Defunding the Police

EconBuff Podcast #19 with Harry Hueston

Dr. Harry Hueston talks with me about defunding the police. Dr. Hueston gives his thoughts on the history of police reforms such as defunding the police and other potential reforms. We explore unbundling the services police provide, and Dr. Hueston explains the difficulties of funding alternatives services if they were unbundled. Dr. Hueston argues police training is designed to cope with the difficulties of assessing an evolving situation on the fly. Finally, we discuss the militarization of the police and we explore how Dr. Hueston views the relationship of police to their communities.

Photo Credit: AP Photo/Nathan Howard

Transcript

Stitzel: Hello and welcome to the EconBuff Podcast. I'm your host, Lee Stitzel. With me today is Dr. Harry Hueston. He is a Professor of Criminal Justice at West Texas A&M. He retired as Chief of Police from The University of Arizona in 2000 after 30 years in law enforcement, serving in various positions in Ohio, California, Arizona and with the U.S. Army Military Police. He is certified as a Peace Officer in Ohio, Arizona and with the U.S. Army. So I'm going to present the audio of the interview that I did on the topic of defunding the police. Due to some technical issues, we've lost a little bit of the front --- which is basically just the introduction and the end of the interview. So when we get to the end, it's going to cut off somewhat abruptly. I've chosen with this episode to simply present what it is that I have, since I have virtually all of the discussion here. I hope you guys enjoy.

Hueston: Well, I --- and I think it's interesting because I read over everything. And I got a bad habit. So last night I started Googling the whole process of defunding the police and found that this is not a new idea. Man --- think it was most ideas we have today aren't new, it's just that they're reinvented from somebody that took them 50 years ago. And sure enough, the interesting thing about this [is that this idea came from a] guy by the name of Dubois who actually founded the NAACP in 1908. So in the early part of the 19th or the 20th century the funding was talked about in great length. And so the process of defunding isn't new. And I think the one of the biggest issue is people really don't understand [is] that a budget for a police department has nothing to do with the federal government nor the state government.

Stitzel: Really.

Hueston: It's all local. And so when you have this upsurge of media --- which by the way I can't probably make a statement that data (statistical data) is no longer valid in any of these kind of arguments, because --- nobody's listening to it [the data, they are only relying on media emotional hype]. The key to this seems to be what is the current hype. Like right now --- Philadelphia's going nuts.

Stitzel: Yeah. Walter Wallace, Jr.

Hueston: Yeah. And the difficulty we have, and Lee it's the way police functions are set up. They spend literally years in training, and then every year (much like many other professions have to go through) in-service training. [This required in-service training requires] minimum hours dictated by the state of whomever that they're certified in. The problem is in, I guess in my 50-some years I've been involved in actually participating in criminal justice, the problem is [that] the police have to make decisions that are incredibly hard in nanoseconds. A guy down in Philadelphia O.K., technically under the law, they are perfectly within their legal rights to defend himself against a weapon that can take a life. The knife can take a life. So the concept of using deadly force, when you are confronted with a situation where there is a knife that can potentially kill you, under most state laws in The United States, [the answer is]: yes [you can use deadly force]. The sad part about this was the guy had a history of mental issues. And so, one of the questions to ask is: O.K., how well known was that? Then the other situation is: did they have options other than a gun? And it appears to me that The Philadelphia Police Department is missing equipping its entire force with a taser. Now would a taser work in this [situation]? And the answer is: yes, it would. A taser is called less than lethal force. In the last 20 years, there have been a huge jump in police weaponry [of using] less than lethal force. So evidently, when I saw and read everything, they didn't have a taser. Could there have been another option? Well, no. Because the police are trained when they're confronted with an individual with a knife (called an edge weapon) then they're trained to react in a certain way. So, there's a --- it's a very complex issue; [whereas] that in my mind [this] has been built over literally hundreds of years of our society. [Our society is] assigning police to do jobs that everybody is starting to realize: well, you really need a mental counselor on something like this. Well, the answer is: yeah. And as a result of what we've seen in our country --- through the media on only select issues by the way --- then you're seeing solutions that police have been talking about for years. I mean, this is nothing new. The idea that we need more counselors, or the idea we need more drug counselors on board --- these kind of issues are what the what the police have been given as their purpose in our American society. This isn't something that just happened. This is literally hundreds of years old. And so, as a result, some of the issues that are coming to the forefront today, definitely are not [reiterates] definitely are not new. And so, as I looked at that, you know, I see about four things in this recent thing. And one of the other things is that, sort of, bothers me about this [is]: so in most of these incidents what is the reaction by the media in its bias? And then the next question is: that biasedness --- what does that drive a community to do? Well take anyone of these incidents over the past decade and what has happened. It's out. The news is slanted. I'm not saying right or wrong --- that's not my job until I get all the facts. And I'm not going to be the judge, jury, [or] anything on that. But what happens? Well, we have a peaceful demonstration that evolves into riots that have now cost people's lives [and] that have destroyed (not hundreds of millions but) billions of [dollars in damage]. And what have we gained out of that? This is the thing that is at the forefront of all this. There's no plan! There's no plan we're getting from our government! I don't see a plan from state! I don't see a plan from leadership in any one of these ethnic communities that's coming forward to say: this is what we need to do!

Stitzel: So you've laid out a lot of things.

Hueston: Oh, I've laid out a lot of things. I should shut up.

Stitzel: I would love to I would love to unpack those things.

Hueston: O.K.

Stitzel: So the first thing --- and I/you brought it back around --- to, sort of, that idea of defunding the police. I think if somebody's out on the street and, you know, they walk in here and they say (and you say to them): O.K. well, what's the plan? They're gonna say: we want to defund the police.

Hueston: Hmm mmm.

Stitzel: Now to someone like me, who sees that for the first time --- because I don't know

Hueston: Hmm mmm.

Stitzel:…the story you told there at the beginning [that] this is an old idea apparently. By the way, all these things are.

Hueston: Yeah.

Stitzel: I've been astounded. I've --- my economics reading…

Hueston: Sure.

Stitzel:…has been to go back to people who are some of the, you know, sort of, titans in the field. And I've always been one to, sort of, read the current stuff.

Hueston: Hmm mmm.

Stitzel: And I'm starting to really go back to that foundational stuff.

Hueston: Hmm mmm.

Stitzel: And I'm like, I mean, [this] stuff written in 1940…

Hueston: Hmm mmm.

Stitzel:…could be written about the stuff today…

Hueston: Absolutely.

Stitzel:…to me. So, it literally doesn't surprise me at all that this is just not something I thought about.

Hueston: Hmm mmm.

Stitzel: So if you asked me two months ago…

Hueston: Sure.

Stitzel:…what does defund the police mean? I think what [it] must mean [is]: pull all of the funding and do something else with it.

Hueston: Hmm mmm.

Stitzel: I don't think that's quite what it means.

Hueston: Hmm mmm.

Stitzel: So, start there for us. What is this age-old idea? And are/is there any clear plan, in your estimation, of the way that people that are saying defund the police…

Hueston: O.K.

Stitzel:…are doing it now?

Hueston: O.K. well let's go and repeat what history says. And like you just commented, many of the issues that we are discussing today, were discussed in the early 1900s. And it was at that particular time --- it was a race issue too. And it was evolving around law enforcement and their treatment of African-Americans. And [for] it to say: was this as prolific as it is right now? I would say probably. But the idea of having the resources of broadcasting news, to the extent in the almost instantaneous news that we got today --- that wasn't possible back in the early 1900s. But, I think, some of the reasons are [that] the rationale [is] the same. And so, the concept of defunding the police is the idea that police represent a certain amount of resource that is funded through dollars. And so if you look at some of the past historic issues and compare them to what's going on today --- [they are] pretty similar. The idea [of]: well, we'll take a chunk of money from the police and put it into this other social service that could remedy some of the police issues. And while I think that's a wonderful concept, when you get down to the reality of that is: who is controlling the funding issue? And the funding issue is not done by the federal government. For federal police it is, but not for states. Now the State of Texas, for example, and like many other states has a state police function. It could be called The Highway Patrol, Department of Public Safety [DPS], [or] whatever it is. O.K. so who controls that? That state. When it comes to these cities, it really hasn't had anything to do with the federal. Even state funding --- that's all local. That's based upon local taxes. And so, the idea there is --- and this is what is going on currently the idea is --- we can take money away from one resource and put it into another. Well, we can use a current election right here, right now in Amarillo. So, they want to build a new civic center. Well, they got a proposition. Well, who is going to figure that proposition out? Is it going to be the City Commissioner? Is it going to be the Mayor? No! It's the public. The voters are going to determine whether or not they're going to have that increased tax on their particular residence. So that same principle applies when you start taking resources away. Now if you're taking away --- I think that there are some rather interesting models where The City of Camden, for example, in New Jersey almost 40 years ago (I could be a little off on that) but they took a look. They had a huge problem. And much like today, it focused around an African-American (it's an African-American issue) issue. But when I say that I mean it's a society issue. But many of the racial things that we are seeing today --- this is also not new. And so, they had a huge crime problem. And so they completely eradicated the police department. They said: we're done with the [local city] police. We're going to bring the [county] Sheriff in. And they did. And that worked for a little bit. But then they quickly saw --- that if you have as a community your local police, then you have a better control on them through a variety of ways versus the county. The county elects a County Sheriff [and] has nothing to do with a city. And so that's the Sheriff's responsibility (or the County Commissioner). So, you're getting back into some government issues here. Anyways, what they did (and it's a concept that has worked) --- they took that money that normally went from the taxpayers to the police. And they started looking at: can we create social service programs that can augment or go with the police? And they started doing that. And it does work. Now a couple things about that’s interesting [is that] the measure of success in that is up for grabs. I mean, we still have crime. Crime is a universal topic wherever we go. However, is the crime centralized into one particular area? Do the residents of the town feel they are better served by a combination of police and or some sort of social services? And has it been evaluated like with surveys or anything? And what has happened is that there's a mixed bag. The mixed bag is: one of the most recent surveys [reveal] some people really like it. But you talk, and then the flip side of that [is] some of the people say: no, that's the same old stuff. Nothing's really changed. And so that tells me a couple things. I can't determine whether [there] was any type of survey that was done. Camden, New Jersey is a city of about 80,000 by the way. So it's going to be smaller than Amarillo. But the concept, I think, is there they've also learned that the cops work together with these services. But when it really gets down to a danger --- so weapons involved or we're dealing with a life and death situation --- it's the cops [that] are going to take over. And so, I say that because that model has been put up and circulated and recirculated run. The reason I thought it was interesting, is [that] in the 70s (early 70s) there was a huge movement for this thing called community policing. And that's when you saw the law enforcement administration [being thrown] lots of money; [whereas lots of money was] thrown at law enforcement, innovation of technology, educate police officers, [and] all that stuff. And as a result [and] all that --- this Camden thing went off. And Camden at the time was considered a really good role model. Now would that work today in the cities of L.A., Philly, [or] Chicago? You know, that is a question that a couple things I think we'd have to take a look at. Let's take a look at training for cops. Just right now, I think, most of our listening audience believes that you know cops are trained, but they really don't understand the training process. So, I think that is an important part. Training is mandated by the state of which certifies police officers. And so, there's a [mandate by the state]. Like The State of Texas, I think --- it's close to a thousand hours. You have to take so many hours of law [and] so many hours of state law. You have to take so many hours of learning how to drive a police car, to use a variety of weapons, how to defend yourself, [and how to] drive cars. I mean, the list technically is up to --- well, the Department of Public Safety, their initial training program for their recruits --- six months long. That's eight --- well actually they say eight [but] really it starts at about six in the morning --- [and it] goes till about ten at night. So you've got six months of that. And they are the longest ones. Now what happens to like a Lubbock or an Amarillo? Well, they have about 16 to 18 weeks. And it has to follow the mandates by The State of Texas (which every state has that certification process). And so it follows that. And so the cops then are given instruction by --- they can be given instruction by what they call experts in the field. They can be given instructions by what they have to be certified as a training officer by the state they get. They could be professors. They could be teachers. They could be narcotics agents --- those kind of things. I mean, so there's a process for these cops to be trained. They're tested every week. Many academies require that that cadet has to maintain a 75% (which would be like for us a 75's a C). [So a] minimum 75% throughout the whole thing. If you get below that, [then] you're put on probation. You're given a chance to pull up. If you don't, if you don’t continue to be consistent, [then] you're kicked out. I mean it's/there's/that's the way it is. Now after you're done with all that --- and by the way, this kind of training Lee is hands-on in some aspects in classrooms in another --- and so it's important that you understand. You know, you give a police cadet [a taser]. [And so] we're going to teach you how to use this particular taser. O.K. well, first thing is most departments are requiring that it's important that you see what a taser does. So, they tase you. [Laughs].

Stitzel: Yeah, we've all seen those videos online.

Hueston: Yeah. And you've seen all that. And I think there's two reasons for that. Number one --- in all the training that I've ever done, I really feel it's important to put either your students, or your cadets, or your police officers --- if they're going to be dealing with a hands-on, they have to deal with it, [and] then I feel the best type of training is --- [in a scenario to] recreate that situation. Let them deal with it. And so, a couple things with the taser --- you have to point depending upon the model and all that stuff. But you've got to make sure that when you send those darts out --- that you're going to hit and get contact so that things go. The second thing --- it's really important to understand that that's an electrical charge that disrupts your nervous system. And [that] can have some negative results depending upon the age, and the build, and a bunch of other things. So, the flip side of that is: then if you're going to tase somebody, and they own a cardiac arrest, you better be prepared to deal with that. Because that is reality. And so, I use a taser because there's a whole course you got to go through. And so, I want us/our audience to understand it. You just don't go out there as a police officer today. And you look at what a police officer carries --- they have some mace (which is I'm not a fan of mace). Every time I have used mace when I was a cop --- because here's what bothers me with mace here --- it's the wind. This is an aerosol. I can't tell you how many times you shoot that. And, you know, you're going to shoot it. Well, if the wind's blowing 15 to 20 miles --- no, it doesn't work [and] you get it all over everybody. So, I'm not a big fan of mace. But yes, you/I've been amazed. And I've gone through the gas and all this other stuff. And the purpose of that though is [that] so the police officers who are going to be using this understand what that's doing to their bodies; because that's exactly what they're doing, and then they have to be prepared, obviously, to deal with that. So, and it's, sort of, one of those things as you go through each one of these training blocks. And it's like defensive driving. You're saying: well, Dr. Hueston defensive driving --- that's not a big deal. [Actually] that's a huge deal. You have that police car that can go, you know, very fast. But you can't blindly go down the street responding what they call code three or whatever it is --- red light and siren. There's a huge liability involved in it. And then you need to be --- defensive driving is huge here. And so the idea you have to understand --- if you have this kind of police car when you're going this fast --- how do you control a slide like in the weather like we had? You know, in ice? Well, many police departments who were, you know, north of, like, in The Panhandle or, you know ---they don't have ice and snow in Florida, nor do they have it in parts of Arizona or New Mexico, but --- you better learn how. And if you're going to take a defensive driving course as a police officer or pursuit driving, [then] you better be doing that in those snow conditions, because that's what you're going to do. So that's what I mean when training is done with the police. It's a combination of a typical classroom, and it's also a combination of participating in (and actually doing) what you're going to be asked to do in the future. So…

Stitzel: So, you're trying to paint a picture of police officers as having a high level of training. They should reach a serious level of competence. I think that's one of the questions that the public is asking.

Hueston: Sure.

Stitzel: Right? And like you said, you know, the media is cherry-picking incidents…

Hueston: Right.

Stitzel:…that make good stories, right? They have their job. Their job is to get clicks on links.

Hueston: Sure.

Stitzel: And so here's the story --- and that's why were here --- hopefully. This is a podcast about economics. One of the issues we would really grasp [is]: well, [this] is an idea of selection, right? You're getting a non-random selection of stories.

Hueston: Right.

Stitzel: Right.

Hueston: Right.

Stitzel: And it sounds to me, and now I think most of, what you've been discussing is at the highway patrolman level (at the DPS level)?

Hueston: No. No. It's in the state. Many states just like Texas have designated police academies. Some of the larger agencies --- Amarillo, Lubbock, Hueston, Corpus, Dallas, [and] larger areas have their own police academies. And they do that for a variety of reasons. But those academies have to fulfill state mandated training areas. And they have to all be certified. That means all the cadets, at the end of their training, must pass a certification test that's put together by the certification board. It's called TCOLE --- Texas Commission on Law Enforcement Education. And so, each state has that. So, could you go in as John Q. Citizen [and] take that test? Well, sure you could. You can do that for The Bar Association. You can do for the teachers. I mean, let's not separate the cops. I mean we're doing this. And the answer is: yes, you can. Could you pass that test? Maybe. I mean, would I go in and take a CPA test cold? I can spend whatever the heck kind of money it costs to do that. And maybe I'll flip a coin. I have no idea. I don't think I would pass at all. You do the same thing for lawyers. You're going to do the same thing for nurses. You do the same thing for teachers. And so the concept of John Q. Public just going in and passing that test --- sure there's some people I think that could. But then what then would you have? You have a person who's relatively smart passing a test but has never actually understood [and] has never actually had to apply this whole myriad of tasks that you have to apply as a police officer. [It is the] same thing with the teacher. O.K., same thing with the teacher. You know, you can go get certified. I've done that in Ohio in my older days. And but you can pass a test. So, what's your learning objectives? What are you going to try to do this week? How are you measuring your success? Oh, how do you interact with a two-year-old or a four-year-old? Or how [are] you interacting with a high school student? I mean, you know, it's --- look at college. Look at what we do as professors. And so, hey, it's to me every profession has this certification process that generally includes some type of training. Because that training is to prepare you for the reality of the job you're going to fit. And so, in police work --- I wish I could say: oh yeah, you have, you know, every type of shooting is this way, and domestic violence is this way, and a riot's this way. And the fact of the matter is very few things. It's all situational. And they don't come in the same shape and sizes.

Stitzel: Right.

Hueston: You can start with a basic call. And the whole thing can blow up.

Stitzel: Right.

Hueston: And so, you have to be prepared to adapt. And also, you have to be thinking on your feet, like you've never thought before. And then the other thing is important part about it [is that] you got to read what you're [seeing]. If you're having a conversation with somebody --- O.K., what is this conversation about? What's going on with them? And so, body language, you know, worst thing is this domestic violence. When you get one of those --- you get these people husband and wife, or wife and wife, or husband and husband, [or] whatever the case is. The principles are all the same. They're very dangerous, because here they are --- two people that are quote “in love with one another” basically trying to kill each other, and using a variety of tools, and in some ways getting success. And so here comes the police. So, the police there. And the police then become almost instantly --- well the cops, are going to attack them. And they do.

Stitzel: And so, you physically attack them?

Hueston: Oh yeah. I mean it can go from, you know, you’re/you come in [and] they’re husband and husband --or wife [or] whatever the individual situation is --- and they can be literally beating each other with pans (or have spoons, and knives, and forks, and all this stuff). I mean, it's crazy. And the cops come because they have got several complaints of loud noise, or screams, or he's going to kill me, or she's going to kill me. Take your pick. It's all above. And they come through that door. And they see this. And they immediately move to separate them. And so, in that separation, that's when you try to gain control. You try to assess what the heck do we have here. And while this is going on, you got to understand people are not silent. They're screaming and yelling. And they're yelling at you. Or they're yelling at their spouse, or whomever the case may be. And then you look and, you know, you may have a gash here. And you got blood all over the place. And you're trying to figure out who's doing what. You separate them. You try to get each side calmed down. I mean, you come in the middle of a fight. You don't know anything. And so, you've got to start based upon your training. You know, my priority when I would come upon any kind of domestic violence is: what is the physical condition of the person? I mean are they bleeding out? Are they near-death? Do I got to get an ambulance? Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. And so, you have this total assessment process going on. In some cases, [you have] less than five seconds because of [the] magnitude [of the situation]. And then you have to deal with what you have. You have the immediacy of things. You know, if I come into a fight, a head wound's going to bleed like there's nothing else. But you can patch that up versus an arterial bleed. I mean, some of this stuff you've seen where they start, you know, they're knifing each other, or they're/they've got hatchets, or take your pick. All the above. It’s all there. And you start with an arterial bleed. That's some very --- I mean, you can bleed out in that in a matter of minutes. So, you have to focus your attention on that. And so, the idea of --- you separate it. And, you know, you and your partner (and whomever the other police officer is) are dealing with this. And you're dealing with that. And you're trying to figure out. In the meantime, you have somebody bleeding out. But you've got this whole other situation that you're putting on. And so, what I'm trying to show you here is: nothing in police work is consistent. It's not like you can go in and take a test from you. Your students know it's going to be 15 true/false, 15 multiple-choice and then two essay questions. O.K.? And that's the way you test. That doesn't exist in law enforcement. It's totally situational driven. And nothing's the same.

Stitzel: And that has to do with the human element…

Hueston: Yes.

Stitzel:…in these cases.

Hueston: Absolutely correct.

Stitzel: So I think this is a good point to interject that unbundling conversation.

Hueston: Sure.

Stitzel:…which you mentioned that earlier. I think the word that people are discussing this in academic circles is unbundling. It's basically the idea of: if you have two people in a domestic dispute, and we want to physically remove them from each other, [then] it seems like an obvious place…

Hueston: Hmm mmm.

Stitzel:…to put a police officer. And then you describe O.K., now there's blood in this situation.

Hueston: Hmm mmm.

Stitzel: Now you're asking a police officer to do triage on the fly.

Hueston: Right.

Stitzel: Seems like I'd like a paramedic to do that.

Hueston: Hmm mmm.

Stitzel: Right? And then maybe I come into a situation and there's no blood involved.

Hueston: Hmm mmm.

Stitzel: And now we're just reading their body language.

Hueston: Hmm mmm.

Stitzel: [It] seems like that'd be a thing I might like to ask a social worker…

Hueston: Sure.

Stitzel:…of some type to do.

Hueston: Hmm mmm.

Stitzel: Talk to me a little bit about this unbundling idea. And you said --- I'd really like to actually talk about the metric idea that you mentioned too.

Hueston: Hmm mmm.

Stitzel: How do we measure the level of success there?

Hueston: Hmm mmm.

Stitzel: So somebody who says we're ready. Let's --- I think there would be critics of how well it is that the police are trained.

Hueston: Hmm mmm.

Stitzel: And I think you bring up a really good point. So let me make that point before you move on. We're all really fond of doing this, right? We see we see a clip of somebody shooting a basketball or something. And we think: I could do that. Because it's easy for me to just think that I could do that. And so, we see a video of a police officer. We think: how hard is it not to shoot a guy? And of course, the video clip is 30 seconds long, and that's been a 10-minute encounter.

Hueston: Right.

Stitzel: So we miss those kind of things. And I don't want to absolve. Because, I think, some of those situations (like we said) --- they're nonrandom. Some of those situations probably are really are terrible, and the police officer made a mistake. Some of them they probably didn't, and it just looks worse than it is…

Hueston: Right.

Stitzel:…because we understand how these things work. So, I think it is good to, sort of, point out that maybe it'd be good to take a step back from our hubris of I would make a really good police officer. Obviously, I'm a smart person. And there's probably some --- there's a lot of non-truth to that. So, I think that's good. And I think it's good that you painted that picture. And so, I'd like to come back around to the tyranny of metrics idea. But let's start with the unbundling.

Hueston: O.K.

Stitzel: And you kind of laid out that story. There's several other instances of it. Talk to me about the breadth of things that a police officer has to deal with.

Hueston: Hmm mmm.

Stitzel: Like, you've just laid out in a domestic…

Hueston: Hmm mmm.

Stitzel:…violence domestic abuse…

Hueston: Sure.

Stitzel:…scenario, and how you would view the actual feasibility…

Hueston: Hmm mmm.

Stitzel:…of how do I sort that out? If I get the call on the phone, and then I send the police officer, and now the police officer has to get there, [then] where would I even inject a social worker into the situation?

Hueston: Good point.

Stitzel: Or a paramedic into that situation.

Hueston: Sure. Absolutely.

Stitzel: Should I send them all out together every time? Or we…

Hueston: Yeah.

Stitzel:…just maybe we say: O.K. when we have a really uncertain situation we…

Hueston: Hmm mmm.

Stitzel:…do this. But if the call is about, you know, a homeless person…

Hueston: Sure.

Stitzel:…who seems to be in a bad way, [then] maybe…

Hueston: Hmm mmm.

Stitzel:…we send the social worker because…

Hueston: Sure.

Stitzel:…that's not the role for the police officer. Talk to me a little bit about that.

Hueston: Well, I think there's a --- what you're asking is an excellent question, and let me unpackage this whole thing for you. First thing --- we have to look at what is the reality of police work, O.K.? Police work --- you're on the job. You're the only entity around at 3:00 a.m. in the morning. I have a mental problem at 3:00 a.m. in the morning. Do I call my counselor? No! Why? They're in bed sleeping. If I am/if I have a mental issue that's driving me to slice myself, cut myself, or threaten suicide, and it's 3:30 a.m. in the morning, who are you going to call? You're going to call 9-1-1 who's going to dispatch a cop. And so, I'm using these examples purposefully. Because to make this unbundling work, you have to create resources at these times, [in order] to go ahead and come alongside with the police officer; [whereas you] have them there so that they could almost do tag team. They could work together in getting there and responding. We don't have those resources right now.

Stitzel: We don't have those resources?

Hueston: No. We're not we're not training social workers. We're not training psychologists. We're not training counselors to (1): work 11:00 p.m. at night to 7:00 a.m. in the morning. Now, if we have a dire emergency like here, [then] we can take them over to The Pavilion. And we can have --- because Pavilion has those kind of resources there. That's not in Canyon, Texas [and] not down in Happy. Certainly not in Dalhart. You got to bring them here. They're not on the street. So, we need them.

Stitzel: Can I make a point about that?

Hueston: Sure.

Stitzel: As an aside? Yeah, I think the national policy discussion misses that a lot.

Hueston: Sure.

Stitzel: That when we think: let's defund the police, we're thinking about Minneapolis. We're not thinking about Amarillo. And we're definitely not thinking about Canyon, or Hereford…

Hueston: No.

Stitzel:…or Happy. And you say: well, let's defund. Let's unbundle what? That's a joke in Happy, Texas. You know, they probably have 12 officers there [or] maybe less. There's no social workers there. Now, but let's think about Amarillo for a minute.

Hueston: Sure.

Stitzel: For exactly the reason, let's take Amarillo. Amarillo's a big city. Yeah, air quotes “big,” maybe. But there's some resources to go around.

Hueston: Right.

Stitzel: And one of the points, I think, that people would make about unbundling…

Hueston: Hmm mmm.

Stitzel:…is you just described a police officer in the way you're describing --- which I'm really happy that you did discuss --- as somebody who essentially has to face the unknown.

Hueston: Right.

Stitzel: O.K. So, they're training. The opportunity cost of the resources going into them is very high, hopefully. And hopefully, we're consequently getting good people to do it (which is a discussion I'd like to have maybe as we progress). But some of the discussion is that: a social worker with those kind of skills, [going] into that situation, doesn't have to face the unknown, [and] could be less expensive. We could/we would not necessarily have to pay them as much. How do you address that?

Hueston: Well, that's a great question. And [I will] address it this way. Let's take a look at: how are they trained, and then [is] there some sort of a certification process? And in many of our drug counselors’, mental counselors’, [and] social workers’ [programs], there's a certification-type process. Now O.K. so then, when do they work, and who do they work for? Well, right now many of the social services in our city when do they do it? 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.! They don't work on weekends, O.K. So that then tells me: O.K., we gotta flip a mindset here. We now have to create resources that are available. And then who's gonna pay them?

Stitzel: O.K., so I'm really glad you said that. I was contemplating saying this earlier because you've brought up one of my favorite current topics which is Proposition A to build a new civic center. If we're really worried about policing…

Hueston: Hmm mmm.

Stitzel:…and we’re really worried about resources…

Hueston: Hmm mmm.

Stitzel:…and we wanted to defund and unbundle…

Hueston: Hmm mmm.

Stitzel:…[then] I think the advocates of that are not going to be happy about us raising more funds and sending and it to police officers. They have a negative view about it.

Hueston: Hmm mmm.

Stitzel: So on and so forth. I'm saying vote down Prop A. There's some resources freed up right there. And let's hire half a dozen social workers…

Hueston: Hmm mmm.

Stitzel:…to work around the clock…

Hueston: Yeah.

Stitzel:…so that I've got access to them at 3 a.m. So, I think actually your point is a point [that an] economist would make. So, to see you make it is really, really something. The public gets what it wants because it votes for things. If we pass Proposition A, where are we going to fit a sociologist…

Hueston: Hmm mmm.

Stitzel:…into the budget?

Hueston: Yeah.

Stitzel: Or a social worker into the budget? Doesn't seem likely to me.

Hueston: Right. Well again, now historically, the jobs that police officers have done are hundreds of years old. Police are there to handle society's problems at 3:00 a.m. in the morning. And that hasn't changed. And I think what we need to understand there is: we need to begin looking at the resources in these areas that we have. O.K., because we have excellent counselors. I can come through --- they’re Victim Services, Family Support Bridge, and No Boundaries. I mean, I've worked with these people.

Stitzel: These are organizations that you're discussing?

Hueston: Yes. These are all organizations here that deal with specific types of crimes or crime-related incidences. Family Support Services, for example [deals with] domestic violence [and] is huge. And that's --- they're dealing with that. They have the resources at this time. But those resources are severely limited to 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. And if you would go and talk to the directors of these programs, they're gonna tell you: Dr. H., I need three or four more. And I, you know, so we take a look at what is existing from the resource area of social work. And then, if I was doing this ---- if I could say how to do this --- [then] this would be a multi-agency approach. It's not what Dr. Hueston [or] Dr. Lee has. Doesn't work that way. That's unreal. We need to come together. And I would be working with the police department to ascertain: how many calls for this type of service are [we] getting? And when are they occurring? O.K., and then look at that. That's where you're gonna start. And so, you could do [this] with domestic violence. You could do [this] with the mental cases. You could do it with drug overdoses. Whatever. O.K., because all those represent particular areas. Then I go to the agencies that have the resources that are actually doing this. You tell me then --- what kind of additional staffing would we need for 24 hours a day/7 day a week? Because I know what the data says. But the data is limited to what is reported to the police.

Stitzel: Yeah.

Hueston: Right now, in our country to 49%-52% percent of the crimes are not -- across the board not --- reported.

Stitzel: How is that possible?

Hueston: Because they've done enough statistical analysis to figure that out. To me, that's not surprising at all.

Stitzel: So, when you have that in view, do you mean all crimes?

Hueston: All crimes.

Stitzel: So, I'll tell you a story. So, this morning we had a lot of snow here.

Hueston: Right.

Stitzel: I got to get out. I have a car that's parked on the side of the road near my house. [I] have a little car that I'm driving into work. Where's my snow scraper? Well, I haven't had to have a snow scraper for six months, so I forgot where I put it. Turns out, it's in the other car. I go in the other car. I open up the door.

Hueston: Yeah.

Stitzel: It’s been rifled through. Pulled everything out. Somebody tried my door handle. I forgot --- didn't lock it.

Hueston: Hmm mmm.

Stitzel: Think there's nothing of value in that vehicle, so I didn't lose anything. Is that the kind of crime you're talking about there?

Hueston: No.

Stitzel: Or are you saying actual?

Hueston: I'm talking about even more serious crimes.

Stitzel: O.K.

Hueston: Let's take a take a look at --- let's just take one crime. One crime --- sexual assault. Highest unreported crime data. For everyone sexual assault, the estimate is between 150 to 300. And you probably look at me. So here. How do you know this? I did a dissertation on this stuff.

Stitzel: That's an unbelievable number.

Hueston: It's unbelievable. Let's take a look at child sexual abuse.

Stitzel: You're saying if there were six cases reported in Amarillo this…

Hueston: Right.

Stitzel:…year there would be 600 actually?

Hueston: Easy.

Stitzel: O.K.

Hueston: Without a doubt. O.K., every child predator that they arrest has committed between 140 to almost 200 acts before he or she was actually caught. And so, one of the things we have to be careful of, in my mind, is reality versus what's reported.

Stitzel: Sure.

Hueston: O.K.

Stitzel: Yeah. Yeah.

Hueston: And so there's got to be a balance in that. That's why I said --- we've got to come together and work with those agencies that have the trained personnel [and] pick their brain. And then say: O.K., could we make this work, and if so, how? And then you bring in the police department. Could this work? Would you have a social worker riding with a police officer on a Friday night that it's Thanksgiving? Why is that? Why did I say that? Because when you look at when are most domestic violence and family fights, [they] are over holidays. And [domestic violence and family fights occur during] holidays because you have time off and there's alcohol involved…

Stitzel: Right.

Hueston:…with drugs. I mean, this is a no-brainer. And so, would that work? And my response to that is: well then, we got to talk about liability issues with the police, and the Police Chief, and the city, and risk management. Because you're putting a civilian into a police car, that is going to be exposed to a variety of search situations, that they wouldn't be exposed to if they were just driving a regular car.

Stitzel: So, let's talk about that…

Hueston: Sure.

Stitzel:…just really briefly. So, you're proposing that ties up a resource? Or you're just talking about the liability?

Hueston: No. I'm proposing that this is --- we have resources. O.K.?

Stitzel: But I'm saying if you put a civilian you…

Hueston: Yeah.

Stitzel:…so you/I put a social worker…

Hueston: Yeah.

Stitzel:…in a car with the police officer…

Hueston: Right. There’s liability.

Stitzel:…now all of a sudden there's a high speed chase.

Hueston: Right. There's liability.

Stitzel: You're saying: O.K., now that police officer has another decision. Do I engage in a high-speed pursuit --- which you've already discussed the dangers of?

Hueston: Right.

Stitzel: Knowing that if I crash this vehicle my social worker…

Hueston: Right. Right.

Stitzel:…partner.

Hueston: And see, that's why you have these things called lawyers.

Stitzel: Yeah.

Hueston: O.K. and risk managers.

Stitzel: Yes.

Hueston: Because that's exactly what has to be worked out.

Stitzel: Because in some sense, that reduces the number of resources available at any one time?

Hueston: Not necessarily.

Stitzel: You don't think so?

Hueston: No, I don't think so at all. I think this is something that we are not reinventing a wheel here. When you do a ride along in a police car --- you sign a waiver. O.K.?

Stitzel: O.K.

Hueston: So, this is not a big legal deal in my mind.

Stitzel: That's a good answer.

Hueston: O.K. So no, it is not. What is going to be [is] where are we getting this resource first?

Stitzel: Sure.

Hueston: And do we have those resources here now --- which we don't. And so we've got to get more. And then when we get more, who's paying for the get more?

Stitzel: Yes.

Hueston: O.K. and so is it possible to take resources from one entity in city government and redirect [aka reallocation of government funds usually from the general fund to other funds] those resources? And then the answer is: heck yeah. It happens all the time.

Stitzel: Of course.

Hueston: O.K. So, the extent of that, and how that's all going to work though --- Lee, this is something I can say in five minutes. We're talking probably two, three, or four years to make this thing work.

Stitzel: And you're not talking about something that can be done systemically. That literally has to be done on a city-by-city level.

Hueston: Oh yeah.

Stitzel: So, let me ask [as] this is a question that that cropped up. You said there's no state funding at the city level. There's no federal funding [either]?

Hueston: Hmm mmm.

Stitzel: Is that --- there's literally not a dollar?

Hueston: Well what happens here is [that] the city --- like right now The City of Canyon/they --- can apply for federal funds (in the form of they got this vehicle down here).

Stitzel: Oh. I’ve seen it.

Hueston: I mean, give me…

Stitzel: Give me your [Lenco Bear]Cat [armored vehicle] thing.

Hueston: Yeah, whatever that thing is. O.K., well where did you get that? You got it from the federal government. That is an army vehicle that was used in Afghanistan or Iraq. O.K., so did they get it? The answer to that is: sure, they got it. They had to apply through a grant process. And they got it. Then they put about $45,000 to equip the thing so they could work within The City of Canyon. O.K., did they get that? The answer is: yes, they did. Was that federal funds? Absolutely. Does that have anything to do with what you're paying that street cop? The answer is: nothing.

Stitzel: Is that right?

Hueston: Yeah. O.K. So let's take a look at another thing.

Stitzel: Now hold on. Hold on. Hold on.

Hueston: O.K.

Stitzel: Let's back up. Before you let that go --- so in economics we've used the term called fungible.

Hueston: Sure.

Stitzel: So, if there are funds O.K., so those [Lenco] BearCat things cost $200-$250,000 (I think). I'm not an expert on that. But it's some reading I've done in the past. Don't quote me on those numbers.

Hueston: [Laughs].

Stitzel: So that comes down from the federal side.

Hueston: That’s right.

Stitzel: O.K. that's money. That is absolutely 100% right. That there was no way that was going to the patrolmen.

Hueston: No.

Stitzel: But you said there were modifications for it. There's upkeep. Where does that kind of funding come in? Why is that not coming out of money that I could give to a patrolman instead of this tank?

Hueston: Because that's coming out of the police budget.

Stitzel: Uh huh.

Hueston: That when you go and buy vehicles, one of the things that you look for, for example, [within] any police department that I'm aware of [who] buys [through the] state, you can buy contracts through a state agency that is going to lower the price like a patrol car right now. You know, you can get a patrol car. You go to a Ford dealer and buy a Ford Interceptor. You first can't do that. So you have state agencies that you go ahead and buy them from. And they give you like, let's say, a Ford Explorer Interceptor [that] costs, let's say, $36,000 O.K. But you get it for $30,000. Why? Because you're part of a state contract like here.

Stitzel: So, you're saying the police budget is earmarked.

Hueston: Yeah. The police budget’s gonna pay for that. They have a capital line item that is designed because police cars are driven 24/7. You get over 100,000 miles on a police car, [then] you better start dumping it. So, there's programmed obsolescence, for lack of a better term. Now there is federal funding for police officers. Let me tell you how that works. O.K., so let's say I introduce a community policing program. I did that when I was a Police Chief in Arizona. And I found out that there was there was a grant available for me to hire up to six police officers on this grant. So, I got one of my Commanders, and my Budget Officer, and myself. And we put together this grant, and we competed nationally, and I got it. So, I got a grant for six cops, which is gonna be close to probably $800,000. I don't know. O.K. So…

Stitzel: $800,000 a year?

Hueston: Yeah. $800,000a year. Because you buy a --- you figure a police officer at that time is at least $60,000-$65,000. But then, you have to throw in these fringe benefits which are 33.5%; whereas I believe it's up 35% or 38% now. So you're around $100,000. O.K., then you're throwing equipment on the [unintelligible] [That’s an] easy $100,000. O.K., so this is how it works [for a] four-year program. The first year --- once you get it, you go ahead. And the federal government is going to give you 100%. They will give you money to cover everything involving those cops. The second year you get 75%, third year 50%, fourth year 25%, [and finally in] the fifth year they're yours. Funding's done.

Stitzel: O.K. so what's happening then? You're not getting rid of cops as you go. You didn't go from six, to five, to four, to three. You didn't wean them off. So, you've got to roll that into your budget?

Hueston: You're absolutely correct. And then on top of that, you've got to roll into your budget --- well you got to have --- all this extra equipment. You got to outfit them.

Stitzel: Yeah.

Hueston: And then you're probably going to need at least two or three cars. And so, what about? What am I doing here? You see this little thing? It's starting to grow. And it's growing. And so --- and it's the same thing, you know? The federal government does not provide police officers, but they would provide. It's like we had this new 9-1-1 system that was integrated a couple years ago. The federal government came alongside and augmented that. The counties and everybody put together a sum of money. We'd match that through PRPC on the criminal justice committee that I’m on. We had a state grant, and all this stuff, and we ended up doing it. But I want you to understand all this stuff. The police departments have to apply. It's not saying: hey, you know, you know, go to the federal building tomorrow at 10:00 a.m. and pick up $20,000. Doesn't work that way.

Stitzel: Sure:

Hueston: So, there's money available through grants. And sometimes these grants are oriented toward officers’ positions. Sometimes they're stored equipment. Or in this particular case, whatever this MRAP [mine-resistant ambush protected] thing is down here. That's a particular equipment that is now available because of the de-escalation of all the, you know, the war. And all this equipment's going to be sitting out there. And I can tell you police departments, and police chiefs, and city managers are looking at this. Because what are you going to do with all this equipment?

Stitzel: So, let's talk about that. That's, I think, maybe one of the legitimate concerns to me. And you tell me if I'm off base here. There is some militarization of the police, I think.

Hueston: I agree with that. Yes.

Stitzel: Right. I don't know why Randall County needs a tank, or Canyon needs a tank, [or] whoever it is that has it. You know, my PhD’s [from The University of Oklahoma. That's in Norman. They have a parade. One year I go out there and I see a parade. They literally have the same thing. This is Norman, Oklahoma.

Hueston: Yeah.

Stitzel: I almost get it out here.

Hueston: Sure.

Stitzel: Because we can imagine some kind of insane story centered around Pantex or something.

Hueston: Yeah.

Stitzel: And we have a nuclear facility here in the area (for the listeners that are not in the area). So you could imagine. O.K., but there's some kind of --- I don't know why [and] I don't think Randall County or Canyon would need to be dealing with that.

Hueston: Hmm mmm.

Stitzel: But at least we can cook something up. I can't imagine anything like that in Norman, Oklahoma. In your estimation, you know, where's that trend leading? Is it a problem? And what kind of consequences do you think there are of this kind of militarization…

Hueston: Yeah.

Stitzel:…that you are talking about?

Hueston: You hit the nail on the head. I mean, are we creating a police force here that's a police force? Are we moving into a para-military force? And the reason you see that is because of this type of equipment --- [it] reflects a military vehicle. And so sure, I can see that. I can see many people looking at that saying: why is there a need? And, I think, at some point whoever is in charge should be justifying this. O.K., and that justification has got to be too. Like The City of Canyon, you know --- Dale Davis is the Police Chief. He didn't go down and say: hey, I'm gonna go buy this thing and yeah, yeah, yeah. I'm sure it had to go up through the City Manager. Then it had to go through the [City] Council and the Mayor. So, this isn't something that you go out and do on your own. So that's the first thing. The second thing [that] I think we have to take a look at --- there are situations that I have seen in my career where you have a need to break down a door in a highly protected drug house. Oh, by the way, the door isn't like what you have here. The door is reinforced steel --- if not steel and concrete. The windows O.K. are the same thing. You've got a bunker. And let's just call it what it is. It's a dang bunker.

Stitzel: How many bunkers are we dealing with in Canyon?

Hueston: And well, I think, not in Canyon. And we may have one or two, but I doubt it.

Stitzel: So, Amarillo?

Hueston: Let's take a look at Amarillo. O.K., Amarillo unfortunately is growing in the type of crimes, particularly SWAT incidences, that are being used; and Amarillo has been dealing with and will continue to deal with some of these reinforced houses. And the bottom line is: O.K. so what is the option to a SWAT Commander who's dealing with this type of situation? Well, you don't have many. O.K., you can take a car and bring it up there. But [what] if you're getting shot at with weapons that go through the dang car? O.K., so who's life are you going to sacrifice? You're going to drive the car apparently and get shot?

Stitzel: Tap a highway patrolman on the shoulder and be like suicide mission.

Hueston: Yeah. No come on. This is real. So the point is: that there are situations when police are confronted with a group of individuals --- not necessarily one or two, it could be one or two --- but have incredible fire power. Incredible! Better than what the cops are carrying. Welcome to the cartels. And then they have decided this is…

Stitzel: So, you are talking about organized crime.

Hueston: I'm talking about right now in The City of Amarillo.

Stitzel: There's organized crime?

Hueston: Oh yeah. I mean see what they're doing. Go talk to them. O.K. Yes.

Stitzel: Because John Q. Citizen. I don't think of myself as better.

Hueston: Well John Q. Citizen. Absolutely right. And by the way is John Q. Citizen getting fed, when all these situations [are occurring]? Who is controlling what is getting leaked what? You know, the media is called in, but they're going to be held back. Why? Because if bullets are flying around, you're not letting John Q. Reporter come up there. O.K., so the situation sometimes warns. If you're confronted with this: what kind of protection do you give the police officers that have got to deal with that? And so that's what you see. You'll see a variety of yeah, it looks like a tank or an armored vehicle. And you're saying: well, that's pretty militaristic. It is! But what is it being used for? And again, who justified the purchase of that? And then was that just a police team thing? Or was that justified through a City Manager, all the City Council people, [and] the Mayor? And see, so you got to understand with some of this stuff. Given the reality of some crimes that we are dealing with, absolutely, I would support a tank. You want to know why? Because they're getting shot. The cops are getting shot with shells and weaponry that is superior to what the cops are. And so if this is one of these things. Now does it happen often? Well, hopefully no. But I can tell you [that] in The City of Amarillo, [it occurs] probably four to eight times a year.

Stitzel: No. You're saying there are people in organized crime [are] better equipped than the police…

Hueston: Yep.

Stitzel:…that are in a confrontation…

Hueston: Yep.

Stitzel:…that requires a tank four to eight times a year?

Hueston: Yeah. I can. Yeah, without a doubt.

Stitzel: Wow.

Hueston: O.K. And this is the thing.

Stitzel: Surprising to me.

Hueston: O.K. I'm telling you this because I know this --- because of who I deal with here. I mean, I deal with the SWAT Commander. I deal with the Homicide Commander. I've dealt with numerous police [and] all the Police Chiefs I deal with. And so, think about this situation. O.K., you're paying a police officer. And this is a street cop. And that street cop responds to shots fired at a particular location that your narcotics agents have been working on for months. And your narcotics agents know what is going on inside that house. And so here comes the cop. The cop comes up for whatever situation. As he gets out of the car --- boom --- the shooting starts. And he's getting shot at by a weapon that's superior to what he's carrying in his car. O.K., so then how does that go? Boom! That goes into craziness.

Stitzel: So, let me let me pause you just really quickly there. So, when you're saying a weapon’s superior to [a cop’s weapon], what is a patrolman like what you're describing --- I apologize if that's not the word but what is he --- carrying? That's something. So, my understanding is the type of bulletproof vest that an officer wears just…

Hueston: Doesn't stop a rifle.

Stitzel: It's essentially designed for pistol rounds.

Hueston: Pistol rounds.

Stitzel: O.K. And so is that the reference you're making? Are you actually referring to…

Hueston: I’m referring to a weapon that is superior [and] has more firepower than what that patrol officer is carrying in his car.

Stitzel: So, give us some sense of what that is.

Hueston: O.K. So generally, and again with [Amarillo Police Department] APD, I'm not sure. But I can tell you, generally, [the City of] Canyon and university police ---- they have an AR-15 or something. O.K., so you're saying: well, that's a .223 caliber that can be pretty accurate do that. You can have a magazine of 30. You can pump those 30 slugs out in less than probably 20 seconds. Put it on full auto [and] away it goes. O.K., now is there a superior weapon? Oh, heck yeah. AK-47. Do we have AK-47s here? Oh sure. O.K., will they shoot through the car. They will shoot through that police officer. O.K., these things go through concrete walls. That's what I'm talking about. And that's what is being done. I mean, so when you bring in a SWAT team, and you are confronting a drug dealer (which happens a lot), and so when they are confronted with superior fire power --- or they are confronted with a house that looks like a normal house, yet it's a reinforced bunker, and inside that bunker are incredible amounts of money [and] drugs O.K. and here they come --- whose responsibility is it to get in there? Well, it's the police’s responsibility. And so, there are a number of times where that tank or that device is used to break into the place. Literally, let the SWAT teams fill the whole place up with gas (concussion grenades and everything). And there's no loss of life as far as the responding police officers. And so that's what I mean, [that] there is a need for this type of equipment in certain situations. These situations exist. Now do they exist in The City of Canyon? I haven't heard of that. But I'll be the first to tell you [that] I'm not the expert. I would start with the Police Chief of The City of Canyon and say: hey, what are you experiencing? Because we got to understand [that] drug activity doesn't limit itself to a city limit. Drug activity limits it to where the money is. And let's call where is/where are you going to make the most money? And drug activity is very much alive and well here.

Stitzel: So I want to turn from this topic in a moment. But so let me get one last thought in. So the economist immediately says: O.K., so a certain number of incidents [occur]. How do we translate that into a justification for a certain cost of equipment? You know, the cost benefit, you know, I don't think anybody is out there saying: well, let's let the drug trade run amok. There's no tanks. There's no SWAT. We'll just have officers and, you know, we'll deal with the consequences --- which, you know, predictably would be horrible. But the fact that we're hiring people for this purpose, [actually] means we're not hiring people for the unbundling purposes.

Hueston: Oh sure. And great, great, great comparison. And the other thing is though: who are you going to hire to take on that kind of situation? You know, you're going to hire one person that is a trained police officer, that has gone through extensive additional training as a SWAT person, to be physically and mentally able and prepared to engage that kind of situation. This is not your average street cop here. No way. No way.

Stitzel: And so, my question then is, you know let's break out our economist tools.

Hueston: Sure, bring them out.

Stitzel: Let's think on the margin. Let's think about marginal cost [and] marginal benefit for spending that much on a BearCat. That's 2-3-4-5 [additional police officers]. [I mean], there's your 6 people right there that we need to run 24/7 [with the] social worker costs right there. I know. I know what you're gonna say. You say: O.K. well, that's coming from the fed.

Hueston: Hmm mmm.

Stitzel: But I'm saying…

Hueston: Hmm mmm.

Stitzel:…we've got other costs that comedown that line.

Hueston: Hmm mmm.

Stitzel: Who's making those choices?

Hueston: O.K. well. Here's the first thing. The SWAT --- the specialized police that we I've talked to you about --- they're on regular duty. So, they're already there.

Stitzel: Is that right? O.K.

Hueston: O.K. they are given…

Stitzel: And they're on call?

Hueston: And they're on call. So that cost --- I'm going to throw that out right now.

Stitzel: Fair enough.

Hueston: Because they're not by themselves. The second thing which is --- I'm going to attack your marginal thing here --- that tank that that the cost of that is minimal, because those kind of things are funded through a grant by the federal government.

Stitzel: So, all the police say: let's make a federal government grant that funds social workers instead of BearCats?

Hueston: O.K. And the answer to that is: why not?

Stitzel: O.K.

Hueston: But that's above…

Stitzel: That's above our pay grade.

Hueston: That's not above our pay grade buddy.

Stitzel: Fair enough O.K. So let me turn just a little bit. One of the things that, I think, is probably a good question to ask, in these kind of cases, [is]: you've talked about the extensiveness of the training. You know, so I've seen (I forget the name of the video) [that] there's a very famous video [where] an officer pulls over a gentleman for a what appears to be a routine traffic stop.

Hueston: Hmm mmm.

Stitzel: The guy gets out of the car [and] he's belligerent. The officer seemingly does everything right. Sir, [stay] in the car --- but he's respectful, he's polite, [and] he's forceful.

Hueston: Hmm mmm.

Stitzel: He doesn't threaten the man or anything. The guy, literally, I mean, you can see it clear as day. The guns in the truck in the rack.

Hueston: Hmm mmm.

Stitzel: You know, those of us in Texas know what we're talking about.

Hueston: Hmm mmm.

Stitzel: So, for those of you that are elsewhere, you know, you literally might hang a hunting rifle in the back of your truck. And so, it's sort of up there above your head. It can be seen. The guy reaches forth. [The] officer shoots the guy multiple times with a handgun.

Hueston: Right.

Stitzel: The guy is apparently, for whatever reason, [he appears to be on] adrenaline or some kind of drug…

Hueston: Hmm mmm.

Stitzel:…[and] he's almost unaffected by this. The officer gets shot, [and] eventually dies from his wounds in just an absolutely horrific scene. How do we balance? Police officers want to go home to their families too. How do we balance a video like that, with a video that we might see; where a seemingly non-lethal situation [is] there that proves to be…

Hueston: Hmm mmm.

Stitzel:…no weapon. An officer keeps somebody else from going home to their family.

Hueston: Hmm mmm.

Stitzel: How does the training reflect? Because my concern is: if I'm an officer training people at an academy --- my first thought is [that] I got to get these guy’s home.

Hueston: Hmm mmm.

Stitzel: I think that's very understandable. You know what? Set aside the Blue Lives/Black Lives Matter rhetoric. Let's just let's be honest. Like, we want our officers to come home too.

Hueston: Hmm mmm.

Stitzel: What's the training look like in regard to: at the end of the day the only thing that matters is the officer comes home versus these are people that I'm here to serve. And how do I balance that?

Hueston: Yeah.

Stitzel: And we've got to be really careful. You've already mentioned lethal for example.

Hueston: Yeah, well. And I think a couple things. I think first --- you mentioned we are here to serve the public. My mind that is something that needs to be re-emphasized again. O.K. We have to be careful. We in law enforcement have to be careful, that in our training programs, we don't have individuals who leave at an academy believing that every time they stop somebody there's going to be a gun. We have to be reasonable about that. And so the concept of serving our community, in my mind, needs to be reintroduced into our training academies. And I mean this from a national perspective. What that looks like and how that works --- we've got to do more work on that. We're struggling with that right now in police community relations. What does that look like? And how does that translate? And where are successful programs? Again, we don't have to reinvent the wheel.

Stitzel: Uh huh.

Hueston: But I do believe very strongly that we have to remind ourselves that law enforcement is here to serve the community. And I think that concept needs more development. The second thing that I feel needs more development [is] when you become a police officer you have to pass a psychological test. And then many times you actually sit down with a psychologist, and they review that test. And the goal in that is to see if you're mentally fit to handle the stresses of a police officer. In some aspects of that, are you able to take a human life when confronted with something? O.K., and so I want to [discuss] that whole segment. We haven't talked about [that] in our training. [But] that's an important part of the training program. But that doesn't occur in the academy. That's [actually] a part of the selection process. And I want to make sure that this is an area that, I think, [we ask] is there more we could do? If we would take a look at our community of psychologists and say: listen, [let’s discuss law enforcement] coping skills. How can we [mitigate high] stress levels? How can we do a better job for cops on that? And they'll see that there's a movement toward that. There's some other things I think we need to take a look at. And I'm going to bring up something that has been discussed. But I'm just going to put it right out there. We need to start dealing with the prejudices each one of us has. I have been around and gone to conversations. And I hear: well, you know, I have no prejudices. I'm going to tell you that's wrong. You and I have prejudices. All of us have prejudices. At some point in time, I feel very strongly we need to be addressing those present prejudices in a law enforcement training program. We/there's a number of proven tests that you can take that demonstrate this. You can/we need to put that out there. Because I think we have gone on blindly to say: well, you know, I'm a police officer and I have no prejudices. That is wrong. You were born into a family at a socio-economical level. And you lived your lives for at least 21 years in an environment that was not prejudicial free. Face it. O.K., so how do we address that issue? That, to me, should be a very key point in any type of training that people recognize. Oh, and by the way, you know, take a look at what happened in this country post-9/11/2001. Specifically look at the treatment of people who dress differently than 98% of America, particularly reflected [in] that Middle Eastern dress. What happened to them? Well, let's take a look at what happened. Look at the crime rate against these people, based upon their dress. And so, you're going to see [that] this is the same argument I can use today if I'm a different ethnicity, because of my ethnicity. And that's that cultural baggage (that I call it), that we need to start addressing this. And we need to start addressing this with our on-duty police officers. And we need to start addressing this. So, what are we going to do in our academies toward this? And what is the state certification board --- how are they addressing this? And so, there are incremental steps being made. But I use that term incremental. See, we need to blast that one open a little bit. It would be very important for me as a Police Chief to know what are my prejudices [are]. What do they look like? So that when I get myself, or I have my officers, get into a situation where my prejudice is right there, [then] that's the object of my prejudice. That tells me back up. That tells me rethink. Rethink. Rethink. Deal with the fact that you've got this. And do not go with your initial reaction. Step back. We're not doing that. We need to do that. In my mind, that is key. The concept of less than lethal force and the equipment --- they're all out there. It's a question of funding. This kind of stuff costs hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Stitzel: Well, there is some question about the efficacy --- which you mentioned in passing, right when we started --- that there's a lot of technological improvements on that front.

Hueston: Yes.

Stitzel: And so you think that is viable?

Hueston: I do I think that it's viable. But the problem is: who's going to buy it?

Stitzel: Sure.

Hueston: O.K. It's like the bulletproof vest. Who's going to buy them?

Stitzel: Your favorite idea in economics is opportunity cost then? Right? Resources can only be in one place at a time. Let me kind of circle back to the prejudice thing that you were talking about. So one of my --- it's just an observation so it's not (I suspect that it would be) very hard for me to find evidence of it, but we're just having a conversation, [but] one of my --- observations is that police officers often feel isolated. That they're in a community…

Hueston: Yeah.

Stitzel: And their community is officers. And they don't have a connection to the people…

Hueston: Right.

Stitzel:…that they are policing. Now I think you've mentioned this idea of community policing. I'm not saying anything new here. Talk to me a little bit about that and how that might interplay with prejudice. And maybe, if you could, touch briefly on like topics like de-escalation.

Hueston: O.K., well let's talk about the police officer in the community. I would agree with you a 100%. Police officers feel they're isolated. Why? Well, what have police done to interject agencies to work within the community? And so, you're going to see, and you've seen this recently here, you have coffee and a doughnut with a cop. O.K., [even having] pizza [or] cocoa. And you're seeing a move toward that in many police departments --- to come alongside and interact with the community, in a non-law enforcement-oriented type situation. Now I want to --- I've been preaching this to my students. We set cops up to fail.

Stitzel: Yes. so let me let me steal your thunder just a teeny bit here. One of the things that I think is a huge problem is: we have this idea in our heads [that] interacting with police is dangerous, and police interacting with civilians is dangerous. You said that. Let's not train police officers to think that every single car has a gun just waiting to jump out…

Hueston: Yeah.

Stitzel:…and get them. I think as an economist, [my] instinct [when] I start hearing these topics…

Hueston: Hmm mmm.

Stitzel:…[is that] I go look up the data, right? There's a 1,000 people killed in a year by police officers. Regrettable number. Absolutely. There's 11 million arrests a year.

Hueston: Hmm mmm.

Stitzel: That's an extraordinarily low number with the interaction with the police officer.

Hueston: Sure.

Stitzel: Right? There's 55 million interactions between police officers and civilians a year.

Hueston: Hmm mmm.

Stitzel: So, you know, and you can you see this go around, right? Well, there's three deaths by cop a year on average. Well, that's what --- a 1,000 is over 365, right?

Hueston: Hmm mmm.

Stitzel: So, I get that kind of number --- the kind of thing that you're talking about. I know people that are out there that'd be like: well, I wouldn't go have a doughnut with a cop. He might shoot me. Well, that's not...

Hueston: Sure.

Stitzel: That's just statistically not true. So, talk to me a little bit about that, because I want to tie it into the tyranny…

Hueston: O.K.

Stitzel:…of metrics idea in a second.

Hueston: Well, let's talk a little bit about that. I think, number one --- forget the data because nobody's looking at the data Lee.

Stitzel: That's what I was warned by a friend whenever I said: you know, hey I'm having a Police Chief on. What should I ask him? I have these cool numbers. And they said: nobody cares about the numbers. And I said…

Hueston: Right.

Stitzel:…sorry but the numbers matter.

Hueston: No, they don't.

Stitzel: O.K.

Hueston: O.K.

Stitzel: So, you’re a friend.

Hueston: O.K. but let's talk a little bit about what how can we diffuse this whole thing --- us against them? And that, to me, is a great area that needs more looking at.

Stitzel: Thank you for listening to this episode of the EconBuff. You can find all previous episodes on YouTube at EconBuff Podcast. You can check out our website at econbuffpodcast.wixsite.com. You can contact us at econbuffpodcast@yahoo.com