state from traditional classrooms to online distance learning will have negative educational consequences. This in addition to the economic burden on two-earner families forced to completely reorder their lives with schools closed. We believe many of our leaders have overreacted to worst-case scenarios presented by well-intended health experts with no training or sense of proportion in weighing the collateral damage of shutting down our economy versus targeting resources to protect the truly vulnerable. We say reopen the schools and stop the madness. ...

Can Government Force You to Close Your Business?

1889 Institute takes no position on whether any or all of these measures are warranted or necessary, or whether their economic fallout would inflict more human suffering than they prevent. We are simply evaluating whether they are legal.   With the unprecedented (in the last 100 years at least) reaction surrounding the outbreak of Covid-19, questions that few living legal scholars have considered are suddenly relevant.   Can a quarantine be ordered?   Can a mass quarantine, lockdown, or “cordon sanitaire” be ordered? Can businesses be ordered to change their behavior?   Can businesses be ordered to close? Can state governments order these measures? Can local governments order these measures? My legal brief addresses these issues from a statutory point of view; it is clear that state law gives the governor and mayors broad authority in a state of emergency. They must, of course, do so in a neutral way that they reasonably believe will help preve...

Breaking the ABA’s Law School Cartel: A Proposal to Make Oklahoma Top-Ten in Innovative Lawyer Education

Would we grant Devon Energy a government-enforced veto over whether its competitors should be issued drilling permits? Would we think it acceptable for the government to require new drug applicants to first obtain approval from Pfizer or Johnson & Johnson before applying for FDA approval? Of course not. Generally speaking, we are not in favor of foxes guarding hen houses, and our laws tend to reflect that instinct. Nevertheless, when it comes to deciding who can and cannot become a lawyer, nearly all states (including Oklahoma) have delegated the design of their hen house security plan to the fox’s self-interested trade association, the American Bar Association (ABA). This is the argument of my policy analysis released today, Breaking the ABA’s Law School Cartel: A Proposal to Make Oklahoma Top-Ten in Innovative Lawyer Education . The ABA, a private trade association for lawyers, has a government-enforced monopoly over legal education as the only approved accreditor of ...

Past Performance Is Not Indicative of Future Results, Unless Government Props You Up

One January, a farmer decided to invest in the stock market. He’d had a bumper crop, and he wanted to shore up his financial future, planning for the time when providence would not be so kind. Knowing he wouldn’t have time to watch the market during the growing season, he did some research and invested heavily in a nice safe company: one that had a growth trend and had been named Fortune’s “Most Innovative Company” for six years.   That same January, a day trader wanted to make some long-term investments that he could keep on the back burner. He knew the experts were all abuzz regarding an industry-changing technology with huge growth potential. He invested in several up-and-coming companies based around this technology, certain he’d have a nice nest egg, should he ever fall on hard times.   Finally, a seasoned investor decided to divide his portfolio among dozens of strong companies. Wanting to keep his portfolio diverse, he also bought stocks in several small and str...