Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Cops don't stop rapists and robbers, they show up once they are gone.... then they ask the women what she did to cause the rape.

So how exactly do you propose to catch violent rapists and other offenders?

Some people believe that if we just let the government become their parents and provided everything for them for free (food/housing/healthcare/daycare, etc), then they wouldn't "have to" commit crimes anymore. It's just another excuse.

Who, exactly, is “them”?

Anyone who thinks they are not solely responsible for proving for themselves and a their descendants in a lawful way.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Cops don't stop rapists and robbers, they show up once they are gone.... then they ask the women what she did to cause the rape.

So how exactly do you propose to catch violent rapists and other offenders?

Some people believe that if we just let the government become their parents and provided everything for them for free (food/housing/healthcare/daycare, etc), then they wouldn't "have to" commit crimes anymore. It's just another excuse.

Who, exactly, is “them”?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Cops don't stop rapists and robbers, they show up once they are gone.... then they ask the women what she did to cause the rape.

So how exactly do you propose to catch violent rapists and other offenders?

Some people believe that if we just let the government become their parents and provided everything for them for free (food/housing/healthcare/daycare, etc), then they wouldn't "have to" commit crimes anymore. It's just another excuse.

Anonymous wrote:

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

Thank you! ''Defunding'' idea came from some the head of some rabid bimbo that hates law abiding citizens and loves felons.... hard to believe some people look for something reasonable in it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Cops don't stop rapists and robbers, they show up once they are gone.... then they ask the women what she did to cause the rape.

So how exactly do you propose to catch violent rapists and other offenders?

Some people believe that if we just let the government become their parents and provided everything for them for free (food/housing/healthcare/daycare, etc), then they wouldn't "have to" commit crimes anymore. It's just another excuse.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Cops don't stop rapists and robbers, they show up once they are gone.... then they ask the women what she did to cause the rape.

So how exactly do you propose to catch violent rapists and other offenders?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I see "defunding" as zero-based budgeting. You start over, and all expenses must be justified for each new fiscal year. You get rid of training and programs that militarize the police, referring to the use of military equipment and tactics including training of LEO and maintenance of equipment. Even if the defense department is willing to give the equipment to LE, the training and overhead are very, very costly to the departments. And to what advantage. This is one example, but there are many. You start over and you prioritize.

There are other examples that may be worth discussing. For example, some people in the field have brought forth the idea of having LEOs provide their own insurance, similar to malpractice insurance. I, of course, have no idea if this is feasible or something that should be expected of a civil servant. I'm not here to argue that specific point. I do find it interesting, however, that there are many potential options for making individuals more personally accountable.

Ah yes, in addition to risking their lives for others (often strangers) everyday, making far less money than those with comparable knowledge/skills/abilities working in the private sector, and having some people hate them for merely doing their job, let’s add the cost of insurance a la malpractice insurance to their already lacking personal budget.

Seriously? What are these private sector jobs that you claim to be available? Only 1/3 of LEOs in the U.S. have four-year college degrees.

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?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I see "defunding" as zero-based budgeting. You start over, and all expenses must be justified for each new fiscal year. You get rid of training and programs that militarize the police, referring to the use of military equipment and tactics including training of LEO and maintenance of equipment. Even if the defense department is willing to give the equipment to LE, the training and overhead are very, very costly to the departments. And to what advantage. This is one example, but there are many. You start over and you prioritize.

There are other examples that may be worth discussing. For example, some people in the field have brought forth the idea of having LEOs provide their own insurance, similar to malpractice insurance. I, of course, have no idea if this is feasible or something that should be expected of a civil servant. I'm not here to argue that specific point. I do find it interesting, however, that there are many potential options for making individuals more personally accountable.

Ah yes, in addition to risking their lives for others (often strangers) everyday, making far less money than those with comparable knowledge/skills/abilities working in the private sector, and having some people hate them for merely doing their job, let’s add the cost of insurance a la malpractice insurance to their already lacking personal budget.

Anonymous wrote:I see "defunding" as zero-based budgeting. You start over, and all expenses must be justified for each new fiscal year. You get rid of training and programs that militarize the police, referring to the use of military equipment and tactics including training of LEO and maintenance of equipment. Even if the defense department is willing to give the equipment to LE, the training and overhead are very, very costly to the departments. And to what advantage. This is one example, but there are many. You start over and you prioritize.

There are other examples that may be worth discussing. For example, some people in the field have brought forth the idea of having LEOs provide their own insurance, similar to malpractice insurance. I, of course, have no idea if this is feasible or something that should be expected of a civil servant. I'm not here to argue that specific point. I do find it interesting, however, that there are many potential options for making individuals more personally accountable.

Anonymous wrote:I have two questions.
1. What is the purpose of a restorative justice and meetings between a victim and an offender?
To explain to the victim that the offender is a real victim of the system and the victim is an a**hole who values his property more than am offender's well being?
Why the victim of a burglary has to face the offender? For some extra stress? Or to be talked out of pressing charges?

2. Under the new reform what rights are allocated for citizens to defend their homes from burglars? Can a homeowner still shoot them dead?

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

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?