☆ Retired SJ officer: Local “defund the police” rhetoric full of holes

Pete Constant unpacks a prominent—and misconception-ridden—anti-policing manifesto on the Silicon Valley Democratic Socialists’ website. Formerly a SJ policeman and SJ council member, Constant is now Chair of the Public Policy Department at William Jessup University (Rocklin) and board president at his local school board. An Opp Now exclusive.

Opportunity Now: How do you characterize useful policing?

Pete Constant: We have in general a social contract between the government and residents that the government will keep us safe; the best way, the most efficient way, is with good policing.

Sometimes this is reactive (making things better after crimes have occurred), but it’s more often proactive (creating community expectations of safety and proper behavior). And good policing can be as simple as someone sees a uniformed officer and doesn’t do something bad, or an officer working at a local school encourages a student to grow in a new, positive direction. There are many ways police improve people’s lives. The ratio of negative outcomes to total contacts is a very, very small percentage, which should be an affirmation that they’re doing a good job by and large.

ON: How does San Jose weigh into the “defund the police” conversation? It’s not one that began in 2020, and it’s not—it seems—going to resolve anytime soon.

PC: Defunding or funding police forces is an issue that keeps resurfacing across the nation. Different communities have responded differently. Interestingly, in 2012, we had significant financial issues in SJ, which led to a police force reduction by several hundred officers. There was a huge public outcry because people wanted more investment in law enforcement, but we simply didn’t have the money at the time. Now, we face calls to take funding from the police and instead fund other programs.

In cities that have followed this call to action, bowing to public pressure (e.g., Minneapolis, Portland/Seattle areas), those communities have come to regret it. What people don’t often see is that not everything police do is controversial; they regularly direct traffic, respond to traffic accidents, find lost children, etc. Without police, our quality of life will suffer. We need them to keep our communities safe.

ON: Unpack the SV Dem Socialists’ first claim that “Police protect their own,” that local officers’ misconduct is easily and frequently covered up through unfair protections offered by union/city contracts.

PC: First, when people are this outrageous in their positions as the SV Dem Socialists are, it’s hard even to justify taking the time to address their claims. It’s difficult to give any credibility to their claims by saying they’re worth writing about. Nevertheless, I’m glad to address what the SV Dem Socialists have written.

The article says that these contracts allow police to purge misconduct records, reinstate fired officers, and block investigations. None of these points are true. In SJ in particular, we have a history of taking very firm action with officers who step outside the bounds. Concerning the officers who get their jobs back after these incidents, it’s because the court system ordered them to be reinstated in their position.

ON: Is our local police force “a white supremacist group,” as aggressively asserted at the top of the page?

PC: Unconditionally, no. People often try to find people to blame for negative things that occur in their community; but these approaches are often misguided or misplaced. In this particular context, that is the case. You can be against the negative police interactions that have occurred nationwide, and still support our police and community that’s doing a good job. This idea that when you call the police, you get “a white supremacist gang that targets all people of color” is a broad, hyperbolic stereotype; the SV Dem Socialists are labeling hundreds of thousands of officers across the nation, which makes them lose all credibility to me. To paint an entire profession with that broad of a brush is probably as discriminatory as you can be in a statement. And I’m sure that all our great officers who happen to be Asian, Hispanic, Black, etc. would be shocked that this local group is calling them white supremacists.

The vast majority (I’d say 99.98%) of officers want to help their community, not target it.

ON: The SV Dem Socialists’ page also alleges that “Police don’t care about reforms.” This seems like an over-generalization to us—an unsubstantiated one at that. Do you read it this way, or are we missing something?

PC: I’m a former city council member and retired police officer, and now I teach in a criminal justice program. I can tell you that no police officer wants to have bad officers working with them. They want the best; they want to ensure that they have sufficient help in their time of need (as officers sometimes call for help frequently like residents do). Plus, bad apples in the force make the whole group look bad, and law enforcement doesn’t want that.

As far as unsubstituted claims, look at what the SV Dem Socialists cite at the bottom of this article. It’s interesting to me how many of these are opinion pieces as opposed to actual research.

ON: Do you agree with their view on body cams, that they’re ineffectual as an element of policing?

PG: They’re viewing body cams through the wrong lens. The article says cams haven’t reduced civilian complaints or use of force, but they weren’t intended for that. They instead are intended to provide transparency into circumstances that led to complaints and force, so that in cases of police/citizen misconduct, we actually have evidence of the actions and the context in which they occurred.

So, they may be correct about there being no reduction of complaints and force. That was never the intention.

ON: Break down the SV Dem Socialists’ idea that police funds should be recirculated into more valuable programs such as public education.

PC: I don’t think funding police and community programs are mutually exclusive. You can effectively do both.

They’re correct that we need to fund communities, but incorrect that we need to start funding them. SJ spends tens of millions each year investing in communities (through our library system, parks and recreation, community centers, after school programs, etc.). We can talk about increasing funding, but that shouldn’t be at the expense of public safety via the police department.

ON: We find this next claim incredibly concerning—and potentially dangerous. Is it truly unsafe to call the police as a domestic violence victim, as the SV Dem Socialists’ article states?

PC: As a SJ councilmember, I helped oversee city efforts and worked with organizations that deal with domestic violence issues. There were very supportive policies for victims to work with the police and district attorney’s office. I think the writers of the SV Dem Socialists’ web page need to be intellectually honest with themselves about victims of violence. Every victim of domestic violence should feel safe calling the police for help.

ON: Overall, the SV Dem Socialists are pushing this message that policing “[doesn’t work].” Is this a fair judgment, do you think?

PC: No. Try telling that to the hundreds of thousands of victims who have positive interactions with police officers every day. Tell that to the police who come to rescue, to hold people accountable for the negative things that needlessly happen to victims, to investigate crimes. Tell that to the people who watch police officers run towards the gunfire rather than away.

As a father now, when one of my daughters had a stalker who made an attempt to take her (from her school), we needed the police and were very thankful for their protection. I’m not sure my daughter would be here today, or in a psychologically strong place, without them. The police were critical in taking that person off the streets and protecting my child.

Follow Opportunity Now on Twitter @svopportunity