Can someone explain “defund” the police vs police reform?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have developed my own slogan which I think better embraces the thoughts behind the statement. It is Reduce, Reallocate, Reform

Reduce what?

Do you have the internet? Have you tried clicking on any of the numerous articles about just what defunding the police means? Is it really that hard to get a grasp of what they're proposing?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP. I’m also curious what the suggested alternative for public safety is if we “defund” the police.

After school programs reduce gang involvement and ultimately less crime/increase public safety.

Shouldn't we have more after school programs and activities for teens?

Of course! I’m asking what happens when someone robs a bank.

No you aren't.

Huh?? If you “defund” the police, thus eliminating or limiting their duties, who handles public safety concerns like bank robberies or domestic violence incidents?

We know you are being purposely obtuse because no one is dumb enough to be able to post here, but unable to google and learn that it does not mean eliminating all police everywhere for every function.

I'll answer anyway: The police will, because they will be there and funded to do THAT job, instead of being off writing parking tickets or harassing homeless people or trying to negotiate peace between a husband and wife. See how that works?

Please ignore pp's tone.

PP is correct, the police will still be there for their core duties. Other duties, such as dealing with suicide threats and writing parking tickets, would be spun off to trained social workers and others.

Core police would continue to function with reforms like banning chokeholds, requiring a police officer to announce s/he's drawing a gun, etc. Officers with almost 20 complaints and 2 formal reprimands, like Chauvin, would be kicked off the police force. I'm no expert, but Campaign Zero, which participated in Obama's Town Hall, had 8 experience-tested reform suggestions. https://www.joincampaignzero.org

What's the plan to deal with 300 lbs convicted felon high on meth and fentanyl that is resisting arrest?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Defund the police doesn't mean literally get rid of police and having no more police (a few mean that but most don't). It means that police are now responsible for areas that they didn't used to be, including mental health crises, homelessness, drug issues, school behavior issues, etc. that should be handled by other social services.

Defund the police means to shift some of the police budgets from the police to other social services, including community centers, youth leagues, social workers, home nurses and therapists, etc. Municipal funds can and should be reexamined and redistributed to invest in cities, not just tanks for police departments. What would you want to see to make your area a better place?

What can go wrong ?

You think reallocating funds will result in more police killing people in chokeholds? Really?

It'll increase the funding of those social services that are designed to HELP people who need actual help instead of cops out to solve everything.
Did you see that jackass cop in Fairfax come out to a scene where a guy was in the midst of some drug-induced psychosis? Cop just came out and tasered him as opposed to try and help him.
Know why? Cause that's primarily what cops are trained to do - fire weapons and beat the shit out of people. That is one example of an instance where cops were NOT needed but because we rely on cops for everything more citizens than necessary are getting shot and getting the shit kicked out them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP. I’m also curious what the suggested alternative for public safety is if we “defund” the police.

After school programs reduce gang involvement and ultimately less crime/increase public safety.

Shouldn't we have more after school programs and activities for teens?

Of course! I’m asking what happens when someone robs a bank.

No you aren't.

Huh?? If you “defund” the police, thus eliminating or limiting their duties, who handles public safety concerns like bank robberies or domestic violence incidents?

We know you are being purposely obtuse because no one is dumb enough to be able to post here, but unable to google and learn that it does not mean eliminating all police everywhere for every function.

I'll answer anyway: The police will, because they will be there and funded to do THAT job, instead of being off writing parking tickets or harassing homeless people or trying to negotiate peace between a husband and wife. See how that works?

Please ignore pp's tone.

PP is correct, the police will still be there for their core duties. Other duties, such as dealing with suicide threats and writing parking tickets, would be spun off to trained social workers and others.

Core police would continue to function with reforms like banning chokeholds, requiring a police officer to announce s/he's drawing a gun, etc. Officers with almost 20 complaints and 2 formal reprimands, like Chauvin, would be kicked off the police force. I'm no expert, but Campaign Zero, which participated in Obama's Town Hall, had 8 experience-tested reform suggestions. https://www.joincampaignzero.org

What's the plan to deal with 300 lbs convicted felon high on meth and fentanyl that is resisting arrest?

Nice try doofus - if he's resisting arrest then the cops are already there!!!

[Anonymous]

What's the plan to deal with 300 lbs convicted felon high on meth and fentanyl that is resisting arrest?

In the long term, the plan is that the money we save by not equipping police forces like an occupying army (literally, since they are using Iraq/Afghanistan surplus) would be used to ensure there are fewer meth and fentanyl addicts, and that people who remain drug dependent aren't criming to fuel their addiction.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

To answer PP's question: police aren't very good at preventing things like bank robberies or domestic assaults. They're purely reactive. And even then, they're not very good at solving crime, either. We'd start by investing in things that reduce crime: universal health care (including prenatal care), subsidized childcare, free drug/alcohol treatment for those that want it, and mental heath care workers in EVERY school. And we'd create a new universe of "first responders" that are equipped to solve the issues you mentioned: think social workers, mental health professionals, domestic violence advocates, paramedics, crisis response workers, etc.

People rob banks because they don't bother to apply for Obamacare and because they don't have childcare?
That is rich.
Yeh, send social worker to calm down a violent felon.
Good luck.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have developed my own slogan which I think better embraces the thoughts behind the statement. It is Reduce, Reallocate, Reform

Reduce what?

Not PP, but I think by reduce they mean to reduce the number of sworn officers. Considering most PD's are understaffed now I really don't think it's a well thought out idea.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP. I’m also curious what the suggested alternative for public safety is if we “defund” the police.

After school programs reduce gang involvement and ultimately less crime/increase public safety.

Shouldn't we have more after school programs and activities for teens?

Of course! I’m asking what happens when someone robs a bank.

No you aren't.

Huh?? If you “defund” the police, thus eliminating or limiting their duties, who handles public safety concerns like bank robberies or domestic violence incidents?

We know you are being purposely obtuse because no one is dumb enough to be able to post here, but unable to google and learn that it does not mean eliminating all police everywhere for every function.

I'll answer anyway: The police will, because they will be there and funded to do THAT job, instead of being off writing parking tickets or harassing homeless people or trying to negotiate peace between a husband and wife. See how that works?

Please ignore pp's tone.

PP is correct, the police will still be there for their core duties. Other duties, such as dealing with suicide threats and writing parking tickets, would be spun off to trained social workers and others.

Core police would continue to function with reforms like banning chokeholds, requiring a police officer to announce s/he's drawing a gun, etc. Officers with almost 20 complaints and 2 formal reprimands, like Chauvin, would be kicked off the police force. I'm no expert, but Campaign Zero, which participated in Obama's Town Hall, had 8 experience-tested reform suggestions. https://www.joincampaignzero.org

What's the plan to deal with 300 lbs convicted felon high on meth and fentanyl that is resisting arrest?

Maybe...not arrest people over $20?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

To answer PP's question: police aren't very good at preventing things like bank robberies or domestic assaults. They're purely reactive. And even then, they're not very good at solving crime, either. We'd start by investing in things that reduce crime: universal health care (including prenatal care), subsidized childcare, free drug/alcohol treatment for those that want it, and mental heath care workers in EVERY school. And we'd create a new universe of "first responders" that are equipped to solve the issues you mentioned: think social workers, mental health professionals, domestic violence advocates, paramedics, crisis response workers, etc.

People rob banks because they don't bother to apply for Obamacare and because they don't have childcare?
That is rich.
Yeh, send social worker to calm down a violent felon.
Good luck.

Wowww you’re really afraid that less police will cause the black people to come after you and makes you more vulnerable to violence by black people, aren’t you? You need to ask yourself why you are so against resolving the root issues of crime instead of just policing the hell out of anyone you deem a threat. You have some deep-seated biases surfacing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

To answer PP's question: police aren't very good at preventing things like bank robberies or domestic assaults. They're purely reactive. And even then, they're not very good at solving crime, either. We'd start by investing in things that reduce crime: universal health care (including prenatal care), subsidized childcare, free drug/alcohol treatment for those that want it, and mental heath care workers in EVERY school. And we'd create a new universe of "first responders" that are equipped to solve the issues you mentioned: think social workers, mental health professionals, domestic violence advocates, paramedics, crisis response workers, etc.

People rob banks because they don't bother to apply for Obamacare and because they don't have childcare?
That is rich.
Yeh, send social worker to calm down a violent felon.
Good luck.

Bank robberies are exceptionally rare. And yes, they typically involve people who are very desperate. People who have other options don’t commit robbery.

[Anonymous]

Needs a new slogan. Not abolishing police. Decriminalizing many things.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

To answer PP's question: police aren't very good at preventing things like bank robberies or domestic assaults. They're purely reactive. And even then, they're not very good at solving crime, either. We'd start by investing in things that reduce crime: universal health care (including prenatal care), subsidized childcare, free drug/alcohol treatment for those that want it, and mental heath care workers in EVERY school. And we'd create a new universe of "first responders" that are equipped to solve the issues you mentioned: think social workers, mental health professionals, domestic violence advocates, paramedics, crisis response workers, etc.

People rob banks because they don't bother to apply for Obamacare and because they don't have childcare?
That is rich.
Yeh, send social worker to calm down a violent felon.
Good luck.

Example I like to use is so you send a mental health worker to a non violent domestic situation. What happens if one party becomes violent? You run the possibility of having two potential victims instead of one. You still need a police officer at that point. The violence would have probably been prevented if the police had responded in the first place.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have developed my own slogan which I think better embraces the thoughts behind the statement. It is Reduce, Reallocate, Reform

Reduce what?

Not PP, but I think by reduce they mean to reduce the number of sworn officers. Considering most PD's are understaffed now I really don't think it's a well thought out idea.

Schools are understaffed, CPS is understaffed (as we've recently seen public health is understaffed), social workers are understaffed. Even the IRS is understaffed.

Let's be more thoughtful with where our municipal funds are going and what the benefit is. If the police are actively making communities worse (selling drugs, as some have been doing), or escalating instead of deescalating, up to and including killing people, then they aren't protecting and serving.

[Anonymous]

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

To answer PP's question: police aren't very good at preventing things like bank robberies or domestic assaults. They're purely reactive. And even then, they're not very good at solving crime, either. We'd start by investing in things that reduce crime: universal health care (including prenatal care), subsidized childcare, free drug/alcohol treatment for those that want it, and mental heath care workers in EVERY school. And we'd create a new universe of "first responders" that are equipped to solve the issues you mentioned: think social workers, mental health professionals, domestic violence advocates, paramedics, crisis response workers, etc.

People rob banks because they don't bother to apply for Obamacare and because they don't have childcare?
That is rich.
Yeh, send social worker to calm down a violent felon.
Good luck.

Your cynical attitude is so classic...
16th-century Europe..."Split from the Catholic church and become Protestants, good luck."
18th-century America..."Revolt against England and become an independent nation, good luck."
19th-century America..."End slavery, good luck."
1920's..."Give women the right to vote, good luck."
1960's..."End segregation, good luck."