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

[Anonymous]

I’m all for a radical re-thinking/demilitarization of police but some of the thinking on the abolish end of the spectrum strikes me as hopelessly naive. I work in mental health and some of the mental health adjacent solutions/preventive suggestions are flat out absurd. Some sound promising and could, over decades, put a dent in some social issues but addiction and violence related to it (as well as violence and property crime related to sociopathy) are not going to be solved with community centers, etc.

[Anonymous]

^^ also, I should add, where I live (VA), the first time you’re charged with DV, you’re given a deferred finding (not a conviction) and placed on probation. VA Code 18.2-57.3

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:^^ also, I should add, where I live (VA), the first time you’re charged with DV, you’re given a deferred finding (not a conviction) and placed on probation. VA Code 18.2-57.3

Quoting myself. I’m not the immediate PP..I was the one talking about BIP

[Anonymous]

311 is a dispatch system. It still send armed officers, where it be auto accident, busted window or broken red light. That is a dramatic difference from the concept.

Do you really need a police officer with a gun and arrest powers to file a report on you car being broken into? Or to a crash, as opposed to an unarmed civil servant with the ability to summon the police if necessary? Do tell the village drunk to stop loitering? To tell a neighbor that the music is too loud? Yet these are the things police occupy themselves with on a daily basis. You save armed cops for things requiring that. For everything else you disarm and resolve.

[Anonymous]

And how do you fund it now? You use the same money to reinvest in other ways.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:^^ also, I should add, where I live (VA), the first time you’re charged with DV, you’re given a deferred finding (not a conviction) and placed on probation. VA Code 18.2-57.3

Good to know OJ!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:311 is a dispatch system. It still send armed officers, where it be auto accident, busted window or broken red light. That is a dramatic difference from the concept.

Do you really need a police officer with a gun and arrest powers to file a report on you car being broken into? Or to a crash, as opposed to an unarmed civil servant with the ability to summon the police if necessary? Do tell the village drunk to stop loitering? To tell a neighbor that the music is too loud? Yet these are the things police occupy themselves with on a daily basis. You save armed cops for things requiring that. For everything else you disarm and resolve.

That sounds very reasonable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:311 is a dispatch system. It still send armed officers, where it be auto accident, busted window or broken red light. That is a dramatic difference from the concept.

Do you really need a police officer with a gun and arrest powers to file a report on you car being broken into? Or to a crash, as opposed to an unarmed civil servant with the ability to summon the police if necessary? Do tell the village drunk to stop loitering? To tell a neighbor that the music is too loud? Yet these are the things police occupy themselves with on a daily basis. You save armed cops for things requiring that. For everything else you disarm and resolve.

No. Scenarios that may warrant an armed response vs an unarmed response cannot be as neatly categorized as you seem to think.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:311 is a dispatch system. It still send armed officers, where it be auto accident, busted window or broken red light. That is a dramatic difference from the concept.

Do you really need a police officer with a gun and arrest powers to file a report on you car being broken into? Or to a crash, as opposed to an unarmed civil servant with the ability to summon the police if necessary? Do tell the village drunk to stop loitering? To tell a neighbor that the music is too loud? Yet these are the things police occupy themselves with on a daily basis. You save armed cops for things requiring that. For everything else you disarm and resolve.

That sounds very reasonable.

Indeed. Sounds very reasonable when you have no clue what you're talking about.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:311 is a dispatch system. It still send armed officers, where it be auto accident, busted window or broken red light. That is a dramatic difference from the concept.

Do you really need a police officer with a gun and arrest powers to file a report on you car being broken into? Or to a crash, as opposed to an unarmed civil servant with the ability to summon the police if necessary? Do tell the village drunk to stop loitering? To tell a neighbor that the music is too loud? Yet these are the things police occupy themselves with on a daily basis. You save armed cops for things requiring that. For everything else you disarm and resolve.

That sounds very reasonable.

Indeed. Sounds very reasonable when you have no clue what you're talking about.

Do you think the current system is reasonable?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:311 is a dispatch system. It still send armed officers, where it be auto accident, busted window or broken red light. That is a dramatic difference from the concept.

Do you really need a police officer with a gun and arrest powers to file a report on you car being broken into? Or to a crash, as opposed to an unarmed civil servant with the ability to summon the police if necessary? Do tell the village drunk to stop loitering? To tell a neighbor that the music is too loud? Yet these are the things police occupy themselves with on a daily basis. You save armed cops for things requiring that. For everything else you disarm and resolve.

That sounds very reasonable.

Indeed. Sounds very reasonable when you have no clue what you're talking about.

We've got ourselves a Betty Bootlicker, ladies and gentlemen!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:311 is a dispatch system. It still send armed officers, where it be auto accident, busted window or broken red light. That is a dramatic difference from the concept.

Do you really need a police officer with a gun and arrest powers to file a report on you car being broken into? Or to a crash, as opposed to an unarmed civil servant with the ability to summon the police if necessary? Do tell the village drunk to stop loitering? To tell a neighbor that the music is too loud? Yet these are the things police occupy themselves with on a daily basis. You save armed cops for things requiring that. For everything else you disarm and resolve.

That sounds very reasonable.

Indeed. Sounds very reasonable when you have no clue what you're talking about.

Here's a piece from NPR's Marketplace describing what "defund the police" means.

https://www.npr.org/podcasts/381444600/marketplace

I found it quite interesting.

[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.

If we used the money that we spend on homelessness programs directly on apartments, we could house people, but that isn't why people sleep on the street (plus, you forget about the industry that survives on that money)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

If we used the money that we spend on homelessness programs directly on apartments, we could house people, but that isn't why people sleep on the street (plus, you forget about the industry that survives on that money)

Sure it is. The fact that people don't want to sleep in a filthy shelter doesn't mean that they wouldn't want their own apartment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

If we used the money that we spend on homelessness programs directly on apartments, we could house people, but that isn't why people sleep on the street (plus, you forget about the industry that survives on that money)

Sure it is. The fact that people don't want to sleep in a filthy shelter doesn't mean that they wouldn't want their own apartment.

DP. A different question - if given an apartment, how will they maintain it/utilities when the government/community agency assistance runs out? Particularly if they are facing health or addiction issues? We can’t just pass out free apartments (though we do).