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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The defund groups really do want to get rid of all police. People on here keep saying that is not what defund means, but it depends which group. The 8 can't wait group will keep some police, but a new group 8 to abdicate truly wants to get rid of the police and is where the movement is headed. You can see it at https://www.8toabolition.com or check #8toAbolition on twitter.

While money can be moved around to social programs which should help reduce crime, even if everyone's needs are met there will still be crime. Assault, murder, rape, etc... are often committed for reasons besides people making ends meet. If people really want to see ProPublica's rticle on what happens. https://features.propublica.org/local-reporting-network-alaska/alaska-sexual-violence-village-police/ If you read the article you will see how rapes and assualts go unchecked without a real police force. Hopefully the abolition people will not get their way or we are going to be Mad Max in the cities.

You can live without police now -- just move to an Alaska village! I posted a couple of articles about the rate of sexual assault in Alaska in the other thread that got locked. Surveys show that 59% of women in Alaska have been the subject of violence, and it is estimated that approaching 100% of women in remote villages have been sexually assaulted. It's not the men who suffer when there is no law enforcement.

OMG. That is awful!

I had no idea Alaska was like that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Funny how they knew exactly what the word meant when they said Defund Planned Parenthood

In that context, “defund” means “strip of all government funding.” That’s the obvious meaning of “defund the police.”

THIS. It's astounding how the idiotic choice of the use "defund" is having to be explained, over and over. If the intention was to REFORM police, then that's the word that should have been chosen. But instead, we have a bunch of morons insisting everyone should know exactly what they meant, even though they're using the wrong word.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Yep. Too bad this wasn't thought through before the slogan became a "thing."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I hate what happened to George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, Eric Garner, Freddie Gray, and many other African Americans. However, I can't support the idea that it is inherent bad to want to be a police officer. Years ago, when I lived in upstate New York, and ex boyfriend of mine was acting really crazy. He broke into my apartment when I wasn't home, broke all of my dishes and two of my windows, and apparently, harmed my cat (she had two broken ribs afterwards). The police were very helpful, and due to their intervention, he left me alone.

+1
I will readily agree that police need far more training and even reform, but I will never stand behind the idea that we need less police. Or NO police, as some are screaming. No way.

[Anonymous]

Armed and dangerous police officers should, perhaps, not be pulling people over for broken taillights. Or driving with one's high beams on. Or having a crooked license plate. Or passing a possibly fake $20. Or noisy neighbors. Or speaking to a woman while you are bird watching in the park. These things that begin as trivial to-often result in armed and dangerous police harming or killing citizens.

Armed and dangerous police response should be reserved for serious situations, armed and dangerous aggressors, etc. Is it necessary for them to conduct a no-knock door break down in the dead of the night where residents get shot? For what, drugs? Legalize it. Should use of or possession of drugs result in a life behind bars?

Sure, home invasion in progress, someone being beaten, threatened, etc I understand the need for armed law enforcement.

[Anonymous]

The common meaning of “defund” appears to be:

- to withdraw funding from.

At least according to Webster’s.

The intent behind BLM’s use of this phrase is abundantly clear.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Funny how they knew exactly what the word meant when they said Defund Planned Parenthood

In that context, “defund” means “strip of all government funding.” That’s the obvious meaning of “defund the police.”

THIS. It's astounding how the idiotic choice of the use "defund" is having to be explained, over and over. If the intention was to REFORM police, then that's the word that should have been chosen. But instead, we have a bunch of morons insisting everyone should know exactly what they meant, even though they're using the wrong word.

These same people want to “abolish ICE” - and yes, they really are that extreme, unrealistic, and truly moronic.

See them for the fools they actually are and denounce their awful, dangerous ideas.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Armed and dangerous police officers should, perhaps, not be pulling people over for broken taillights. Or driving with one's high beams on. Or having a crooked license plate. Or passing a possibly fake $20. Or noisy neighbors. Or speaking to a woman while you are bird watching in the park. These things that begin as trivial to-often result in armed and dangerous police harming or killing citizens.

Armed and dangerous police response should be reserved for serious situations, armed and dangerous aggressors, etc. Is it necessary for them to conduct a no-knock door break down in the dead of the night where residents get shot? For what, drugs? Legalize it. Should use of or possession of drugs result in a life behind bars?

Sure, home invasion in progress, someone being beaten, threatened, etc I understand the need for armed law enforcement.

I'm wondering what planet you live on. Someone being pulled over for broken taillights/high beams/crooked license plate could very well be armed and dangerous themselves. Same with all the other examples. Of course police should be armed. They should simply be receiving a lot more training before they're allowed to carry firearms.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Armed and dangerous police officers should, perhaps, not be pulling people over for broken taillights. Or driving with one's high beams on. Or having a crooked license plate. Or passing a possibly fake $20. Or noisy neighbors. Or speaking to a woman while you are bird watching in the park. These things that begin as trivial to-often result in armed and dangerous police harming or killing citizens.

Armed and dangerous police response should be reserved for serious situations, armed and dangerous aggressors, etc. Is it necessary for them to conduct a no-knock door break down in the dead of the night where residents get shot? For what, drugs? Legalize it. Should use of or possession of drugs result in a life behind bars?

Sure, home invasion in progress, someone being beaten, threatened, etc I understand the need for armed law enforcement.

I'm wondering what planet you live on. Someone being pulled over for broken taillights/high beams/crooked license plate could very well be armed and dangerous themselves. Same with all the other examples. Of course police should be armed. They should simply be receiving a lot more training before they're allowed to carry firearms.

Pulling over cars is the single most dangerous thing police do, more so than responding to domestic incidents.

And as for legalizing all drugs, I’ve had a crack house in my neighborhood. No thanks.

[Anonymous]

No - no one wants just police reform.

Yes - they literally mean abolish the police.

Can’t get more clear of a statement than this one in the NYT:

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/12/opinion/sunday/floyd-abolish-defund-police.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No - no one wants just police reform.

Yes - they literally mean abolish the police.

Can’t get more clear of a statement than this one in the NYT:

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/12/opinion/sunday/floyd-abolish-defund-police.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage

What a moronic opinion piece.

[Anonymous]

Think of all the racists still burned up about the civil war! They gave ar-15s and have shown a willingness to nurse grudges for well over 100 years. Community centers and more mental health are not going to solve that problem.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Think of all the racists still burned up about the civil war! They gave ar-15s and have shown a willingness to nurse grudges for well over 100 years. Community centers and more mental health are not going to solve that problem.

Just like reforming and redefining the police isn’t going to solve the problem of police violence. The only way to protect POC is the wholesale destruction of so-called “law enforcement agencies” across the country.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Think of all the racists still burned up about the civil war! They gave ar-15s and have shown a willingness to nurse grudges for well over 100 years. Community centers and more mental health are not going to solve that problem.

Just like reforming and redefining the police isn’t going to solve the problem of police violence. The only way to protect POC is the wholesale destruction of so-called “law enforcement agencies” across the country.

But what happens when more Dylan Roof’s show up? Presumably there are some troubled racists who would do things like that but are deterred by fear of being shot by police or imprisoned as well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Think of all the racists still burned up about the civil war! They gave ar-15s and have shown a willingness to nurse grudges for well over 100 years. Community centers and more mental health are not going to solve that problem.

Just like reforming and redefining the police isn’t going to solve the problem of police violence. The only way to protect POC is the wholesale destruction of so-called “law enforcement agencies” across the country.

Wow - you are really a whack job.

Hope nobody follows through with your insane idea to abolish the police.