De-Fund or Abolish the Police, Then What?

De-fund the Police, Then What?

As a former Naval Base Security Officer and the son of a Police Chief, I have a certain amount of experience and knowledge to bring to this topic. I acknowledge that many of you will disagree with me at first, but please hear me out.

The De-Fund The Police wave is short-sighted and naive. It speaks of anger & resentment & a refusal to live with a broken system. But it also speaks to a desire for quick, simple solutions to complex problems and to catchy slogans.

What I think Derek Chauvin definitively proved we need beyond a reasonable doubt: Massive reform in law enforcement. That doesn't mean de-fund. It means reform for real. And it's going to require funding, lots of funding.

Start with training protocols. Chauvin was a training officer on the day he killed George Floyd. Doesn't that raise an enormous red flag?

Bring the pressure to the police unions. They're getting a lot of play in the press right now for enabling officers like Chauvin to stay in the system.

Weed out the psychologically unsound apples. Start from the top, and work our way down. It takes a particular mindset to be a responsible police officer. The police departments and unions need to start cracking down on anyone who's not fit now. If they want to send a message that they are going to finally learn and improve, then this is how they do it.

Oversight, Regulation, Consequences. Sorry to all you enthusiastic de-regulators out there. But the police have proved time and again that they cannot police themselves. If it takes putting them under the microscope to keep us safe from the agencies who are supposed to keep us safe, then that's what we do.

Fund social services. Mayor DeBlasio has this partly right. Reaching young people earlier, and giving them support and alternatives, can have lasting, positive effects. Giving them routes to education, and a vision for their futures that is better than crime, can pay dividends.

Here is my worries about just de-funding law enforcement:

It's an easy answer that will make people fond of slogans happy. Then they'll move on to the next trendy issue. But the problems in law enforcement won't just magically go away by yanking the money away. If anything, they could get worse.

Law Enforcement is one of the most stressful jobs out there. Every time a cop approaches someone in the line of duty, he knows it could be a matter of life and death. Do you really want to withdraw funds and resources to guys who are already in a high stress environment, and twist the screws to see how much stress they can really take? How could this possibly go well?

De-funding the police will not magically make all the crime go away. Grow up. There is crime in America. There are criminals. There was also plenty of other times when people need the police for emergency services. I'm not talking about all the people who are unjustly imprisoned for something stupid like marijuana possession. I'm talking about rapists, murderers, burglars, armed robbers, violent drug dealers, etc. They are not just going to take a vacation because the police ain't there to police. Do you like the inordinate power of those cartels in other parts of the world? No reason it couldn't happen here.

A few bright sparks have suggested bringing policing down to a community level. Great. So we're going to trust our policing to a bunch of community volunteers without any training, organization, license or infrastructure. We'll sleep at night while these mooks from the neighborhood march up and down the street all night with flashlights? What could possibly go wrong? How soon you forget about Tyvron Martin? This seems like a great way to find out how psychopathic Fred down the street is. Let's arm him too, just to be safe. Yeah, I'm not worried about their ignorance of the penal codes either. Also, who the hell has the time for that stuff? I sure don't. And if you do, I have a suggestion (once the whole economic Corona meltdown is over). Get a job! Matter of fact, if you have the desire to police your neighborhood, and have some time on your hands...maybe you could get a job with the police department! Believe me, after the purge coming, they will be hiring. I just hope their standards are way higher.

My father was career law enforcement. He rose to Chief of Police. He didn't fire his weapon in the line of duty once and neither did I. If we could make it to retirement without killing anyone, so can plenty of others.

Looking For Fred On The Web

If you are looking for a web site officially connected to Senator Fred Thompson's emerging campaign, I invite you to check out www.ImWithFred.com. The link above is for making a contribution. In future posts, I'll explain my support for Fred and why he is our best hope in 2008.

I'm Back

Dear Friends:

I'm sorry that I have been away from blogging for the last year. It was a very busy time for me. However, I am happy to report that I am now the proud father a healthy and growing boy named Jack (John Henry Dittmer, VII to be formal).

Now that are many issues I need to get back on top, I promise to be more active in the future. See you soon!

John

May Day! May Day! May Day!

It is funny how the words May Day have several meanings. For some, it is the start of the Month of May. For others, it is a day to demonstrate for the rights of workers and left-wing causes. For some, it is a distress call, especially when a plane is in danger. But for some now, it is a day to protest for the "rights" of illegal aliens.

Now, before you start trying to label me as a racist, a xenophobic, or as anti-immigrant, let's get a few things straight about me, shall we? First, on my mother's side of my family, I am the grandson of Greek immigrants who somehow managed to come to America legally, obeyed the law, learned English, and became citizens. They never asked for the laws to be changed to accommodate them after they broke them and never dreamed to have the National Anthem translated in their language with the lyrics changed to be "political correct and less militaristic".
Second, my wife is Mexican-American on her mother's side. Sorry, amigos, she is going to work today out of her own choice. Third, our child who will be arriving in October will be a quarter Hispanic. Her family has lived in the US since 1919 and they have somehow managed to obey the law and become citizens. Despite their heritage, they are Americans first and loyal to our country and expect the law to be obeyed and be fair. They have also seen how some Hispanics have exploited their "brothers and sisters" by trafficking in illegal immigration, drugs, and charge high rents for a place a live. Also, they do not subscribe to the notion that somehow the Southwestern portion of the US was "stolen" from Mexico and demand its return like some extremists in the Latino community.

So what do I suggest that we as country do? The following:

- First, in the words of congressman Tom Davis: Build a high wall with a wide gate. In other words, secure the borders. If millions of illegal aliens can get in, so can terrorists, drug smugglers, and other criminals. People like MS-13 gang members should be kept out. We should permit more legal immigration and make it easier. Currently, our system of legal immigration is as confusing and conflicting as the tax code. People trying to play by the rules are forced to wait years while our politicians are considering legal amnesty for those ho outright break the law. Is that any way fair? I don't think so. Mexico actually throws illegal aliens coming in from other parts of Latin America in jail for at least two years. That seems interesting (scams like Vincente Fox is a huge hypocrite on this issue).

- Second, create a consistent body of laws nationally on how to deal with illegal immigrants. No in-state tuition, no driver's licenses, no voting rights, and no health care (other than legitimate emergency care) if you are here illegally. If an illegal alien is arrested, then the local and state police should report it immediately to the federal immigration officials. No more more catch and release. Not even bail. In addition, if it turns out that a fraudulent Social Security Number is being used, then that person should be arrested immediately. Also, companies should be examined on a regular basis for their hiring practices, not just when politicians are showing they be "be tough" on the issue.

- Third, President Bush says that mass deportation are impossible. Somehow, it was done in the 1950s when over a million illegal aliens were deported. Even if we just secure the border and remove the incentives to come here illegally, the numbers should go down.

- Fourth, no amensty should be allowed. We already tried that 20 years ago and it failed. If we do it again, it will be appear as an invitation for more illegal aliens.

- Fifth, create a group of immigration offices in major cities in Latin America (not just at the embassies or the consulates, we need to go where the people live) to make it easy for potential immigrants to apply for legal work visas. It would also, make it easier to investigate their backgrounds with the help of local governments there.

- Sixth, expand the number of Border Patrol agents and resources available to them. Congress has already offered the President the money to do so yet the Administration has rejected it. Time to take another tack.

- Seventh, a special note to the hierarchary of the Roman Catholic Church: Remember what Jesus said, Render onto Caesar what belongs to Caesar and to God what is God's. In other words, the rule of law must be adhered to. You talk about letting in illegal immigrants for humanitarian reasons. Is it so humanitarian to bring them here illegally and then be exploited, working for less than minimum wage and in illegal working conditions? I don't think so. Plus, I have grave doubts is the majority of illegal immigrants were Baptists or Muslims that you would be so ready to defend their "rights". Let's be honest with ourselves. Plus, uncontrolled immigration will just force the wages of working people lower. How will that serve any good purposes?

In summary, I offer the above points as the basis for a logical and systematic approach to the issue of illegal immigration. I see a lot of hated and misguided passions on both sides. I would hate to see my own family and my own country caught in the middle of a conflict that does not have to happen.

If You Really Want To Support the Troops

Dear Editor of the Washington Post:

As a Navy veteran, I fully agree with the Joints Chief of Staff in objecting to your political cartoon. It was in extremely bad taste to use the plight of our wounded troops as part of a poor choice of a "punchline" for a cartoon. I fully agree with the point that the services are undermanned but using innocent amputees as part of a joke is highly offensive.

My father was wounded at Pearl Harbor and had to spend several months in a hospital due to head wounds. Then he had to wear a steel plate in his head the rest of his life. For his troubles, he was sent back to Pacific to fight the Japanese as soon as he recovered enough because they needed every Sailor available to fight at Coral Sea, Midway, and the island campaigns that he participated in. There was a manpower shortage of trained troops back then too during the early phases of that war since the military was relatively small before the war started and it takes months to make a service member a viable part of the team. However, I seriously doubted that anyone would have had the nerve to use his condition for political purposes, never mind as a joke back in WWII.

You liberals are suppose to be so sensitive to others in need (gee, doesn't a young servicemember who is underpaid and lost body parts in the defense of your freedom qaulify?) and you saw that you "support the troops" but you have a rotten way of showing it. No wonder your readership has been going down.

If you want to advocate, fine, but please do it in a constructive way. If you do not issue an apology soon, I will be forced in good conscience to cancel my subscription to your newspaper.

Sincerely,

John DittmerLCDR USNR (Ret.)

A "Chocolate" New Orleans? An Open Letter to Mayor Nagin

Dear Mayor Nagin:

I was offended at your comment about building a "Chocolate" New Orleans. As an American of mixed ethnic and racial heritage, I found it racist. I will no longer visit your city or send any money to any businesses or charities down there until you apologize for your extremely insenstive remarks. For your information, I have been to New Orleans three times in recent years, including spending my honeymoon there in 2004. One of the things I loved about New Orleans was it diversity of history and cultures. A "chocolate" New Orleans won't be that. To use your analogy, you need to mixed it with vanilla, strawberry, coffee, and all the other flavors. Unless you do, New Orleans will just be one large ghetto that other people won't want to visit or do business there. You desparately need to learn you need the rest of America and people of all colors to make a great city!

Sincerely,
John Dittmer

Let's Not Try To Define Family in PWC

Dear Prince William County Supervisors:

I having been reading alot of the proposed housing ordinance to prevent overcrowding and I feel the need to chime in on this issue as the President of a HOA in Rollingwood and someone married into a Hispanic family.

I am not a lawyer like you two are but I think that using writing the ordinance in terms of family like Manassas did is going to create a lot more problems than you wanted to solve for the following reasons:

- Try to legally define family. There are so many different types of relationships now that bring people to live together. I don't think you want to get the County wrapped up in charges of discrimination or being biased.

- We have people living here from all around the world. Do you really want County officials wrapped up try to read marriage, birth, and divorce certificates written in dozens of langauges. For example, I have a half-brother with a different last name from my mother's first marriage. To legally prove that he is my half-brother, I would have to produce two birth certificates, two marriage certificates, and a divorce decree because my mother had three different names. Fortunately, I have all those in English but imagine someone who had to produce all those type of documents from places which may or may not produce them. Imagine trying doing that is hundreds if not thousands of cases as time goes on.

- Different cultures define immediate family differently. For example, people of Phillipino descent would regard cousins as immediate family as others would not. Whose concept of family are suppose to legislate?

- You will make County officials intrude on family and personal relationships which may exceed what is constitutional to solve a housing and immigration problem. Not a good choice.

Based on my in-laws' experience in California, I understand the need to control the overcrowding problem. Here are my answers:

- You need to set limits on the number of people based on expert opinion what the type of housing unit can support (based on such factors such as number of bathrooms, bedrooms, etc.)

- Quality of life laws sound be enforced, much like it was done in New York under the Guiliani administration. If someone is making too much noise or littering, enforce the rules and laws already in effect or create new ones that meet the issues directly. It worked for New York.

- Make it easy for someone to report and if the police or other County officials see that the offense is being done, empower them to make enforcements.

- I know this may require the changing of commonwealth-level laws, but if there are illegal immigrants involved, I think that local law enforcement should be allowed to assist ICE in enforcing federal immigration laws. My 91 year old grandmother-in-law came from Mexico in 1919 and always found a way to be here legally, why shouldn\'t everyone else?

I believe these ideas put together make a better solution than an ordinance which will cost the County potentially millions of dollars in legal and administrative fees.

Sincerely,

John Dittmer

Greeting Cards from the White House

Note: This is a letter written to Chris Core of WMAL, host of the Chris Core Show.

Dear Chris:

I am writing to you because I have been listening the last few weeks over all the contraversaries people have been making up concerning the holidays. It's bad enough people our fighting over what to call a Christmas tree (come on, only people who celebrate Christmas plus maybe a few old-time pagans decorate a tree for a holiday). It's bad enough that we have to walk around on tippy toes on how to address people during the holidays (I've settled on saying Merry Christmas only if I know they're Christians or they are wearing a cross or Christmas related appearal and say "Happy Holidays" if I'm not sure.) All this to accomodate a few extremists on the left who want to wipe out any public practices of Christianity even though it is the religion of the vast majority of Americans. However, on the extreme right, there are also problems which has prompted to me to write you.

Last Saturday, I was honored to recieved a holiday greeting card from the White House, signed by President Bush and the First Lady. I suspect because of how it was addressed, it was sent to me because of my participation in my local Republicsn Committee. I'm not mover or shaker, just an average member, contributing some of my time and money. I appreciated the nice gesture from the Bushes. This morning, I was surprised to see in the Washington Post that some Christian groups have seen fit to make issue over the same greeting card, because it did not specifically state "Christmas" or make reference to Jesus' birth. Come on! The cards were sent to over 1.2 million supporters of the President. How is the White House suppose to know the religious preferences of each one of them and what would be offensive or not? I knew the card was to me because I'm an active Republican and it was addressed to me and not my wife, who doesn't get involved in the party. She is not listed in any party database, so she wasn't addressed. If the White House didn't know enough that I was married, who is it going to know if I'm a Christian (which I am) or Jewish or Muslim or another religion? There is no legal registry of your religious faith in America outside of the military. The military only does it so they can stamp your dog tags and send the right Chaplain if the need arises. So I do not think it is fair to slam the White House over this issue. There is no way the White House staff is going to be able to know the religion of each person who gets a card, so it was right for the staff to send cards which has a common holiday greeeting which should offend no one. However, there are always people who want to fight over anything.

I thought this would be a good topic and I would be happy to discuss it on your show.