Seattle city councilmember introduces resolution to acknowledge 'failure' of defund the police movement
Seattle councilmember Rob Saka introduced a resolution to completely cut ties with any commitments to defund the police.
After the murder of unarmed Minneapolis resident George Floyd in 2020, the slogan and movement to "Defund the Police" swept the country. Yet in the wake of a reported rise in crime in multiple cities across the country, politicians, even in Democratic Party strongholds, have sought to distance themselves from the idea.
On Tuesday, Saka spoke with fellow members of Seattle City Council's public safety committee about his recently introduced Resolution 32167, which recognizes work to improve public safety. These measures include appreciation for first responders, consent decree progress, police accountability, a diversified public safety response, and reversing "defund" commitments.
The councilmember summarized, "This resolution reverses any prior commitment or pledge by past councils to defund or abolish the police. We know that these statements were routinely cited by departing police personnel as a reason for leaving. We also know that they are very divisive."
Defund The Police 'Isn't Dead,' It's Just Taken New Form With Massive Implications: Retired Police Chief
Fellow councilmember Maritza Rivera added that she has seen at least one constituent share his wish to see councilmembers "take a stance against the defund rhetoric that we've seen in the past in this city. He's not the only one I know who has requested this."
Read On The Fox News App
Four councilmembers ended up voting in favor of the bill, with none opposed and one absent, and the resolution will now be forwarded to the larger city council meeting on April 1.
A city council press release summarized that the bill "Reiterates support for first responders, acknowledges failure of defund movement and embraces focus on underserved communities."
"This Council, in collaboration with the Mayor's Office, has made improving public safety an absolute priority," Saka said in the announcement. "This is finally the time to acknowledge the lessons of the past and pivot decisively toward a better, future-focused public safety model. We are committed to making everyone in our community feel safe and to enhancing our accountability system."
Mayor Bruce Harrell was also quoted, noting that rather than defund their police, the city has instead made progress in working to expand the force.
"Seattle has made significant progress on reimagining policing since we agreed to the federal consent decree over a decade ago. We have created one of the most robust police accountability systems in the country. We hired more police officers last year than we lost for the first time in years, and applications are soaring," the mayor said.
"To help our police officers focus on what they do best, we have diversified our response options by expanding the Fire Department's capabilities and we successfully launched our third public safety department and the CARE Crisis Response Teams," he added.
Click Here For More Coverage Of Media And CultureOriginal article source: Seattle city councilmember introduces resolution to acknowledge 'failure' of defund the police movement
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Los Angeles Times
an hour ago
- Los Angeles Times
Democrats are busy bashing themselves. Is it needed, or just needy?
To hear Republicans tell it, California is a failed state and Donald Trump won the presidency in a landslide that gives him a mandate to do as he pleases. No surprise there. But more and more, Democrats are echoing those talking points. Ever since Kamala Harris lost the election, the Democratic Party has been on a nationwide self-flagellation tour. One after another, its leaders have stuck their heads deep into their navels, hoping to find out why so many Americans — especially young people, Black voters and Latinos — shunned the former vice president. Even in California, a reliably blue state, the soul-searching has been extreme, as seen at last weekend's state Democratic Party convention, where a parade of speakers — including Harris' 2024 running mate, Tim Walz — wailed and moaned and did the woe-is-us-thing. Is it long-overdue introspection, or just annoying self-pity? Our columnists Anita Chabria and Mark Z. Barabak hash it out. Chabria: Mark, you were at the convention in Anaheim. Thoughts? Barabak: I'll start by noting this is the first convention I've attended — and I've been to dozens — rated 'R' for adult language. Apparently, Democrats think by dropping a lot of f-bombs they can demonstrate to voters their authenticity and passion. But it seemed kind of stagy and, after a while, grew tiresome. I've covered Nancy Pelosi for more than three decades and never once heard her utter a curse word, in public or private. I don't recall Martin Luther King Jr., saying, 'I have a [expletive deleted] dream.' Both were pretty darned effective leaders. Democrats have a lot of work to do. But cursing a blue streak isn't going to win them back the White House or control of Congress. Chabria: As someone known to routinely curse in polite society, I'm not one to judge an expletive. But that cussing and fussing brings up a larger point: Democrats are desperate to prove how serious and passionate they are about fixing themselves. Gov. Gavin Newsom has called the Democratic brand 'toxic.' Walz told his fellow Dems: 'We're in this mess because some of it's our own doing.' It seems like across the country, the one thing Democrats can agree on is that they are lame. Or at least, they see themselves as lame. I'm not sure the average person finds Democratic ideals such as equality or due process quite so off-putting, especially as Trump and his MAGA brigade move forward on the many campaign promises — deportations, rollbacks of civil rights, stripping the names of civil rights icons off ships — that at least some voters believed were more talk than substance. I always tell my kids to be their own hero, and I'm starting to think the Democrats need to hear that. Pick yourself up. Dust yourself off. Move on. Do you think all this self-reproach is useful, Mark? Does Harris' loss really mean the party is bereft of value or values? Barabak: I think self-reflection is good for the party, to a point. Democrats suffered a soul-crushing loss in November — at the presidential level and in the Senate, where the GOP seized control — and they did so in part because many of their traditional voters stayed home. It would be political malpractice not to figure out why. That said, there is a tendency to go overboard and over-interpret the long-term significance of any one election. This is not the end of the Democratic Party. It's not even the first time one of the two major parties has been cast into the political wilderness. Democrats went through similar soul-searching after presidential losses in 1984 and 1988. In 1991, a book was published explaining how Democrats were again destined to lose the White House and suggesting they would do so for the foreseeable future. In November 1992, Bill Clinton was elected president. Four years later, he romped to reelection. In 2013, after two straight losing presidential campaigns, Republicans commissioned a political autopsy that, among other recommendations, urged the party to increase its outreach to gay and Latino voters. In 2016, Donald Trump — not exactly a model of inclusion — was elected. Here, by the way, is how The Times wrote up that postmortem: 'A smug, uncaring, ideologically rigid national Republican Party is turning off the majority of American voters, with stale policies that have changed little in 30 years and an image that alienates minorities and the young, according to an internal GOP study.' Sound familar? So, sure, look inward. But spare us the existential freakout. Chabria: I would also argue that this moment is about more than the next election. I do think there are questions about if democracy will make it that long, and if so, if the next round at the polls will be a free and fair one. I know the price of everything continues to rise, and conventional wisdom is that it's all about the economy. But Democrats seem stuck in election politics as usual. These however, are unusual times that call for something more. There are a lot of folks who don't like to see their neighbors, family or friends rounded up by Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents in masks; a lot of people who don't want to see Medicaid cut for millions, with Medicare likely to be on the chopping block next; a lot of people who are afraid our courts won't hold the line until the midterms. They want to know Democrats are fighting to protect these things, not fighting each other. I agree with you that any loss should be followed by introspection. But also, there's a hunger for leadership in opposition to this administration, and the Democrats are losing an opportunity to be those leaders with their endless self-immolation. Did Harris really lose that bad? Did Trump really receive a mandate to end America as we know it? Barabak: No, and no. I mean, a loss is a loss. Trump swept all seven battleground states and the election result was beyond dispute unlike, say, 2000. But Trump's margin over Harris in the popular vote was just 1.5% — which is far from landslide territory — and he didn't even win a majority of support, falling just shy of 50%. As for a supposed mandate, the most pithy and perceptive post-election analysis I read came from the American Enterprise Institute's Yuval Levin, who noted Trump's victory marked the third presidential campaign in a row in which the incumbent party lost — something not seen since the 19th century. Challengers 'win elections because their opponents were unpopular,' Levin wrote, 'and then — imagining the public has endorsed their party activists' agenda — they use the power of their office to make themselves unpopular.' It's a long way to 2026, and an even longer way to 2028. But Levin is sure looking smart. Chabria: I know Kamala-bashing is popular right now, but I'd argue that Harris wasn't resoundingly unpopular — just unpopular enough, with some. Harris had 107 days to campaign. Many candidates spend years running for the White House, and much longer if you count the coy 'maybe' period. She was unknown to most Americans, faced double discrimination from race and gender, and (to be fair) has never been considered wildly charismatic. So to nearly split the popular vote with all that baggage is notable. But maybe Elon Musk said it best. As part of his messy breakup with Trump, the billionaire tweeted, 'Without me, Trump would have lost the election, Dems would control the House and the Republicans would be 51-49 in the Senate.' Sometimes there's truth in anger. Musk's money influenced this election, and probably tipped it to Trump in at least one battleground state. Any postmortem needs to examine not just the message, but also the medium. Is it what Democrats are saying that isn't resonating, or is it that right-wing oligarchs are dominating communication? Barabak: Chabria: Mark? Barabak: Sorry. I was so caught up in the spectacle of the world's richest man going all neener-neener with the world's most powerful man I lost track of where we were. With all due respect to Marshall McLuhan, I think Democrats need first off to figure out a message to carry them through the 2026 midterms. They were quite successful in 2018 pushing back on GOP efforts to dismantle the Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare, if you prefer. It's not hard to see them resurrecting that playbook if Republicans take a meat-ax to Medicare and millions of Americans lose their healthcare coverage. Then, come 2028, they'll pick a presidential nominee and have their messenger, who can then focus on the medium — TV, radio, podcasts, TikTok, Bluesky or whatever else is in political fashion at the moment. Now, excuse me while I return my sights to the sandbox.
Yahoo
8 hours ago
- Yahoo
Italy holds referendum on citizenship, workers' rights
Italians vote on Sunday and Monday in a referendum on easing citizenship rules and strengthening labour laws, with Giorgia Meloni's government opposing both changes and urging people to abstain. A non-EU adult resident without marriage or blood ties to Italy must currently live in the country for 10 years before they can apply for citizenship -- a process which can then take years. The referendum proposal, triggered by a grassroots campaign led by NGOs, would cut this to five years, putting Italy in line with Germany and France. Campaigners say around 2.5 million people could benefit from the reform, which is being backed by the centre-left Democratic Party. Meloni, whose far-right Brothers of Italy party has prioritised cutting illegal immigration even while increasing the number of legal work visas for migrants, is strongly against it. She said Thursday that the current system "is an excellent law, among the most open, in the sense that we have for years been among the European nations that grant the highest number of citizenships each year". More than 213,500 people acquired Italian citizenship in 2023, double the number in 2020 and one fifth of the European Union total, according to EU statistics. More than 90 percent were from outside the bloc, mostly from Albania and Morocco, as well as Argentina and Brazil -- two countries with large Italian immigrant communities. Ministers agreed in March to restrict the rights to citizenship of those with blood ties to Italy from four to two generations. Meloni and her coalition partners have encouraged voters to boycott the referendum, which will only be valid if 50 percent of eligible voters plus one participate. Even if it passes, the reform will not affect the migration law many consider the most unfair, that children born in Italy to foreign parents cannot request nationality until they reach 18. Prominent rapper Ghali, who was born in Milan to Tunisian parents, has been an outspoken advocate changing the law for children, but nevertheless urged fans to back Sunday's vote as a step in the right direction. "With a 'Yes' we ask that five years of life here are enough, not 10, to be part of this country," he wrote on Instagram. - Interests of workers - Under Italy's constitution, a referendum can be triggered by a petition signed by at least 500,000 voters. This week's ballot includes one question on citizenship and four others on increasing protections for workers who are dismissed, in precarious situations or involved in workplace accidents. The changes are being pushed by the left-wing CGIL trade union. "We want to reverse a culture that has prioritised the interests of business over those of workers," CGIL general secretary Maurizio Landini told AFP. The Democratic Party is also backing the proposals -- even if it introduced some of the laws the CGIL wants to repeal while in office in the past. The proposals are notably aimed at measures of the so-called Jobs Act, passed a decade ago by the government of the Democratic Party prime minister, Matteo Renzi, in order to liberalise the labour market. Supporters say the act boosted employment but detractors say it made work more precarious. Under new leadership, the Democratic Party -- which is polling at around 23 percent, behind Meloni's Brothers of Italy at about 30 percent, according to an SWG survey this week -- is seeking to woo working-class voters by backing the referendum reform. str-ar/ide/ams/djt/dhw
New York Post
12 hours ago
- New York Post
Bill Maher mocks Dems for trying to find ‘their Joe Rogan,' suggests figuring out how they lost him
'Real Time' host Bill Maher mocked the Democratic Party's attempt to find 'their Joe Rogan,' pointing out the irony that the podcaster had leaned left until he became disillusioned with the party. The host explained, 'One idea that's getting a lot of attention is the Dems need to find their Joe Rogan, a liberal Joe Rogan.' Maher argued that rather than 'conjuring up a new Joe Rogan,' Democrats should be asking themselves how they lost him in the first place. Advertisement Rogan previously endorsed Sen. Bernie Sanders, D-Vt., in the 2020 election. It wasn't until 2024 that Rogan publicly endorsed President Donald Trump. The 'Real Time' host lampooned the idea that the real reason why former Vice President Kamala Harris lost the 2024 election is because 'Republicans have a podcast.' 'Okay, maybe. Or, you could consider this,' Maher jeered. 'Instead of conjuring up a new Joe Rogan, ask yourself why you lost the old one, because he used to be on your side.' In 2024, regarding the Democratic desire to find its own Rogan, the podcaster said, 'They had me.' 'I was on their side,' he added. Advertisement Maher noted that he's watched the political evolution of both Rogan and Musk and their party affiliations didn't switch 'overnight.' Youtube/Real Time with Bill Maher Maher compared Rogan's political transformation to Tesla CEO Elon Musk, who was also a liberal who ended up being 'driven to the other camp by bad attitudes and bad ideas.' Maher noted that he's watched the political evolution of both Rogan and Musk and their party affiliations didn't switch 'overnight.' Maher referenced a 2022 post on then-Twitter from Elon Musk in which he shared a chart depicting his feeling that the Democratic Party had moved too far to the left for him, rather than his ideology moving to the right. Advertisement Rogan previously endorsed Sen. Bernie Sanders, D-Vt., in the 2020 election. Rogan said that Democrats have moved so far that it 'left a basically liberal centrist like him — now labeled a conservative,' adding that he related to Musk's post. Maher also highlighted attempts by the left to cancel Rogan and Musk as a key reason they abandoned the party. Advertisement 'They tried real hard to cancel Rogan a few years ago — and when Elon hosted 'Saturday Night Live' in 2021, well before he was a Trumper — some of the cast gave him the cold shoulder for the sin of being rich,' he recalled. 'You think people don't remember when you do this s— to them?' The late-night host asserted that while he's never left the party, Democrats need to work hard to get 'all the guys in America like Joe and Elon' back on their side, but assured them that it's still possible.
