The Sound of Reform

David and Sarah discuss calls by protesters to “defund the police,” ideas to reform police ...

By

David and Sarah discuss calls by protesters to “defund the police,” ideas to reform police departments from no-knock raids to police unions, incorporation doctrine, and the miniseries ‘Waco.’


Show Notes:

–David’s Sunday newsletter

Keep reading with a free account
Create a free Dispatch account to keep reading Get Started ALREADY HAVE AN ACCOUNT? SIGN IN
By
Comments (26)
Join The Dispatch to participate in the comments.
 
  1. Brian Jackson

    I’m a little disappointed that I tweet to both David and Sarah with a criticism that deserves a response, but get zip as an answer. Ok, I’ll do it here. “Listened to @DavidAFrench & @whignewtons’ Advisory Opinions today: “The Sound of Reform.” Some interesting points, but some of it was laughable. Did you know that if your wife is a soccer mom, she knows the sheriff and won’t get a ticket in a speed trap? Shameless stereotyping.”

    Collapse
  2. Ben Genovese

    New fav podcast and new fav news site. Just subscribed!

    Collapse
  3. Pearse

    David, I'd love for you to take your civil liberties list of reforms and flesh it out as a clear policy proposal article that I could link to for my friends. It'd be much better than me saying, "go listen to this podcast episode, skip to minute 10:30, and remember they're riffing, so excuse a couple inaccuracies or missed nuances." Seriously, great stuff, but that part should be an easily linked to thoughtful article.

    Collapse
  4. Avatar photo
    Theirn Scott

    I enjoy this podcast. As someone who actually started to complete the application to take the LSAT but after about 15 minutes said, "What the hell are you thinking, you would HATE being a lawyer??" I enjoy hearing a good legal argument.

    I do have a potential correction. I think David may be wrong about his interpretation of events involving the elderly man in Buffalo. I've watched this several times. One of the two police officers involved in shoving him started to bend down to perhaps check on him. A third officer not involved in the shoving pulled him away but then immediately spoke into his radio. The optimist in me (a rare event) believes he was calling EVS to provide assistance to the obviously injured man.

    Anyway, thanks for the podcast. And Sarah the best of luck to you as you remove the brisket from the oven.

    Collapse
  5. Avatar photo
    Jenny

    All the serious stuff was great, but the best part was Sarah sharing the power women have to control events by shaving their legs. Every word she said is true! If only we could harness this power to overthrow the patriarchy...

    Good luck getting the brisket out of the oven, Sarah! We will miss you when you are on leave, but we are happy for you and want you to enjoy your time with your new family when the little guy gets here. Don't worry if you can't cover SCOTUS verdicts.

    Collapse
  6. Michael Lesniak

    I enjoyed the podcast, as I usually do, but your trip through incorporation was a bit too quick. I would appreciate a more thorough discussion of the "Thomas view" vs. the "Court's view" on whether you think the more appropriate clause of 14A is due process or privileges and immunities. Having read his opinion in the recent incorporation case, I find his argument compelling, which leads to me being confused as to why the Court went down the due process rabbit hole.

    Additionally, having listened to another podcast, "Constitutionally Speaking" (a fantastic podcast if you want to learn about how and why the constitution was written the way it was), one of the hosts makes the argument that incorporation was only needed for the 1st amendment, because by the plain text, 1A is the only one that leads off with "Congress shall make no law..." (they also delved into the English common law that inspired so much of the constitution and the Bill of Rights to support that conclusion). I would be interested to hear your thoughts on that as well.

    So... can we have incorporation part deux?

    Collapse
  7. Avatar photo
    John Russell

    I enjoyed the tutorial about the doctrine of incorporation, which was quite instructive to this retired aerospace engineer. Here's a follow-up question? What ever happened to the tenth amendment? I get the impression that it is now legally without effect. Am I right that its loss of effectiveness was a side effect of the Civil War?

    Collapse
  8. Avatar photo
    Kevin Johnson

    Great pod. I agree with most of the reforms suggested. Odd that few are noting that many could be done by Democratic mayors and governors, and could have been done any time in recent decades in major cities with essentially one-party rule. Also, while at the end you mention how tough being a cop is, when discussing unions you stress that “cops are different from teachers because they have guns.” True, but you might also have mentioned how different it is to face life threatening situations daily; there is a reason they have guns. Also, I heard snark (I apologize if I got it wrong) when you said something like “of course minority neighborhoods are where the no-knock raids occurred, not in rich neighborhoods.” While the statement is true, it is awfully misleading. It seems that few in the media are willing to take account of, or even mention, a hugely important fact: increased police presence in poor neighborhoods and increased interactions with minorities are partly due to the fact that a wildly disproportionate number of victims of violent crimes live in minority neighborhoods. The appalling comment by Minneapolis Council member to question of how could folks call 911 if police were abolished (“that question comes from privilege”) is only possible because people ignore that blacks are the biggest victims of violent crime. Police stepping back from minority neighborhoods leads to more dead black people. By all means let’s correct abusive police practices designed to prey on the poor for funding. But it is intellectually dishonest to ignore the other reason there are more police in black neighborhoods. We should also remember that the police bill Joe Biden is attacked for having supported in the 90s was also supported by many black leaders and black communities which were suffering from crime waves. Better policing? Of course. Fight stereotyping of black males? Of course. But let’s look at the whole picture, not just what activists wish to push.

    Collapse
  9. The BFJ

    Defund has a meaning. Using it as a slogan (the thing busy people remember) to mean something else ranges from a poor example of communication at best to purposefully disingenuous motte and bailey argument at worst. The mob that confronted Mayor Frey and sent him on the walk of shame weren't given the nuanced message either by our design and seems to have interpreted defund as being synonymous with abolish. That's the danger in unclear sloganeering.

    The Eric Garnet death was indeed a tragic result of legislative over criminalization. But the way it was described in this podcast can be misinterpret to imagine the incident in a manner in which it didn't occur. Was there a choke hold? Yes. Did he say he cannot breath? Yes. Did he die? Yes.
    When said in this order it would appear that he said he couldn't breath while being choked out and died as a result. In fact, the choke hold (applied for only a few seconds during the takedown and released momentarily thereafter) wasn't the cause of the death that occurred nearly a half hour later. He said he couldn't breath well after it was released. He died due to his own weight, bad health and being left on his stomach. The cops didn't stay in him and called for paramedics when they realized his life was in danger. Before then few outside of the health profession knew that leaving an obese person in the prone position that long would be so problematic. There is no excuse after Eric Garner, however, for this not to be amended for police tactics.

    Other than those quibbles, great podcast.

    Collapse
  10. Marc S

    I enjoyed this conversation. But I wanted to raise 2 points. First, no-knock warrants are more necessary than David and Sarah suggest. David brushed aside "the need to preserve evidence" justification for a no-knock warrant as a movie cliche of drug dealers flushing drugs down the toilet, but this is a real and common occurrence. If we abolished no-knock warrants for drug cases, drug traffickers would be immune from prosecution for drugs kept in homes. The police would wait patiently at the door while kilograms of fentanyl, heroin, cocaine, etc., were quickly disposed. As dangerous as executing a search warrant in a drug-traffickers apartment can be, I don't know of another way to seize easily-destroyed evidence. David and Sarah provided none. (Also, keep in mind a warrant can only be executed after a judge deems there is probable cause that a search will produce evidence of a crime).
    Second, the "police go to bad neighborhoods because soccer moms have political weight" argument disregards the biggest reason for police presence in an area - crime. Bad neighborhoods are where more street crime takes place, and the police are tasked with keeping the streets safe. There are countless examples of car stops that reveal the presence of illegal handguns or turnstile jumpers carrying loaded pistols. Simply put, routine stops in dangerous areas often uncover criminal conduct in those areas. Drug mills, too, are usually found in bad neighborhoods. When moms start packaging fentanyl for sale at soccer practice, you will see an increase in warrant executions at their 5-bed-4-bath suburban homes. And I hope those warrants are no-knock.

    Collapse
Load More