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

Licensing Boards Might Violate Federal Law: Regardless, They Are Terrible Policy

Competition is as American as baseball and apple pie. “May the best man win” is a sentiment so old it doesn’t care about your pronouns. The beneficial effects of competition on economic markets are well documented. So why do we let powerful business interests change the rules of the game when they tire of competing in the free market? Most of the time when an occupational license is enacted, it is the members of the regulated industry who push hardest in favor of the license. Honest competition may be fundamentally American, but thwarting that competition through licensing seems to be fundamentally Oklahoman. Oklahoma doesn’t have the most occupational licenses, but when they do license an occupation, the requirements tend to be more onerous than the same license in other states. But what if, instead of merely breaking the rules of fair play to keep out would-be competition, Oklahoma licensing boards are also breaking the law? Normally a concerted effort to lock out competition would v

Undo 802

Why is it that when conservatives suffer a major loss, they give up, accept the new status quo, and fall back to the next retreat position? When progressives suffer a major loss, they regroup and try again. And again. Until they finally wheedle the American public into giving in. I propose a change in strategy. The Oklahoma Legislature should make undoing State Question 802 its top legislative priority for 2021. This will not be an easy task (legislators seem to prefer avoiding difficult tasks) but it is a critical one. The normal legislative process, with all its pitfalls and traps for the unwary, will only bring the topic to another vote of the people. So why spend so much political capital and effort if the same result is possible? Three reasons.   First is the disastrous consequences of the policy. Forget that it enriches already-rich hospital and pharmaceutical executives. Forget that it gives the state incentives to prioritize the nearly-poor covered by expansion over the des

Liability In the Time of Covid: When Should Businesses Be Sued for the Spread of Infectious Disease?

When businesses reopen, what liability should they face related to the spread of Covid? Can businesses who remained open during the pandemic, or those who were open before the lockdowns began, be held liable if their customers caught the virus within the businesses’ walls? If so, what would a customer-plaintiff need to prove?   Defending even a meritless lawsuit can be prohibitively expensive. For this reason, it is important to define ahead of time what harms can lead to successful lawsuits. Limitations on causes of action can reduce unwarranted suits by kicking them out of the legal system earlier in the process. So what should businesses be liable for? There are two distinct categories of business liability that might arise from Covid. The first is products liability. The second is liability for infection spread within a business.   Products Liability First, any willful fraud perpetrated in relation to Covid should be severely punished. This would include selling f

How Biden/Harris and Well-educated Sophisticates Are Wrong in the Age of COVID-19

Vice President-elect Kamala Harris often declared during the campaign that “We believe in science.” And judging by the tendency of the college-educated , especially among the sophisticates living on the coasts, to agree with Harris’s positions on everything from climate change to proper precautions amid COVID-19, belief in “science” seems to many a mark of knowledge and wisdom. But is it? The modern belief in “science” increasingly appears to be a religion wherein the words of certain recognized experts are received with the reverence once reserved for the Pope. A college diploma almost serves as a permission slip to suspend one’s own judgment and reason in favor of taking the word of certain experts to heart, especially if they work in government, certain universities, or gain media credence.   This tendency to turn experts and the media into high priests of all knowledge is nothing new. In 1986, 60 Minutes ran a story about a phenomenon people experienced in cars with automatic tra