Kaepernick’s Call to Abolish The Police Raises Questions

When Colin Kaepernick knelt during the national anthem back in 2016, he was calling attention to the issue of black people dying in police incidents. Now Kaepernick Publishing is calling for the abolition of police and prisons in a series of articles.

The issue at the heart of the Black Lives Matter movement is a challenging topic and people have very strong feelings about it from different perspectives. We don’t all agree on the source of the problems or what the solutions should be, but all compassionate and peaceful people can agree that any time a person dies a violent death, it is a tragic loss of life that we wish could have been avoided. We would always prefer every person to live a full, peaceful and productive life instead. Kaepernick has every right to use his public status to bring attention to these issues that he cares deeply about.

To address the concerns shared by thousands of Black rights protestors, many people have suggested various forms of police reform and oversight or reallocating funds from police departments to community investments, but Kaepernick no longer believes these approaches are enough. When considering his proposal to abolish the police, some important questions arise that must be answered.

The Language of Abolition

Angela Davis says “The language of abolition evokes historical continuity” and compares police abolition to the eradication of slavery. Merriam-Webster defines “abolish” as “to end the observance or effect of” or “to completely do away with”. For most people, police abolition means the complete eradication of policing; i.e. zero law enforcement.

However, many “abolitionists” seek drastic reduction of the police force rather than zero police. Kaepernick links to TransformHarm.org, which features an article by Zak Cheney-Rice. He says “abolitionist alternatives include making police liable for misconduct settlements, demilitarizing them, and reducing the size of their departments”. He quotes another who acknowledges the need for a “small, specialized class of public servants whose job is to respond to violent crimes”, calling them “not police, exactly”.

Vox contributor Sean Illing summarizes that abolition is a “rhetorical device.” Anti-criminalization organizer Mariame Kaba insists that literal abolition is the ultimate goal, yet states “there would be less need for the police” rather than “zero need”. She quotes the President’s Task Force on 21st Century Policing member Tracey Meares, who says “policing as we know it must be abolished before it can be transformed,” suggesting drastic changes rather than complete eradication.

Definition and word choice matters. Reduction is not abolition (although “reductionist” has a different meaning entirely). When slavery was actually abolished, it was meant to be 100% ended, not just drastically reduced. Perhaps for Black rights advocates, the call for “abolition” is an understandable invocation of anti-slavery sentiment, even when it is actually a metaphor for drastic reduction or major changes to a still needed non-zero amount of law enforcement officers.

Surely there are actual anarchists, anti-government or vigilante justice proponents who would literally call for zero law enforcement. Hashtag #acab perpetuates the gross generalization that “All Cops Are Bastards.” One r/Anarchist commenter says, “No rework, just abolish. … In anarchy, individuals are sovereign and therefore free to exact their own justice.” Would police reduction advocates abide the bolstering of anti-government anarchists and vigilante justice?

It is imperative to differentiate literal abolition versus police reduction initiatives. Kaepernick’s article does not give indication that abolition is metaphorical for him.

Does he suggest zero law enforcement?

Kaepernick says “the abolition of these institutions is not the absence of accountability.” How would that work? Laws require some type of enforcement and repercussion for violations, otherwise they become more of a self-enforced moral code. Do abolitionists allow for any law enforcement? If so, would the enforcers be police by another name? If not, what does that mean for laws against the most heinous crimes?

On May 6, 2013, police rescued kidnapped girls Michelle Knight and Georgina DeJesus from the home of Ariel Castro in Cleveland, OH, after a third girl Amanda Berry escaped and police were contacted. They had been held captive for a decade. He was sentenced to life in prison, and later committed suicide.

Berry escaped first thanks to neighbor Charles Ramsey, who heard screaming and forced the door open to let her out. At that point he called 911 and police responded to free the other 2 girls.

Ramsey is a true hero, perhaps the kind that Kaepernick imagines when he speaks of “community-based methods of accountability”. By that standard, the responding police officers are heroes as well for entering the house and freeing the others.

In Kaepernick’s vision of a world, is Ramsey responsible for entering Castro’s house to rescue the other girls too, rather than calling 911? Should he be expected to confront Castro himself if he encountered him entering his home? If that turned violent, is Ramsey expected to subdue Castro himself, or perhaps with the help of a neighborhood militia? Should civilians be expected to train themselves for potentially violent encounters against offenders, to protect both themselves and their neighbors?

Consider Edgar Maddison Welch, a citizen who armed himself and went in search of victims of sex trafficking, firing a shot into a Washington pizzeria in 2016. It turns out he was acting on false allegations arising from the PizzaGate conspiracy theory, and he wrongfully endangered the safety of the people there. He was sentenced to four years in prison.

Now consider the tragic death of Breonna Taylor by police officers wearing plain clothes who entered her home on a no-knock warrant in March of 2020. In a world without police, she would probably be alive today. However, in a world where everyday citizens are expected to enter the home of a neighbor on allegations of heinous criminal violations, perhaps we would have even more situations like Taylor’s where any allegation can quickly turn into the death of innocent people.

Kaepernick mentions “putting justice first”. In a world without prisons, what does that look like for Ariel Castro? Note that Castro’s home was a prison to those girls for a decade. Does he get to choose to remain free in society, or is he involuntarily committed to a treatment facility or perhaps a Scandinavian style prison? Who is responsible for apprehending him and transporting him to that facility? Given his heinous crimes, who will protect the safety of the treatment facility workers? If Castro decides to escape, will someone be responsible for apprehending him again?

Is it ever acceptable for police to use violence?

Kaepernick criticizes “‘acceptable’ modes of enacting death and violence upon oppressed peoples”. Clearly there are many examples of excessive use of force by police that he is right to criticize, but does he find every instance of police violence unacceptable?

On November 28, 2016, Abdul Razak Ali Artan was killed by a police officer on the Ohio State University campus. In 2 minutes, Abdul had intentionally rammed his car into people and attacked several others with a butcher knife, injuring 13 people in total, before being shot and killed by Officer Alan Horujko. If not for this action, even more people would likely have been injured or killed that day. Traditionally Horujko would be considered a hero. Would Kaepernick call his action unacceptable?

Abdul was a student at OSU, and he probably had dreams of a successful career. Ideally Abdul would have received the support and compassionate intervention that could have prevented this tragedy. Kaepernick imagines a world where mental health and community services is the key to avoiding such incidents, and I fully support efforts to bring about these kinds of support systems. However, OSU does have many such services available to students, yet the incident happened anyway. This suggests that making more services available to marginalized communities, while worthwhile, would likely not eliminate violent crime, so we must address how we should handle these situations when they occur.

Perhaps Abdul could have been subdued without a fatal shot, to end the active threat without ending his life. It is reasonable to question if a lesser amount of force could have been used, though it may be difficult to know what could have happened in the mere minutes in which it all unfolded. Regardless, in Kaepernick’s world, there likely would not have been an officer there to end the active threat at all. Does he expect those 13 victims to fend for themselves? In the absence of police, perhaps a citizen militia would have responded to the threat instead, whether or not abolitionists would call for that.

Consider the proposal by the National Rifle Association and President Trump to arm teachers with guns as a solution to stop school shootings or attacks like Abdul’s. Would this fit within Kaepernick’s vision of community-based accountability? Wouldn’t armed teachers or other civilian responders be susceptible to the same kind of abuse of power we’re seeking to prevent? Are teachers or other working civilians well suited for handling violent altercations alongside their primary vocational responsibilities? As a former tutor and adjunct professor myself, I did not feel well suited for that role.

Would abolishing the police actually reduce violence caused by white supremacists?

Kaepernick says “By abolishing policing and prisons, [we can] eliminate white supremacist establishments.” Given this proposition, we should also consider the possibility that the lack of law enforcement could actually embolden white supremacist organizations.

Consider the recent rise of extremist armed militia groups such as Proud Boys, Boogaloo Boys and Three Percenters, or influential racist Richard Bertrand Spencer’s vision of a completely segregated America. Their extreme views have already had dangerous outcomes.

On August 12, 2017, neo-Nazi James Alex Fields Jr. drove from Ohio to Charlottesville to attend a white supremacist rally, where he intentionally drove into a crowd of counter-protestors, killing 1 and injuring 19 others. He is currently serving life in prison. Without law enforcement, perhaps his racism would have led to even more violence against innocent people.

Just this month, a dozen men plotted to kidnap the Governor of Michigan and overthrow the government after meeting in Dublin, OH. Their goal was very similar to the Boogaloo Boys movement, whose extreme anti-government views and goals of initiating a second civil war have been known to attract white supremacists. Their plot was thwarted by federal agents and the men were apprehended.

In some ways Kaepernick’s goals might be aligned with these anti-government groups. Governor Whitmer’s coronavirus restrictions on citizens and businesses was the impetus for their anger. If there were no police to enforce the restrictions perhaps there would have been no plot in reaction to it. With no enforcement of restrictions on bars, restaurants and events there might have been many more COVID-19 deaths as well.

Nevertheless, the threat of white supremacists intent on overthrowing the government or reinstating forced segregation would likely be antithetical to Kaepernick’s vision of safer communities for Black people. If law enforcement agents did not exist to thwart the plot of these men, and they succeeded in overthrowing the government of Michigan, what kind of social order might they have installed to replace it?

This type of interstate criminality and conspiring would likely be quite difficult to thwart with community-based methods alone.

Would Private Security Replace Police?

Wealthier citizens living in gated communities often already employ private security to meet their needs. Without police, more middle class homeowners might employ these services as well. Meanwhile marginalized communities would not likely have the resources and access to private security services, and may be targeted by criminals even more in the absence of police. Furthermore, private security could perpetrate the same kinds of injustices or worse, but without any law enforcement to hold them accountable.

White Collar Crimes

So called “white collar” crime is also an important issue handled by law enforcement. Corruption, identity theft and cyber attacks can have deep negative effects on citizens and communities. Even if we abolished police and instead allocated funds toward community investment, what happens if someone steals those funds for their own enrichment? Who is responsible for finding and holding that thief accountable?

Just this month a hospital in Ashtabula, OH was the victim of a ransomware cyberattack, which impacted some services in doctor’s offices. Without professional law enforcement and the authority to apprehend and penalize these criminals, would these issues not go completely unabated or perhaps seem even more attractive to criminals?

Political Implications

Serious consideration of abolishing the police and abandonment of reform efforts runs political risks of getting neither. Most Americans agree with major police reform, but 85% of Americans do not want to abolish the police. The Republican Party and Thin Blue Line supporters often disagree that systemic racism is occurring. Furthermore, Donald Trump has promised to be the “Law and Order” candidate in support of police institutions. Abolition efforts may drive more independent voters to agree with Trump’s characterization of a “radical left”, and a Trump victory in 2020 could dash hopes for the type of changes Kaepernick calls for.

President Trump has criticized Kaepernick, saying, “You have to stand proudly for the national anthem, or … maybe you shouldn’t be in the country.” He has also encouraged police violence against apprehended suspects saying “Please don’t be too nice.”

Perhaps police abolitionists aren’t convinced either political party will do enough. Kaepernick has previously heavily criticized both Trump and Hillary Clinton. Joe Biden’s record has been controversial in its effects on mass incarceration, though during his 2020 campaign he does acknowledge systemic racial disparities, the need to reduce incarceration, and has agreed with redirecting police funding. Biden has called for an increase in funding to be allocated toward social workers and psychologists within police departments.

Conclusion

This article is not an argument for nor justification of current policing practices or mass incarceration, but a consideration of what the complete removal of these institutions would be.

This site’s motto is “Appreciate What’s Good. Work Toward Better.” We can appreciate the good that police have done, while also recognizing the deeply troubling issues of excessive use of police force and the need to prevent such cases. We can and should consider proposed solutions to these issues, including fairly drastic shifts in policing, accountability and incarceration, but these considerations must include every consequence of such drastic shifts. We must be confident that we’re not ending one kind of injustice while allowing for other injustices to grow elsewhere.

We should not simply accept the status quo out of fear for incidents like the examples mentioned above, but we must acknowledge these actual threats facing Ohioans, and Americans in general, that police do confront.

Kaepernick rightly calls out a number of criticisms of the origins and current practices of policing, but his letter arrives in haste at the cynical conclusion that abolition is the only plausible solution. There are a wide array of alternatives to addressing societal issues besides sending more police or completely abolishing the police. Any such proposal must specify how various circumstances will be handled, or not handled, in the absence of police. He asserts that police must be abolished before providing details on how it would actually make our communities safer against real, active threats from other civilians when community service investments were not enough to prevent them.

Perhaps Kaepernick would accept reforms as a solution if they were meaningful enough to bring about the kind of accountability for police abuse of power that he calls for. Clearly he is frustrated with the push for reform resulting in what he considers too incremental of changes. Maybe after years of being derided and of his pleas for change being downplayed, he feels the only way to get sufficient change is to take it to the extreme. Sometimes we have to talk about the extremes to move the middle to where it belongs.

We do need patience and rational thinking to solve these issues, but we also cannot allow atrocities to continue either. As Martin Luther King Jr. said, “justice too long delayed is justice denied.” Thankfully there are some initiatives across the country to work toward improving police accountability, such as the Civilian Review Board being developed in Columbus, Ohio, or the ban on no-knock warrants in Louisville also considered in cities like Cincinnati. Whether or not these initiatives will be enough or require more drastic steps will likely remain a matter of debate for some time to come.

Recommended reading: The End of Policing left me convinced we still need policing by Matthew Yglesias of Vox

Republicans call to defund or abolish law enforcement in 2022

8/10/22 Update: Conservatives have been critical of calls to defund or abolish the police from the left, but now some prominent Republicans are calling for defunding or abolishing a federal law enforcement agency. US Representatives Marjorie Taylor Greene and Lauren Boebert have called for defunding the FBI, while Representatives Paul Gosar and Jeff Duncan, Texas’ Republican Party Chairman Matt Rinaldi, and right-wing commentators Dinesh D’Souza and Candace Owens have all called for its elimination. This was in reaction to the FBI executing a search warrant of Donald Trump’s residence, before we even have all the facts. Note that the US Constitution explicitly allows search warrants “upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched”.

‘Defund the FBI’—the MAGA Right’s Hypocritical New Slogan (TheBulwark)

Last year, some conservatives undermined the service of Capitol police officers who defended Congress from a mob of Trump supporters on January 6th, 2001:

GOP lawmaker refuses to shake hand of officer who protected Capitol on Jan. 6 (Axios)
21 House Republicans vote against awarding Congressional Gold Medal to all police officers who responded on Jan. 6 (Washington Post)
Conservatives go after Capitol police officers who testified before Jan. 6 commission (Salon)

Hyper-partisanship often leads to such unprincipled hypocrisy. We need leaders who will put the good of our country over the short term interests of their party.