The police union's incredible threat

Well, that was quick. Six weeks ago, Austin Police Association president Michael Bullock, lauding City Council for its support of a police contract that included historic pay raises for officers, proclaimed a "new day" in Austin, in which APD and the city's elected officials could move beyond the bad blood of the "Defund" era. The story told by supporters of the contract was that the city's big financial commitment to APD would show cops that the community had its back, boosting morale for existing officers and enticing prospective officers to join the department, eventually eliminating the staffing shortage and making Austin safer.

But yesterday, Bullock, reacting to the 2-year sentence handed down to Officer Christopher Taylor for the killing of Mauris DeSilva, said cops should stop responding to 911 calls involving a mental health crisis.

"I believe the Austin Police Department must stop responding to mental health calls," Bullock said in a video posted on Twitter in which he accused Travis County DA Jose Garza of waging "war" on law enforcement.

"We have never claimed to be mental health experts yet we are continually scrutinized for these situations," he said. "Now that we're left with the option of being stabbed or going to prison, Travis County and the District Attorney's Office should be the ones to incur the risk, since they're the ones that know the best tactics and methods protecting the public."

Umm, is Bullock actually calling on his members to engage in an illegal strike? That's certainly the way I interpreted it when I first heard it.

And yet, the wording leaves enough room for him to argue that he is not advocating for cops to stop doing their jobs, but for the city to implement a policy change that would shift responsibility of mental health calls from the police to other professionals, which is ironically something that the "defund" types were calling for years ago.

When I asked him by text which of the two he was advocating for, he replied, "Policy."

Well, assuming that's how all of his members interpret it, that's less bad...

The problem, of course, is that there is no neat distinction between "mental health" calls and other threats to public safety. Mental illness is a major driver of virtually every kind of crime, from public urination to mass shootings.

It makes sense for police to arrive at the scene of a mental health crisis, especially if the guy has a knife. What doesn't make sense is everything else the cops did when they confronted DeSilva that day. The information they got about DeSilva –– including from a delivery man who had just talked to the guy and not been attacked (!!) –– indicated that he was not likely to present a serious threat to others. The way the encounter is framed by Bullock –– that DeSilva was given orders but didn't comply and that he was coming at the cops with a knife simply does not align with what I saw on the video. And the 12 jurors who heard the case didn't buy it either.

"We all came to the conclusion that there was just nothing reasonable about it," said a juror who spoke about the case to KVUE's Tony Plohetski. I highly recommend watching the interview. The man, who requested anonymity, described himself as a Republican and unsympathetic to anti-police protests.

For what it's worth, I don't think Chris Taylor needs to spend two years behind bars. I think that Taylor, who less than a year after killing DeSilva also fatally shot Mike Ramos under very dubious circumstances, is a threat to public safety as a police officer. I don't think he's a threat as a civilian.

Populism cuts both ways

The police want to frame this as a conflict between them and a radical prosecutor. But the real conflict –– as demonstrated by the jury verdict –– is between the police and the public they serve.

What the police want is a return to a system in which every part of the law enforcement establishment looks after one another, shielding themselves from the uninformed rabble who just don't get it.

Elected district attorneys traditionally gave cops broad deference, and in an era when the police union was one of the most important groups to have on your side, it was a mutually beneficial approach. It also happened to be an era before the widespread use of body cams that allowed the public to see what actually happened. The story told by the police was often the only one we saw.

The police association wants us to return to that era. They want us to "listen to the experts."

Of course there's a deep irony at play here. In recent years, police unions across the country have grown closer to the GOP, embracing a president with utter contempt for law enforcement institutions and the rule of law. The Fraternal Order of Police, the largest police federation, endorsed a felon who has promised to pardon insurrectionists who beat up Capitol Police officers and putting brazenly corrupt thugs in charge of the nation's top law enforcement agencies. But at least he didn't support Black Lives Matter.

In recent weeks (if not years), liberals, at least the thoughtful ones, have had to come to terms with the fact that Trump's assault on our institutions and norms don't matter to many Americans because they no longer value those norms or have faith in those institutions.

The police would be wise to engage in a bit of introspection themselves about the traditions they're defending. Things that were excused in the pre-body cam era may simply not fly anymore.

It's also notable that Greg Abbott, so quick to pardon Daniel Perry, has yet to comment on the case. Maybe that will change, but the fact that a guy as craven as the governor doesn't perceive much advantage here is another signal that the politics aren't on the APA's side long-term.

An awkward moment for Watson & the Council

The police contract was a big win for Mayor Kirk Watson in the weeks preceding the election. Getting a contract approved was one of the key promises he made early in his tenure –– it was one that appealed strongly to the conservative segment of his electoral coalition. It was a goal that he had pursued nimbly, siding in the first weeks of his term with police reform groups and most other liberal Council members in opposing the police contract that was proposed by former City Manager Spencer Cronk, arguing that it lacked key police oversight measures.

The contract that Watson and most others on Council backed in October includes stronger oversight provisions alongside with record pay raises for cops. Many progressive activists opposed the contract, arguing that pumping so much money into the police department would come at a steep cost to other critical services. Many Council members found these critiques to be fair, but they also weren't up for another fight with the cops. They too want to bury the "Defund" chapter.

So, are we going to get what we paid for? Or are the police going to simply say they can't really do their jobs now because of Jose Garza? Again, Bullock says he's simply calling for a policy change, but it's not unheard of for police to express their discontent through unofficial work slowdowns. We'll see what the data shows in the coming months ...

Outside the Box

Former Police Association president Ken "Box" Casaday posted on Facebook, "I think we need to hand over all mental health calls to our elected Constables or Sherriff's Office. They have a better relationship with DA Garza and they are elected Democrats. I believe this is what the voters of Travis County would want.This would require funding the program which I as a Travis County voter would support."

I mean, sure! It would be totally legit to hold a tax rate election to fund a county mental health workforce, through the Sheriff's Department, the Constables, or whatever. Of course, if they end taking up a bunch of the mental health-related calls, would we still need as large of a city police force?

If somebody forwarded you this email, please consider subscribing to the newsletter by visiting the website.