After the murder of George Floyd and the protesting that quickly ensued in response, a movement has been reborn: A call to defund the police. But there’s confusion about what defunding the police really looks like, leaving many wondering what it all means.

Shermichael and Antonia interview MSNBC Contributor and Professor at Morgan State University, Jason Johnson, Ph.D., and Jonathan Blanks, a visiting fellow in criminal justice at the Foundation for Research on Equal Opportunity to get to honest answers.

Subscribe to Bulletproof with Antonia Okafor in Apple Podcasts (and leave a 5-star review, please!), or by RSS feed. For all our podcasts in one place, subscribe to the Ricochet Audio Network Superfeed in Apple Podcasts or by RSS feed.

Published in: Policing

Now become a Ricochet member for only $5.00 a month! Join and see what you’ve been missing.

There are 5 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. ShellGamer Member
    ShellGamer
    @ShellGamer

    Shermichael, I worry you try too hard to be respectful of your guests. Analogies need to be used carefully–how did Professor Johnson conclude the restaurant was built on a waste dump? The hypothetical could have been as easily explained having the same guy who doesn’t wash his hands serve coffee/tea in every iteration. What makes us conservative is we don’t generally jump to “tear it all down” as the preferred solution. But if he wants to try out his plan in Baltimore, using its current budget and with the consent of a majority of voters, I’ll wish him success.

    The more I hear, the more it sounds like pretextual stops are a major vector for inappropriate police conduct. Fortunately, I haven’t had the experience, because I know that I do not have any legal obligation to cooperate and probably wouldn’t. More to the point, this connects to our drug policies. I’m torn as to the legalization of commonly addictive substances (should someone have the freedom to give up their freedom?), but enforcement should require more than the happenstance of a traffic infraction.

    • #1
  2. Shermichael Singleton Podcaster
    Shermichael Singleton
    @shermichael

    ShellGamer (View Comment):

    Shermichael, I worry you try too hard to be respectful of your guests. Analogies need to be used carefully–how did Professor Johnson conclude the restaurant was built on a waste dump? The hypothetical could have been as easily explained having the same guy who doesn’t wash his hands serve coffee/tea in every iteration. What makes us conservative is we don’t generally jump to “tear it all down” as the preferred solution. But if he wants to try out his plan in Baltimore, using its current budget and with the consent of a majority of voters, I’ll wish him success.

    The more I hear, the more it sounds like pretextual stops are a major vector for inappropriate police conduct. Fortunately, I haven’t had the experience, because I know that I do not have any legal obligation to cooperate and probably wouldn’t. More to the point, this connects to our drug policies. I’m torn as to the legalization of commonly addictive substances (should someone have the freedom to give up their freedom?), but enforcement should require more than the happenstance of a traffic infraction.

    Thanks for the reply and also for listening, we hope you’ll continue to support our new podcast. I don’t need to try hard to be respectful of people or their views, regardless of how disparate they are from my own. My motto in life is simple, treat others with the same regard that I would expect for myself, nothing more and nothing less. 

     

    • #2
  3. colleenb Member
    colleenb
    @colleenb

    Enjoyed the interviews even though I found both professors a little simplistic in their views/solutions. Perhaps in contrast to listening to Professors Glenn Loury and John McWhorter, I found no discussion about the black family, poverty, drug use, etc. Maybe they were just on to talk about policing. Thanks again.

    • #3
  4. MichaelKennedy Member
    MichaelKennedy
    @MichaelKennedy

    MichaelKennedy

    Your comment was automatically held for moderation. Common causes include too many links.

    No evidence it was murder.

    Interesting.  So there was evidence for murder ?

    • #4
  5. Duane Oyen Member
    Duane Oyen
    @DuaneOyen

    MichaelKennedy (View Comment):

    MichaelKennedy

    Your comment was automatically held for moderation. Common causes include too many links.

    No evidence it was murder.

    Interesting. So there was evidence for murder ?

    In your first class in criminal law you discuss “depraved heart” mental states.  I think that it is impossible to watch the Floyd video and not conclude that Chauvin displayed a depraved heart in accordance with the law school definition, actually better than the hypo that is usually trotted out about firing a gun near a crowd.

    But more importantly, we need to hear the views of those who see these things differently from the way we do.  I appreciate the fact that the podcasts guests encompass the whole range of perspectives, and that they are treated courteously, even when they are (in my opinion) very wrong. 

    I like the patience of, for example, Coleman Hughes in waiting till the facts are in before pronouncing some bad cop behavior as being race-based; it seems clear to me now after the GBI investigation that the Arbery killing had a racial element.  However, it is not yet clear to me that the Floyd murder was racially-driven as opposed to being the appalling conduct of an arrogant cop (who was in the wrong job) far exceeding proper protocol with an unarmed suspect who resists arrest for a low level property crime.   Police criminal misconduct is not necessarily race-based regardless of the melanin content of the players. 

    Speak-Easy is the kind of thing we should welcome and learn from, and I hope that Antonia and Shermichael are not put off by the attitudes of some Ricochet commenters.

    • #5