Anonymous wrote:Granted, "defund the police" is poor branding for what is good policy, but people are taking what it means way too far. It does mean trading social workers for police. It means at the very least smartly rethinking which situations require armed response and which do not. Peace officers with arrest powers are more appropriate in vastly more cases than armed response, which by definition escalates situations and empowers poorly trained police to shoot themselves out of situations they could and should think themselves out of. That's a start.

We already have that.
311 and hot lines.

What is ''peace officers''? Sheep for thugs to slaughter?
How a peace officer will arrest a guy that will turn violent out of the blue?
How it will be sorted out what person is peaceful enough for peace officers? By dispatcher? By sending four teams to the scene - medics, social workers, peace officers, police officers?

And most importantly, who is going to foot the bill having all these people saving one thug useless to a society in a first place?

Well, now here's the faux concern for domestic violence victims now. This board is notorious for victim blaming the $h!t out of domestic violence victims, but now all of a sudden, wait, wait, what about victims of domestic violence?! Your concern is really touching.

I'll give a single basic example. On any given Friday night in a big city, ambulances and EMTs are hard to find. There are far more police, most not very busy. So who shows up to medical emergencies? Cops, who at best may assess the situation then call an ambulance if needed. How much time is lost in that? And the emergency is a psychotic episode, all the cops can do is arrest. In a nutshell defund means to rethink. I do so wish people would quickly flip the branding. Sooner the better.

What’s more important to you, guns or books?

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The pp specifically referred to social workers as "first responders" in these situations. And, as others have explained, you can "Defund the Police" because there will be other government workers to take the response to things like domestic violence incidents. So, you're saying that the social workers would not actually be "first responders?" How does this "Defund the Police" thing work if we aren't reducing the number of calls the Police respond to?

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).

You don't have to live somewhere that reform is taking shape.
Still plenty of Mayberry's out there where you can take refuge.

Interesting that you didn't even try to answer the question.

They didn't answer the question because they have no thought out answers. They just want to defund the police and send the money somewhere else

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is remarkable that people so often come up with “who will respond to domestic violence?” as the counterargument here. Cops are awful at responding to it—and more likely to commit it than people in other occupations, partly because of the traits police work selects for, partly because of how the job brutalizes them, and partly because when they do it, they get away with it.

Pick a better thing to pearl-clutch about.

+1. The amount of faux outrage for victims of domestic violence, when it finally “benefits” some people to finally care, is nauseating.

Wut? Have you read the posts mentioning domestic violence? They're all about giving this to social workers. Which appears to be what you're saying. I haven't read any posts about not doing anything about domestic violence, even from the Cons here.

Exactly how does this work? So, if I'm getting the crap beat out of me by my husband, and I call 911, and say I'm being assaulted, the dispatcher is going to say, "Who is assaulting you?" And if I reply, my husband (or boyfriend or whatever), the dispatcher is going to say, "Sorry, we can't send the police for domestic disputes. We're sending a social worker." So, then, we'll have social workers who will rush to the scene? Or sometime in the next few days someone will stop by (after I'm already in the hospital)? On the other hand, if I'm being assaulted on the street by a stranger, the Police will show up?

As has been repeatedly stated, the diverted funding would be to things such as prevention work for abusers, giving them resources and supportive services to STOP abusing their partners and not just having the only response be to in-the-moment crisis or jail, as an example. Not that there won't be in-the-moment crisis response by cops, just that we'd like to take SOME of the funding for cops to reallocate it to services that are actually working to end DV, not just respond to it after it's happened. I'm not sure what the exact plan would be, but that's the idea that's been floating around the domestic violence services movement for a while now, not just during this time.

The idea being, for those still wondering, is that if enough services are provided for people outside of cops' presence and that aren't just criminal justice in nature, there would be a reduction in need for the cops to be called at all. If you provide employment training or housing assistance to a victim, perhaps she might leave when she would otherwise not have the financial means to do so. Or prevention work is successful, therefore the man stops abusing his wife, no need to call the police. Right now, all of the cops' responses are after-the-fact, after the abuse. Some of this money could be used to work toward trying to respond BEFORE abuse becomes a truly violent act needing the cops.

Sorry mistype above. I meant "it does not" mean trading social workers for police

Granted, "defund the police" is poor branding for what is good policy, but people are taking what it means way too far. It does mean trading social workers for police. It means at the very least smartly rethinking which situations require armed response and which do not. Peace officers with arrest powers are more appropriate in vastly more cases than armed response, which by definition escalates situations and empowers poorly trained police to shoot themselves out of situations they could and should think themselves out of. That's a start.

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).

You don't have to live somewhere that reform is taking shape.
Still plenty of Mayberry's out there where you can take refuge.

Interesting that you didn't even try to answer the question.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is remarkable that people so often come up with “who will respond to domestic violence?” as the counterargument here. Cops are awful at responding to it—and more likely to commit it than people in other occupations, partly because of the traits police work selects for, partly because of how the job brutalizes them, and partly because when they do it, they get away with it.

Pick a better thing to pearl-clutch about.

+1. The amount of faux outrage for victims of domestic violence, when it finally “benefits” some people to finally care, is nauseating.

Wut? Have you read the posts mentioning domestic violence? They're all about giving this to social workers. Which appears to be what you're saying. I haven't read any posts about not doing anything about domestic violence, even from the Cons here.

Exactly how does this work? So, if I'm getting the crap beat out of me by my husband, and I call 911, and say I'm being assaulted, the dispatcher is going to say, "Who is assaulting you?" And if I reply, my husband (or boyfriend or whatever), the dispatcher is going to say, "Sorry, we can't send the police for domestic disputes. We're sending a social worker." So, then, we'll have social workers who will rush to the scene? Or sometime in the next few days someone will stop by (after I'm already in the hospital)? On the other hand, if I'm being assaulted on the street by a stranger, the Police will show up?

I do not know where this idea is coming from that social workers would want to do some of the things people are suggesting. Do you really think many social workers (most of whom are female) want to be called out to a rough part of town to talk down some large main on the street who is tweaked from meth? Cops enter the field knowing they are putting their lives on the line. They are willing to take the risk. Social workers aren’t. It’s not what they signed up for.

Anonymous wrote:

Who do you plan to send in the middle of exited delirium?
A social worker? A paramedic?