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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This is my question. So someone calls 911 re: a domestic dispute. Is the 911 dispatcher going to decide in 30 seconds whether a policeman or social worker needs to be dispatched? How in the world is a dispatcher going to make that call? How fast will the social worker get there? Do they have sirens and lights to get through traffic? What happens when the city is sued because the dispatcher didn’t send the police? The problem is, from a liability standpoint, the city has to send a policeman when people think they need one (which is why there are penalties for calling the police for spurious reasons).

My understanding is that they wouldn't send a social worker in lieu of a cop if someone is calling for a cop. It's that they would beef up services to victims and perpetrators of domestic violence to wrap them in community-based services and resources so that the cops aren't needed. That the abuser is getting the help that they need so that they aren't arrested, lose their job, etc. and that a victim of domestic violence is getting the help that they need, healing services, job, counseling, whatever. In other words, try to take the cops out of the day-to-day response to DV, but if a crisis/emergency occurs, that they still respond.

Sure, you do know DV is one of the most dangerous calls a cop goes on, but let's send a 28 year old female social worker instead.

Did you lose your glasses?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This is my question. So someone calls 911 re: a domestic dispute. Is the 911 dispatcher going to decide in 30 seconds whether a policeman or social worker needs to be dispatched? How in the world is a dispatcher going to make that call? How fast will the social worker get there? Do they have sirens and lights to get through traffic? What happens when the city is sued because the dispatcher didn’t send the police? The problem is, from a liability standpoint, the city has to send a policeman when people think they need one (which is why there are penalties for calling the police for spurious reasons).

My understanding is that they wouldn't send a social worker in lieu of a cop if someone is calling for a cop. It's that they would beef up services to victims and perpetrators of domestic violence to wrap them in community-based services and resources so that the cops aren't needed. That the abuser is getting the help that they need so that they aren't arrested, lose their job, etc. and that a victim of domestic violence is getting the help that they need, healing services, job, counseling, whatever. In other words, try to take the cops out of the day-to-day response to DV, but if a crisis/emergency occurs, that they still respond.

Sure, you do know DV is one of the most dangerous calls a cop goes on, but let's send a 28 year old female social worker instead.

Yes, continue contemplating all the catastrophic possibilities that will come about since the Supreme Court just voted in favor eliminating all police forces nationwide 6 to 3.
Yes, continue harping on all the horror that will come about as a result and work yourself up til you have a full blown panic attack about all the danger that you will be in.
When you fall out from a heart attack from all this stress and are in dire need of an EMT we'll send a cop instead.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This is my question. So someone calls 911 re: a domestic dispute. Is the 911 dispatcher going to decide in 30 seconds whether a policeman or social worker needs to be dispatched? How in the world is a dispatcher going to make that call? How fast will the social worker get there? Do they have sirens and lights to get through traffic? What happens when the city is sued because the dispatcher didn’t send the police? The problem is, from a liability standpoint, the city has to send a policeman when people think they need one (which is why there are penalties for calling the police for spurious reasons).

My understanding is that they wouldn't send a social worker in lieu of a cop if someone is calling for a cop. It's that they would beef up services to victims and perpetrators of domestic violence to wrap them in community-based services and resources so that the cops aren't needed. That the abuser is getting the help that they need so that they aren't arrested, lose their job, etc. and that a victim of domestic violence is getting the help that they need, healing services, job, counseling, whatever. In other words, try to take the cops out of the day-to-day response to DV, but if a crisis/emergency occurs, that they still respond.

Sure, you do know DV is one of the most dangerous calls a cop goes on, but let's send a 28 year old female social worker instead.

How does that at all respond to the post? Which says they would NOT send a social worker if someone calls 911? That they would send a COP, as REQUESTED.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

That movie was a result of the astronomical crime & murder rate in NYC in the 1970s.

It did not turn around until Rudi Giuliani was elected mayor.

[Anonymous]

We need to abolish ICE and defund Homeland Security entirely .

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We need to abolish ICE and defund Homeland Security entirely .

We need to disband Homeland Security and put all the agencies back in their old places. DHS seemed like a good idea at the time (to some people) but it didn't work out. It's time to scrap it and reset.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

That movie was a result of the astronomical crime & murder rate in NYC in the 1970s.

It did not turn around until Rudi Giuliani was elected mayor.

You realize that’s a work of fiction, right?

[Anonymous]

If we are going to defund the police in DC we need to pour an enormous amount of money into housing. HOUSING.

I work in DC Medicaid in case management. The number 1 (and 2, and 3 and 4 and 12 and 50th) concern of people who receive Medicaid in DC (which is basically a way of saying the "poor") is HOUSING.
I get 20 calls a day about housing a day. I call people about diabetes and they don't care. They need housing. I call the parents of kids with asthma and what do they want to talk about? Housing.
No one can afford to live here and the city pretty much does nothing. If I had dollar for everyone I talked to daily who was sleeping on a friend's couch, crashing with an aunt, sleeping on the streets I'd be wealthy in about a week.
It's IMPOSSIBLE to get city funded housing as a black male. The only ones who have any chance of getting off a list in under a decade (or ever) is a woman with young children.

The lack of affordable housing (and I mean affordable to people making under $25K) is what drives a TON of the crime and desperation in this city.
But no one wants to fix it because it costs a lot of money.

We need housing for people who make minimum wage. Not a few units for $400K in a development where the rest of the units go for $800K.


The rest of this is just putting a bandaid on a severed leg.

Camden NJ had a much easier problem to fix because they don't lack affordable housing. DC is up against a MAJOR issues here and it grows every year as the city gentrifies .

[Anonymous]

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?

I agree. We continue to ask the police to do more and more as we cut social services and then the strong police unions argue for more money so total spending doesn't go down, it probably goes up. Also, we have spent enormous sums of money arming the police like we arm the military. When you dress a cop up like a Navy Seal they are going to feel invincible with some wanting to be a Navy Seal treating protesters like terrorists.

[Anonymous]

repeat after me: DOG WHISTLE!
do not buy into this. Trump can seriously ride this into victory.

[Anonymous]

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?

Ok, but you would still have cops responding to your incidents that involve violent crime, so how would that change the situation?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It means that in the past 4 decades, the cost of policing in the US has tripled and is now $115 billion.

To put that in perspective, in 2012 HUD best instead that it would cost $20 billion to END HOMELESSNESS in the US.

Our priorities are all jacked up.

Yes, and the crime rate has dropped astronomically during that time as well. Interesting correlation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Cancel culture. It’s an emotional (not rational) response.

There are serious scholars and activists who have put years into this idea. You just haven't been reading the right journals or listening the right folks.

Police "reforms" have been underway for a decade, and we still have to march in the streets because cops do things like pull suspects out of the police car so they can sit on their necks for 9 minutes.

How can you argue that good cops exist when three officers sat there and watched a man be murdered? What reforms would you suggest in that case?

Ok, but who is going to respond to the violent crimes? The minor stuff, writing tickets, responding to domestic violence calls, isn’t where the bad stuff happens. You still have to have someone respond to this issues, and they will essentially be cops, even if that’s not what you call them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes a social worker will stop the rapists and robbers!!

Because an army of police have done such a great job stopping rape and robbery?

What social workers do you think want to do these things? That’s something that I don’t get with this argument. Social workers didn’t sign up for those jobs. What makes you think this is something they will be comfortable doing?

[Anonymous]

It seems that everyone has a different vision for what "defund" means. A number retain a small armed police force for those types of situations, but not for routine actions.