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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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).

Why not? Is that such a terrible thing to do?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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).

Quoting myself to add - that’s why shelters work with clients to gain/establish employment, begin saving money from every check, etc. Living in a shelter requires a person to participate in programming and structure that he/she may not be interested in, but would be helpful.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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).

Why not? Is that such a terrible thing to do?

I’ll make you a deal. I’ll quit my job the day after we pass legislation to give out apartments. I’d much rather hang out at home on your dime than work to pay the bills.

[Anonymous]

^^ Oh and so will all of my friends! We can name the bill after you if you’d like.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Police are terrible at dealing with rape victims, and solving rapes. Heck, police are often rapists themselves: https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/albertsamaha/this-teenager-accused-two-on-duty-cops-of-rape-she-had-no?utm_source=dynamic&utm_campaign=bffbsoml&ref=bffbsoml&fbclid=IwAR0S_1RgZTeIadOMkG1RiPqLPHcl0VvIsE5oh0nmjNLlDHgDxNmw4lHkK8U

Our current system does not work for rape victims, so threatening women with "what will you do about rapes?" isn't going to work.

You still have not identified any other alternative to protecting women. And saying "police are often rapists themselves" is bs. "Often"? really? show me some statistics and not some anecdote.

Rape is predominantly reported after the fact. If an attacker is inside the home with a victim, the police bring in a crisis team. They're not busting down the door to grab the attacker because there is too much risk to the victim.

Catching and arresting the rapist protects other women.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Police are terrible at dealing with rape victims, and solving rapes. Heck, police are often rapists themselves: https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/albertsamaha/this-teenager-accused-two-on-duty-cops-of-rape-she-had-no?utm_source=dynamic&utm_campaign=bffbsoml&ref=bffbsoml&fbclid=IwAR0S_1RgZTeIadOMkG1RiPqLPHcl0VvIsE5oh0nmjNLlDHgDxNmw4lHkK8U

Our current system does not work for rape victims, so threatening women with "what will you do about rapes?" isn't going to work.

You still have not identified any other alternative to protecting women. And saying "police are often rapists themselves" is bs. "Often"? really? show me some statistics and not some anecdote.

DP. Others on this thread did.

Social workers and EMTs? Is that it?

Centers to help women leave their abusive SOs and live on their own, job training assistance, child care, etc.

This exists now, but the women are too scared to leave, usually until there is a crisis.

[Anonymous]

This is thread is starting to read like a bunch of ignoramuses who think they're smart.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is thread is starting to read like a bunch of ignoramuses who think they're smart.

[Anonymous]

So am I reading this right. We don’t actually want to punish rapists and wife beaters anymore? Sounds like a winning platform

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So am I reading this right. We don’t actually want to punish rapists and wife beaters anymore? Sounds like a winning platform

That's the Trump platform. Rape em if you can.

[Anonymous]

This post replies have gotten off topic...latest..

https://nypost.com/2020/06/08/biden-breaks-with-blm-movement-to-oppose-defunding-the-police/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So am I reading this right. We don’t actually want to punish rapists and wife beaters anymore? Sounds like a winning platform

That's the Trump platform. Rape em if you can.

It’s Trump saying defund the police?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

Thank you!
A voice of reason from a boots on the ground person.

[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.

Absolutely! If my car is broken into I want police, fingerprinting, neighborhood search, everything that is available for my tax money. What I don't want is my car insurance to go through the roof due to ''kill them with love'' policies and thugs getting away with their crimes. Thugs belong in jail.

At the car crash - absolutely positive. I don't want to press my luck with an other driver involved getting aggressive.

Traffic stops - a must. A lot of drugs are discovered during traffic stops.

Loud music - if I am uncomfortable asking my neighbor to turn his music, it means only one thing - there can be trouble.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

It is as perfect as it gets. It protects decent people from thugs and that means the system is doing what it suppose to do.
The ''defunding'' is obviously on the thugs side and against decent people.