Seattle wants to fire white officers

[BartW]

I haven't weighed in on Herbold. You did.

I'm saying that your definition of race-baiting, by either definition, is skewed to the point of disingenuous. It is not unfair to say that the decision to fire officers will disproportionately affect minority officers, nor is it making verbal attacks against them.

You outkicked your coverage on trying to defend the committee member here. If you want to be fair, you'd probably just want to reply that the article is an opinion piece that doesn't give enough detail about the exchange.

A boss trying to protect his minority employees as a race baiter... Geez us.

It’s unfair to say that it will disproportionately affect minority officers if that isn’t true. It’s my opinion that it’s unfair to lead with that either way, and she is clearly making these statements about race to try to influence the actions of a particular group of people. Agree to disagree.

I don’t know squat about Herbold or most of city council and don’t care to defend them. I work there but don’t vote there. I hope seattle voters clean house. I honestly dropped in here today because I was genuinely curious if a city council member actually said what was claimed. I thought I might have missed it (and am on mobile). Alas...

 

[BartW]

How do you interpret this?

View attachment 293891

She’s saying “Chief Best is wrong”

NOT

“Let’s fire officers based on their race”

 

[Orange_Crush]

It’s unfair to say that it will disproportionately affect minority officers if that isn’t true. It’s my opinion that it’s unfair to lead with that either way, and she is clearly making these statements about race to try to influence the actions of a particular group of people. Agree to disagree.

I don’t know squat about Herbold or most of city council and don’t care to defend them. I work there but don’t vote there. I hope seattle voters clean house. I honestly dropped in here today because I was genuinely curious if a city council member actually said what was claimed. I thought I might have missed it (and am on mobile). Alas...

You don't know whether the claim was true or not, so your "opinion" to "disagree" is nothing more than excusing yourself.

 

[Orange_Crush]

She’s saying “Chief Best is wrong”

NOT

“Let’s fire officers based on their race”

One, she seems to be agreeing that laying off according to policy would disproportionately affect minorities, else they wouldn't need to go out of order. That's the entire context of the disagreement.

Two, she's not saying the chief was wrong. She's saying the chief could ask for permission to lay off against policy.

Three, she seems to be making the point in an effort to bypass the affect it would have on minority officers.

Four, how in the hell does she justify that laying off based on race is would be more efficient for the department?

 

[TheDeeble]

She’s saying “Chief Best is wrong”

NOT

“Let’s fire officers based on their race”

It sounds like Chief best is being told to lay off 50% of the officers. Chief Best is going by seniority.

Council member Herbold doesn't want that because it means firing several non-white officers.

SEATTLE — As the Seattle Police Department looks at the Seattle City Council’s demands to cut the department’s budget by 50%, police Chief Carmen Best fired back at a suggestion from Councilmember Lisa Herbold to lay off officers out of order of seniority as a way to preserve the jobs of people of color.

“We cannot do layoffs based on race,” Best said. “I would love for Councilmember Herbold to work with us and not against us, making sure we have a viable number of officers.”

Currently, a majority of the City Council supports defunding the Seattle Police Department’s budget by 50% in an effort to move some tasks away from the department and to fund community-led organizations.

On Wednesday, SPD released a detailed diversity breakdown of current officers and recruits to show the impact of that proposed cut. According to the policy, they would lay off the most recent hires first.

SPD said that would mean laying off 46 Asian officers, 47 Black or African American officers, 56 Hispanic or Latino officers and 59 biracial or multiracial officers, among others, as well as 526 white officers.

“It is illegal to make layoffs based on race,” Best said. “I’m not sure where she’s getting her legal advice from, but the persons who are advising us are making sure we understand it’s illegal to do that.”

Seattle police chief fires back at suggestion to lay off officers ‘out of order’

Not sure what percentage the council member wants as white police officers is more than double all non white officers being laid off.

 

[KB5252]

If they do this based on race, or if it is shown that a disproportionate number of white officers are fired that city will soon after be bankrupt. The lawyers will descend on the city hyenas soon.

 

[Orange_Crush]

It sounds like Chief best is being told to lay off 50% of the officers. Chief Best is going by seniority.

Council member Herbold doesn't want that because it means firing several non-white officers.



Seattle police chief fires back at suggestion to lay off officers ‘out of order’

Not sure what percentage the council member wants as white police officers is more than double all non white officers being laid off.

Wow, it doesn't even sound like the claim was that it would disproportionately affect minorities. Just that it would affect them.

 

[BartW]

One, she seems to be agreeing that laying off according to policy would disproportionately affect minorities, else they wouldn't need to go out of order. That's the entire context of the disagreement.

Two, she's not saying the chief was wrong. She's saying the chief could ask for permission to lay off against policy.

Three, she seems to be making the point in an effort to bypass the affect it would have on minority officers.

Four, how in the hell does she justify that laying off based on race is would be more efficient for the department?

Now you’re joining in on the straw man too. Nowhere did Herbold say they are going to lay off based on race. She’s saying “Instead of doing it in order of seniority, we could do it a different way”.

She doesn’t specify a solution, she just states that defund solutions that don’t disproportionately affect minority officers do exist (i.e. Best is wrong)

 

[FLVOL_79]

Great idea! I hear the more diverse your organization is the better it performs! I am sure axing all the White cops will just boost this performance!..........

 

[BartW]

Wow, it doesn't even sound like the claim was that it would disproportionately affect minorities. Just that it would affect them.

?

 

[Orange_Crush]

Now you’re joining in on the straw man too. Nowhere did Herbold say they are going to lay off based on race. She’s saying “Instead of doing it in order of seniority, we could do it a different way”.

She doesn’t specify a solution, she just states that defund solutions that don’t disproportionately affect minority officers do exist (i.e. Best is wrong)

She said this in response to hearing how it will affect race. Come on. Seriously?

 

[Orange_Crush]

?

Did you read the article I was responding to? The chief listed the percentages affected. All minorities added together don't add up to the whites affected.

Are you even reading about this? Or are you making stuff up to claim a statement was untrue to cover your proverbial ___ for talking out of your proverbial ___?

The chief gave the policy (lay off by seniority), and gave the stats of how it would affect the various racial components.

The counsel member said that the chief could request an exemption from said policy to achieve different results.

The chief said that would be illegal, and refused to do so.

What are you reading?

(I'll simplify... "We can't lay off based on race due to policy." "You could ask for an exemption from policy.")

Are you serious, Bart?

 

[BartW]

She said this in response to hearing how it will affect race. Come on. Seriously?

Yes. She called Best’s comment an empty threat. I call it race baiting. Get over it.

There are a million reasons why cutting a major city police department in half in a few months is a terrible idea, but here we are arguing race.

 

[BartW]

Did you read the article I was responding to? The chief listed the percentages affected. All minorities added together don't add up to the whites affected.

Are you even reading about this? Or are you making stuff up to claim a statement was untrue to cover your proverbial ___ for talking out of your proverbial ___?

The chief gave the policy (lay off by seniority), and gave the stats of how it would affect the various racial components.

The counsel member said that the chief could request an exemption from said policy to achieve different results.

The chief said that would be illegal, and refused to do so.

What are you reading?

(I'll simplify... "We can't lay off based on race due to policy." "You could ask for an exemption from policy.")

Are you serious, Bart?

Best and SPD explicitly stated that layoffs would disproportionately affect BIPOC officers. I don’t know why you walked that back. It’s in the first link I gave you and the article you’re replying to now. Do you understand the term “disproportionately”? Do you understand the argument taking place here? I feel like we’re talking past eachother

 

[85SugarVol]

She’s saying “Chief Best is wrong”

NOT

“Let’s fire officers based on their race”

She’s saying following policy would result in firing POC officers.

She then goes onto say that they could break with policy.

What do you think that implies?

 

[Orange_Crush]

Yes. She called Best’s comment an empty threat. I call it race baiting. Get over it.

There are a million reasons why cutting a major city police department in half in a few months is a terrible idea, but here we are arguing race.

No, you called it "unfair" because it's untrue while admitting that you didn't know if it was true or not. You made a dumbass comment and have been trying to excuse it ever since. Deal with it.

The reason I won't let it go is because you came hard when you thought someone misrepresented the counselmember and made a strawman argument while erring way too far in the other direction by doing the exact same thing as a defense. If your issue is about fairness in discussions, don't do that and then just shrug your shoulders and make excuses for it. "Eh... Agree to disagree. My baseless attack is just an opinion that's just as valid as yours..."

No it's not. You're making an excuse to do what you claim keeps you awake at night.

Best and SPD explicitly stated that layoffs would disproportionately affect BIPOC officers. I don’t know why you walked that back. It’s in the first link I gave you and the article you’re replying to now. Do you understand the term “disproportionately”? Do you understand the argument taking place here? I feel like we’re talking past eachother

Do you math?

SPD said that would mean laying off 46 Asian officers, 47 Black or African American officers, 56 Hispanic or Latino officers and 59 biracial or multiracial officers, among others, as well as 526 white officers.

208 minority to 526 whites. There are approximately 60% whites in America, and just over 70% whites that would lose their jobs. So the numbers affected would be statistically similar to population, thus not disproportionately affected. I'm not walking anything back. I'm replying to the math given.

 

[TheDeeble]

Best and SPD explicitly stated that layoffs would disproportionately affect BIPOC officers. I don’t know why you walked that back. It’s in the first link I gave you and the article you’re replying to now. Do you understand the term “disproportionately”? Do you understand the argument taking place here? I feel like we’re talking past eachother

Help me out here. I can't find anywhere Best states that BIPOC officers would be disproportionately affected in your link. The only reference to race is a couple sentences and a graph at the bottom. No mention of disproportionately affecting anyone.

Chief Best’s Message to Officers on Potential Cuts to Police Budget

 

[BartW]

She’s saying following policy would result in firing POC officers.

She then goes onto say that they could break with policy.

What do you think that implies?

Obviously, they want to get creative to at least maintain the diversity of SPD while shrinking the department. In her own words:

Councilmember Lisa Herbold called a similar diversity breakdown of the proposed cuts “a threat” on Twitter.

She wrote that the “Chief can request the Public Safety Civil Service Commission Executive Director to lay off out of order” when doing so is in “the interest of efficient operations of his or her department,” citing the commission’s rules.

Herbold went on to tweet that “this means Chief doesn’t have to fire the newest hired first. Chief says firing BIPOC members of the SPD would be harmful and I agree. I know she can argue just as convincingly that maintaining the employment of BIPOC officers is in the interest of efficient operations of the SPD.”

 

[RavinDave]

Great idea! I hear the more diverse your organization is the better it performs! I am sure axing all the White cops will just boost this performance!..........

What question would you axe them?

 

[BartW]

Help me out here. I can't find anywhere Best states that BIPOC officers would be disproportionately affected in your link. The only reference to race is a couple sentences and a graph at the bottom. No mention of disproportionately affecting anyone.

Chief Best’s Message to Officers on Potential Cuts to Police Budget

Right in the intro:

While no decisions have been made yet, we wanted the community to be aware of the situation. Laying off 50% of the department would be catastrophic for public safety in the city of Seattle.

The Department has made a conscious effort to hire employees, both sworn and civilian, who represent the diversity and values within our community.

Cuts this deep mean we would lose more than 50% of our Black, Indigenous and People of Color (BIPOC) officers. These officers’ life experiences make us a better department and community

.

 

[Orange_Crush]

Obviously, they want to get creative to at least maintain the diversity of SPD while shrinking the department. In her own words:

So you're agreeing that she's proposing layoffs based on race? After all that, you end up agreeing with us. lol

 

[TheDeeble]

Right in the intro:

.

So then she didn't actually say they would be disproportionately affected then when you said

Best and SPD explicitly stated that layoffs would disproportionately affect BIPOC officers

You're just interpreting that statement? Because the graph at the bottom even says 53% of the white officers will be cut.

 

[BartW]

So then she didn't actually say they would be disproportionately affected then when you said You're just interpreting that statement? Because the graph at the bottom even says 53% of the white officers will be cut.

If a 50% cut means more than 50% of BIPOC officers get laid off, yes, that is the interpretation. I agree the graph they provided creates some confusion, I’m not sure what to make of it. It may be off due to the ‘not specified’ category? Maybe because she’s unnecessarily lumping black and indigenous in with POC (mixed race specifically)?

I guess it wouldn’t surprise me much if Best is talking out of her ass entirely with the BIPOC comment, or being intentionally misleading. That makes her threat even more ridiculous.

 

[BartW]

So you're agreeing that she's proposing layoffs based on race? After all that, you end up agreeing with us. lol

I refer you to the first paragraph of my first post in this thread

 

[Orange_Crush]

I refer you to the first paragraph of my first post in this thread

You mean this one?

I read the article and missed where Herbold actually suggested firing only white officers or firing anyone based on race. Maybe she does feel that way, but as far as I can tell this article is a poorly constructed straw man.

The only quote I see is Herbold calling out the police chief’s threat that defunding the police would mean firing BIPOC officers first. The police chief is the race baiter here.

I in no way support the movement to defund. But if they do, there are ways to lay people off besides based on seniority or based on race. How about based on performance? Based on number of complaints/disciplinary actions?

That argued its away around the country to get to this more recent one?

Now you’re joining in on the straw man too. Nowhere did Herbold say they are going to lay off based on race. She’s saying “Instead of doing it in order of seniority, we could do it a different way”.

She doesn’t specify a solution, she just states that defund solutions that don’t disproportionately affect minority officers do exist (i.e. Best is wrong)

Which led to more arguing, until you finally agreed with us that she's proposing laying off based on race.

So... You don't know if what the chief said was true, but it was race baiting because it was untrue.

And the councilmember didn't call to lay off based on race, but may have, but my saying that she did was a strawman because she didn't, but she actually did and you said so all along.

Did you write the Covid rules too? They sound eerily similar.

And let's not forget that you defended her against the idea of laying off based on race as though it would be a bad thing, and then when you had to agree that's what she was doing, you presented it as though doing so isn't such a bad thing. Eh... It's just a creative way to maintain diversity.

Obviously, they want to get creative to at least maintain the diversity of SPD while shrinking the department. In her own words:

No. It's racist toro caca, and you've been waffling your way through this discussion just to carry water.