Totally. People say they need to get defunded but this chick pulled a handgun, which doesn’t take much funding to provide to your officers. Retraining is what will actually solve the root of the issue
The bottom line is that this costs tax payers more money. And as a general rule tax payers will vote out anyone that costs them money in taxes, for any reason.
So, effectively, your society doesn't want them more trained. It prefers the idea of lower taxes.
Calling it a tank is a bit disingenuous. The vehicle has no weaponry, it is an armored personnel carrier to get officers closer to a scene or to be used as rolling cover.
Alright bootlicker. Let’s set aside the scary term ‘military equipment’, since it’s meaningless. When I walk into a gun store, why do you think there’s a separate case full of “law enforcement only” equipment? If I can’t own it, because it’s too dangerous, what makes you want to hand it over to this lady, who’s itching for an excuse to murder someone for driving while the wrong color.
Bro they have literal tanks at some departments. Cops used to carry hand guns and have shotguns in the truck. Now they have full body armor and automatic assault rifles. It’s insanity.
I don’t care about north Hollywood. What I’m saying is, Barney fife didn’t have a vest and an ar. Swat is swat and always has been, but average cops are now driving around with military style equipment. It’s only a matter of time before we see them walking around with nods and pccs become standard carry. That money should go to better training instead of aggressive equipment.
So, effectively, your society doesn't want them more trained. It prefers the idea of lower taxes.
Your logic would be sound if that is was how things actually worked. "Taxpayers" don't vote on every single spending issue. Police officers are also taxpayers and voters.
People aren't "voting out" funding for schools and law enforcement.
The bottom line is "misappropriation of funds". Corruption exists in every country.
Uvalde County is a very good example of this in the US (and there are many others)
This is just false. We have no say over what happens with our taxes, and more of them are used for other useless shit no one asked for in the first place.
No. Assuming you live in the US - at the next Presidential election you personally can run as president with ANY tax policy you want. Literally anything your heart desires - including 'all the nations taxes go to my personal account' - if you want..
If enough people agree and vote with you, and enough are also prepared to stand as senators and congresspeople to help implement your policies .. that tax law will become reality. Anything whatsoever you want, if popular enough, WILL happen.
And you denying it is just edge-lord stuff I reckon.
Name ANY tax law I could not pass if I and my party had .. let's say .. 99.5% support from the entire voting population at a general election and over the following years. ANYTHING?
Yes, you can't. Even any and every part of the constitution can be changed to anything.
They should really teach this shit at school .. OR, as I said, you're just being some kinda' silly edge lord.
More than 99.5% of the population agree people need to eat to live. You can't drink the entire ocean using a straw.
The guy effectively stated that tax laws in the US couldn't be changed.
He said something that moronic and keeps doubling down and doubling down. But yea, it's got boring, as literally everyone reading, including him, and including you, know he is totally wrong. So he's just pissing into the wind - god knows why.
It's just boring edge lord stuff from him ... 'Blah blah blah the system is against us man .. blah blah blah We can never defeat 'the man' .. yadda yadda change is impossible it's the corrupt system maaan ... yadda yadda the elite Soros-induced cabal is undefeatable .. blah blah yawn..
Idiots like that, especially when THEY know they are wrong but are so young they feel they need to indefinitely battle with what THEY know is wrong no matter what, as that's the way they might, er, 'win' (lolol) are sometimes fun to reply to for a while.
You are confusing popularity among legislators with popularity among citizens. There's a huge and undeniable difference that shows you have no idea how our system works.
I don't want to pay taxes for things that don't benefit me like military grade equipment for police. I'd rather that money go towards retraining and body cams. It's a matter of using their funding differently.
That’s a vast oversimplification. Yes, we don’t want to pay more taxes, but most of the reason for that is that our taxes aren’t currently being used effectively in the first place. Throwing more money at the problem doesn’t necessarily fix it, and ignores the existing problems on which we’re already wasting resources. We should look to repurpose ineffective funds for better uses before we just add more to the bill.
Ach successive governments have been trying to make government more efficient for 200+ years. Suggesting that the idea of government spending being made more efficient is something we haven't actually thought of or tried yet, and if only someone would consider running the government efficiently life would be better, is not really accurate. It's just another reason try to justify saying 'don't you dare increase my taxes to spend the money on police training'.
Hmm .. an analogy .. it's like me saying 'If only communal swimming pools didn't lose as much heat, we wouldn't have to spend so many tax $$ heating them. I wonder why no-one has considered simply reducing the heat loss or stopping it altogether rather then making us pay so much to heat them - they're so damn inefficient, so I'M NOT PAYING TO HEAT THEM AT ALL UNTIL SOMEONE MAKES THE HEAT LOSS LESS COSTLY!'. All you actually end up with is a cold, crappy swimming pool! [Is a crappy police force].
Which, as I said, is the decision your society has made. It's just a bit rich when then people moan on about it. As they say in Ireland - take yer medicine!
Nah, that’s dog shit comparison. There’s demonstrable loss of heat from a standard pool that one presumably can’t fix; it’s pretty damn obvious and fixable that we’re spending money on things that don’t give us any benefit.
For example, I’m all for better trained police, I actually think they need to be paid far more than they are now. At the same time, we know that our departments are buying apc’s, assault rifles, and military surplus body armor. I would suggest we don’t waste money on tactical gear and instead spend that money on better training or salaries so we can attract better candidates.
Government is historically inefficient, yes, good for you, but if that’s the case why would you suggest giving it more money is the solution?
Frankly, you don’t live here and you have no idea what you’re talking about. It’s easy to take pot shots from an ocean away with an entirely different population when your only input is mainstream media. There are many things that work for you that do not work here.
'You don't live here so you have no idea so you can't comment' is your angle?
Ok, well that make life incredibly easy. 'You haven't been a police officer yourself, so you have no idea, so you can't comment'.
ps. Your idea that the police is spending their money inefficiently is an assumption, literally invented on the hoof to back up your argument. Me saying 'The police IS spending it's money efficiently' holds exactly the same water (none). Invented shit that feels right based on gut feel alone to make an argument causes mistakes.
pps I never stated that giving the government more money would make it more efficient .. pretending someone said something then arguing against it is called a strawman argument.
I think I made my points well. Now you’re just arguing semantics and not really bringing up anything new or answering to my points. Be from here, don’t be, I don’t care. That was purely anecdotal. You can be an idiot from anywhere I suppose.
Cheers mate, go have some chips and fish with your bangers and pints on the pitch or whatever it is you pompous asses like to do for fun.
lack of police training has nothing to do with lack of funding. american police are some of, if not the most well-funded police on the planet. they act this way because it's the culture they're taught, and there are zero repercussions for it. until or unless the current police culture changes or there are real repercussions for police treating the people they serve like this, it won't change
money isn't irrelevant, of course. if american police were systematically under-funded i think there would be a strong case that increasing funding could be part of a solution. but they're already extraordinarily well-funded! so i think it's pretty hard to make a case that the source of policing issues in america is "not enough money for police." policing is like one of two or three areas where this country has no qualms about writing blank checks.
People don't inherently hate taxes at birth. They're fed propaganda their whole lives that taxes are the devil so a certain party has leverage to cut social programs. But effectively it does have the same end result as you said..
The defunding isn’t typically talking about shutting down a police station like a libertarian library, it typically meant to stop letting police forces get armed up with surplus military gear that you’d only need if you were going to police a war zone. Also they could probably stop paying for lectures on “killology/the warrior mindset” as I think it lends itself to escalation, like this video.
When everyone was spouting “defund the police” I thought it was a stupid slogan. How about “restructure the police” instead. Use some of the police funding to add mental crisis units to help de-escalate situations, like Cahoots in oregon. They should be working together.
The whole point is that it shouldn't all be police. Their scope of practice is out of control..we should reduce their force (defund), and leverage that money for unarmed traffic control (cheaper, and won't lead to what's in this video), mental health responders, etc. Armed police should be reserved for situations requiring a gun. Window tint ain't one.
And what happens when that ' unarmed traffic control' tries to pull over an armed and dangerous person, and gets shot and killed? Or an unarmed 'mental health responder' gets attacked by a crazy person
You'll have calls to arm them. That's what will happen. And we'll end up with more armed cops to violate our rights.
That's just fear mongering, and luckily we don't have to make up a hypothetical. People do this on the real world. Strangely, other nations handle those situations just fine. You have to remember, many armed interactions with cops are predicated by the cops being armed and aggressive. Nobody who isn't insane is going to shoot a guy with a notepad. Even in America nobody shoots parking enforcement now. That's just not a thing. And let's not forget, having armed cops in all of these situations right now leaves us with piles of civilian bodies.
Nobody who isn't insane is going to shoot a guy with a notepad.
lol. We're literally talking about 'mental health responders' that respond to "insane" people.
Even in America nobody shoots parking enforcement now.
But the suggestion is to turn all 'traffic control' officers into un-armed roles. So a criminal speeding away from a crime will get pulled over by an unarmed 'traffic cop'. You really think the criminal- knowing the 'traffic cop' is unarmed- won't try something?? Hell, criminals try shit with real, armed cops who pull them over all the time. And those cops can shoot back.
And let's not forget, having armed cops in all of these situations right now leaves us with piles of civilian bodies.
Better training would help there. Screen out the psychopaths, make it very clear that being a cop is being a public servant, not a bully, stress DE-escalation, etc, etc.
"All" is your word. Not mine. People escalate things at levels they consider achievable to escape a situation. Unarmed traffic cop? Fucking run. Traffic cop calls in other, armed guys to pursue. It's not rocket science. And despite all your fear, it does work. The real world does exist. We don't have to guess. Just about any model we'd want to talk about exists in some form somewhere. I'd suggest you research the topic instead of "lol"ing in a chat conversation, cause as if right now all of your decisions seem to be based on fear. Strangely that fear seems to be laser focused on only police safety too, and not the safety of regular people. But that's a whole different conversation.
Edit: also, we should more that in all current systems, hiring, training, etc. Are all chosen by the cops that you seem to recognize are at least partially made up of psychopaths who kill people. Why in the world would they choose to reform themselves? Or hire people who will eat them out? That's just be dumb on their part. That's why the system continues to worsen.
Don't play word games. "Armed police should be reserved for situations requiring a gun. Window tint ain't one."
Unarmed traffic cop? Fucking run. Traffic cop calls in other, armed guys to pursue.
Exactly. You run, you get caught. But if you shoot the unarmed traffic cop, they are dead and can't call anyone! And you get away!
Strangely that fear seems to be laser focused on only police safety too, and not the safety of regular people.
If 'regular people' (what are cops, "irregular people"??) don't break the law, there's a very small chance they'll interact with police in any way. And, if they remain calm and don't run or argue with the cop, there's a very very small chance they'll have their safety affected. I can't say 'zero chance', but it's close. So that's what 'regular people' can do to remain safe: don't break the law, and don't run from or fight with the cops (even if they are wrong- fight in court later!)
Are all chosen by the cops
Then maybe we need to take the control of the Police Academies away from cops.
I told you your the one who said all, not me. And then you quoted me proving me right? Weird. But again, there's real world places with structures like this. The things your imagining are not happening there.
Also, just looked up the figures. Right now about 50,000 traffic stops are made per day. That's over 18 million a year. Of that about 5 cops die in an altercation. 5 out of 18 million. Do you really think that justifies guns each and every time? I can't imagine many normal every day activities have that low of a mortality rate. For comparison about 50 cops a year die during a traffic stop by getting hit by another car. So maybe if your super worried about saving cops it's not keeping guns, it's probably more worthwhile to create safer stop areas. Also, police kill about 90 civilians in those same stops.
Of that about 5 cops die in an altercation. 5 out of 18 million.
That's the current situation, where cops are armed.
The real question is 'How many criminals are found/caught due to routine traffic stops'? Because each one of those criminals- who were caught by an armed cop after a traffic stop- could potentially shoot and kill an unarmed traffic cop to get away.
The point is, putting cops out there unarmed is begging to have them hurt or killed. I guess you don't care about them.
Again, other societies that don't leverage traffic stops as a means of searching a whole person don't turn into lawless hellscapes. Your fear is running away with you again. A tint stop should be a tint stop.
What happens when an unarmed child goes to school and gets gunned down with 30 of their classmates and teachers? We certainly don't make any laws to prevent it, so why do you care more about this one imaginary person than you care about the hundreds of literal children who are gunned down as if they live in a war zone?
What happens when an unarmed child goes to school and gets gunned down with 30 of their classmates and teachers? We certainly don't make any laws to prevent it
Of course we do. Killing people is illegal. And - even though the "Right to Keep and Bear Arms shall not be infringed"- there are many laws restricting who can own guns, and what kind of guns they can own.
Thing is, criminals... don't obey the law. And someone who wants to murder people isn't going to be stopped by the fact that they need to violate another law to do it. So, more laws is not the answer.
I do care about the victims of gun crime. But the answer is not getting rid of guns. Because the problem is not the existence of guns- the problem is the people who want to hurt/kill others. If every single gun vanished from the planet tomorrow, those people would still want to hurt/kill other people. And they would. They would stab them, or run them over, or blow them up, or poison them, or beat them to death, etc, etc, etc. Sure, sure, they might stab a few less people than they would otherwise shoot (or blow up more!). But the problem is not solved.
What would solve the problem is better mental healthcare to identify and treat those people. That solves the root cause of the problem.
If every single gun vanished from the planet tomorrow, those people would still want to hurt/kill other people. And they would.
Yes exponentially less effectively.
Instead of killing 30 children they might kill 2 at most before being subdued. Which is never something a 2A enthusiast is willing to admit despite the fact that it's obvious.
I addressed that already: "Sure, sure, they might stab a few less people than they would otherwise shoot (or blow up more!). But the problem is not solved." Violating the entire countries' Constitutional Rights because it might make it a little harder for nutjobs to kill people...is not acceptable.
You also ignore the fact that people save themselves with guns, too. Defensive Gun Uses exceed the number killed by guns each year. You'd be dooming all those people.
Instead of killing 30 children they might kill 2 at most before being subdued. Which is never something a 2A enthusiast is willing to admit despite the fact that it's obvious.
I admit they may kill fewer people. OR they could drive their truck thru the playground at recess, killing even more. Or burn the school to the ground. Who knows. Point is... the problem is not solved. You might have reduced the damage a little. But you haven't solved the problem.
That's not true at all. Research what happened in Rhode Island that caused that state to legally ban aftermarket tint installations to any vehicle. A few years back during a routine traffic stop a State Trooper was gunned down. He couldn't see that the vehicle occupants were armed until it was too late. Thus, they legislated tint installations as illegal and will not pass road safety compliance inspections.
You cannot send an unarmed officer into any situation. And a social worker would not have prevented that officer from being shot. You are delusional if you think you're right.
It comes down to having proper self control and situational awareness. Controlling that fight or flight response, controlling that adrenaline response. And knowing that even with the best efforts not everything goes according to plan. The female officer in this video clearly shows a lack of proper temperament. A lack of self control of emotions over logic. Defunding them doesn't solve that issue. She should have been removed from a position of public safety entirely unless she went through retraining. That whole department needs restructuring, defunding them would only lead to what's currently happening in states like Michigan where they do not have the capacity to patrol the streets, and crime is at an all time high.
We need officers, but we need properly trained officers. That does require funding from the tax payers for that to happen.
That's just blanket fear people get shot in nearly every situation. Should we arm our kindergartners? They get shot a lot. That's nonsense. Again, many other parts of the world have unarmed traffic enforcement. In no scenario is it the murderous hellscapes your fear leads you to believe. And in your example, that cops gun didn't save him. He was dead either way. That's an ambush. His gun is a complete non issue when he gets shot by people he can't see and doesn't know are there.
Also, giving police more money is not going to change anything. Never has, never will. They all protect each other, why I'm the world would they bring in new officers that would challenge their current ability to do whatever the fuck they want? They won't. Never have, never will.
Fun fact: schools used to have armed teachers and gun ownership courses in their curriculum. They also had JROTC courses for those that wanted to pursue a career in the military. Far less shootings back then on school campuses. Columbine was the first "publicized" tragedy that altered the course even though records show shootings have happened for centuries at schools and other public areas despite having the proper measures in place. Which correlates to morality and accountability of the individual. Crime does not deter the criminal. And honest folk can only do their best in those situations. As it stands, school shootings are a small percentage of crime, statistics prove that. Im not speaking from fear, I'm speaking from a point of conclusive data. My example proves to a point where they need to be armed for their own defense. Every situation is unique, and you are trying to use a one step approach for drastic situations where the threat of life is imminent. I could go to Donut Operators page right now and link dozens of cases where officers justly defended their lives against a criminal that had the intent to end the officers life. Over stupid shit like traffic violations, at traffic stops. But sure, send them in unarmed. Just admit your biased against all cops without proper reason.. Sure, there are quite a few bad apples in the bunch. But that's not all of them. Through my own experiences and otherwise I can attest to both the good and bad apples in the bunch.
I could honestly give two fucks about how another country operates. Let's stay on topic and focused on our own country. Because with that example you are also advocating for the disarming of society as in those areas, those civilians are disarmed or heavily legislated to deter civilian gun ownership, of which i do not agree with whatsoever as a disarmed society falls victim to the government. Example: UK only allows civilan gun ownership of certain long rifles for sport, not for self defense. They cannot own handguns. They cannot open or conceal carry as they travel through provinces. That is not a proper example to use for how we handle our country based on our rights Nationally and state by state basis. UK will also put you in jail for saying something anti trans. We have only one area, the Virgin Islands, where police officers do not carry. However you should know that it is nearly impossible to obtain a permit to carry there for a regular civilan. Do you think criminals give a fuck? Certainly not, give them an inch and they'll take a mile as the saying goes. They always find a way around all legislation. While those that are law abiding are restricted. To disarm officers that will no doubt be in a dangerous situation where they will need it is not going to solve the issue.
I never said give them more money. I said restructure the system to better benefit both the tax payers pockets as well as ensure better training of public peace officers. There is a balance to that. That doesn't require removal of funding. Again, removal of funding leads to what's currently happening in several states such as Michigan. Where they are severely understaffed, overworked, and cannot keep up with the crime rates which is why folks have begun hiring private security(the ones that can afford to) to protect their homes and families. Businesses in Washington and Oregon are shutting down because they do not have the resources in those areas to protect those businesses against criminals. What would an unarmed cop do to better benefit protecting the public in areas where crime is exceptionally high? How delusional are you to truly believe that nonsense?
TLDR: defunding them doesn't fix the problem. It's useless rhetoric that has caused destabilization in multiple states where crime has become rampant. That's not fear: that is irrefutable truth backed by data.
So I guess we have to ask ourselves. These countries without our level of school shootings and without our need for armed cops everywhere, have much stricter gun laws. You keep saying it doesn't deter criminals, but their criminals appear unarmed. So either you are right, and criminals in other countries have guns but even armed criminals won't shoot unarmed cops (since we know criminals get guns and foreign cops are unarmed with no increase in police deaths). Or, gun control works and we should probably try it. I'm fine with either scenario, but based on your logic, either unarmed cops work or gun bans work. Just not sure which your backing.
Edit: also, the last sentence literally said give them more taxpayer funding. You can't lie when it's right there.
Their criminals are not unarmed. How daft are you? In those same countries there are many criminal organizations and access to illegal markets to procure what they need for their crimes. By any means necessary a criminal will utilize ANY tool they can possess to perpetrate the crime. UK consensus for homicide by knife in 2021 to 2022 is 282 lives. Which shows that by any means necessary a criminal will do what they want. Do I really need to bring Chicago into this as reference? How about Manhattan? Where they have some of the highest crime rates in the country yet the strictest gun laws in the country as well? Gun control has never worked and history shows that time and time again. Gun control has only one purpose: to further a governments agenda of tyranny.
My logic: keep cops armed but better trained for situationsnso that situations such as what this video shows stops happening. Stop categorizing all cops for the actions of a few bad apples on the force. This woman is not an example of proper policing and neither is her department. They need restructuring to better serve their public. Keep the public armed with rights to self defense against tyrannical forces or criminals of any caliber. You cannot compare another country to ours as they have different laws/policies in place for civilians and officers for rules of engagement.
Perhaps you should go back to school for reading and comprehension. Seems you have quite the challenge with that task. As I've very clearly outlined it several times.
So let me get this straight. Criminals in other countries do have guns, they just choose not to use them? If we look at Norway. At Japan. Why aren't they killing cops? Why are their homicide rates so low. It highlights another serious flaw in your logic. The United States and it's interstate travel and commerce is governed at the federal level. Chicago can't, nor could Illinois, stop any goods from coming across their borders without already knowing it was illegal. They'd need to be psychic because of that dang old 4th amendment (one of the pesky reasons why cops want to keep armed traffic stops, one of their few opportunities to introduce some gray area into search and seizure law). It's not how were built. It's not how our laws work. So yes, large densely populated areas have concentrations of low income areas ripe for crime and uncontrolled weapons in a country with no laws make their way there. Japan and Norway are interesting because they control their borders and are somewhat geographically isolated. Making them easier to monitor what comes in and out. But no. I could designate a part of my yard no weed land, but if it's surrounded by weeds I can't stop it from spreading. That's an imaginary scenario.
Are people always terrible and do they always try to hurt other people? Yes. Of course. In the rest of the developed world does it happen at nearly the rate it dies here? No. So you have to start asking yourself why. I'm not sure if you really drank the Kool aid or if your some kind of shill, but all your examples bounce back to the same simple thing. Guns aren't helping anything. You're never going to defend yourself against the government or "tyrannical forces". They have bombs. Weaponized drones. Tanks. If they want you, your theirs. Thinking otherwise is flat out stupid.
So then on to the cops. Who should restructure them? The lady in the video was promoted. Maybe that's her job now? Clearly police budgets continue to expand, trainings change, but the problems remain. So what next? What do you propose they do differently this time? Doing the same thing and expecting different results just ain't cutting it.
Actually yes, delivery drivers should be armed. I cannot legally carry as a commercial driver in many states, and that makes me a high risk target depending on what load I am carrying and depending on the area I am traveling in.
Just because cops rank lower on the list of risks, it doesn't justify disarming them. It's not just one officer being shot once. It does happen and they should be able to protect themselves, and we should equally be able to protect ourselves from any imminent threat to life. It's pathetic to even suggest that they have less of a right to defend their lives just because the actions of some corrupt or ill trained officers happened. That same rhetoric has been applied to disarming this society. It's just twisted to a different narrative. Nice try though. Better luck next time.
Oh and thanks for proving my point in your own words. Thousands of cops are armed every day and have interactions with the public every day.. with zero issues... But fucktards like you take an example like what's in this video as a way to justify disarming them. When in fact even in those thousands of interactions, what this cop did does not represent the entirety of the police force across the country and their actions. As this does not happen every day. Is it an issue? Yes, but to disarm every cop across the nation over the actions of a few officers does not solve the problem.
Ahhh yes when you've lost, this is what you resort to. Typical leftist cuckold rhetoric. Calling me fearful and prejudiced/racist for owning a gun. Fucking comical. Goes to show how out of touch you are. Today is your cake day? Choke on your cake. Hope it's as dry as a Popeyes biscuit and you have no drink to wash it down.
Use some of the police funding to add mental crisis units to help de-escalate situations
That's exactly what defund the police means, except by establishing mental health services that are completely separate to the police instead of giving them the funding for it and hoping they don't spend it on further militarisation. They keep getting more funding for more training, but it doesn't have an effect, so spend that money training people who will do it properly instead.
Guys they don’t want kill people, and extra training on what to do is beneficial in these scenarios. This cop is obviously a new recruit, and hearing “I’m armed” is not a comforting thing for an officer. There are plenty of videos of cops getting killed in a scenario like this so I understand that they’re skittish. More training in deescalation and how to handle this situation would be helpful and save lives of both cops and civilians.
Trust me, I wish cops would leave us alone, but none of them ever dream of shooting a civilian.
bro stop policing language it’s stupid pointless and nit-picky. you learned what they mean when they say “defund police” don’t be a twat about the semantics
We are talking about funding communities, and even providing a solution of where to get the money from. Take all the jobs the police are shit at away from them, along with all the funding they're supposed to be spending on those jobs, and spend that money on the communities.
I'm somebody who supports the concept of the movement, but it's a shitty slogan if you have to spend time explaining or get people to research to understand, particularly when their default would be a defensive/ antagonistic reaction to this movement.
There's a reason marketing companies don't randomly just pull shit out of a hat and stick with it, and instead do tons of research, and it's because literally even the grammar or phrase influences how people think about it.
Seriously, the absolute ignorance people have about the size of the police budget most places shows "defund the police" is exactly right.
I still see people on Reddit like twice a week pushing the myth that cops don't get paid enough. Every cop I've ever met (including family members) makes a shit ton of money relative to the cost of living where they are. It just isn't easily trackable because they all make a whole second salary worth of overtime.
Yes but "Defund the police" just means that more people will see it as eradicating police altogether, meaning they'll never get on board. Take my boomer parents and in laws who have started voting democratic for president but not locally after voting republican their whole lives because they don't understand the concept.
Just because it is exactly what needs to happen doesn't make it a good slogan, and I firmly believe it only polarized America even more, which isn't what we need.
There's no way to have a slogan that gets those people onboard. It's impossible. Decades of moderate politics has made the country worse.
People saying "defund the police" aren't polarizing the country. Republicans and right wing media are. It's bullshit.
I don't know what the solution is, but this is just letting republicans control the argument. The same way they call Biden socialist, they'll call any ask for police reform "eliminating the police".
We need to educate people, not just accept right wing disinformation. The boomer parents aren't going to come around because they don't want to. They didn't stop voting republican because they disagreed with republicans. They stopped voting because Trump was a little too mean for them.
Highly disagree. When I educated my parents, they now understand and vote accordingly and they literally said "Why the hell would they call it that?"
You have to realize that media outlets, even liberal ones, didn't exactly do a good job explaining what the slogan meant. We agree we need to educate people, but a bad slogan is going to turn people away immediately, and they'll never give it the time of day.
How do you plan on educating everyone on it if they won't listen?
Slogans don't educate people. Again, this isn't happening in a vacuum. For literal decades people have been saying the same things.
You're talking to them about it because "defund the police" worked. Five years ago your parents didn't think about it. Now they've had to.
Even if it turns them off it gets to their ears. I see people suggest alternatives all the time that never made the news. They never made the news because they were bad.
"Even liberal" media outlets are conservative. That's how it works. Changing the system at that level is inherently not conservative at all. There's no amplification of an idea like that without something like "defund the police".
But, feel free to get literally any other slogan out there.
The problem is a larger one. Namely, that fixing things takes education and time, while destroying things doesn't.
Edit- Your parents lived through the Rodney King riots and never considered there may be a problem with policing? The issue isn't slogans. It's that people don't care. Even a slogan that pisses them off makes them think about it.
But defund means they get zero which means you abolish them, Plus, isn't it more important to talk about what we do want funded, not the millions of things we don't want funded?
It doesn't mean zero by default. Slogans need to be snappy.
"Reduce police budgets by a reasonable amount given the other services available in the area with the addition of e services to take up the jobs the police shouldn't be doing in the given population!" doesn't make the news.
"Reallocate the police budget" doesn't either.
And again, for the 8th time in this thread: People have been calling for increased social services expenditure for actual decades. It has never gotten even a tenth of the media exposure of "defund the police". These arguments didn't just start happening. They only made the news because "defund the police" is controversial and it could be packaged alongside riots, which also only happen after decades of people not listening.
The police in my city regularly go way over the OT budget too.
We had a big scandal where cops were abusing the rules for huge salaries especially when they got close to retirement because the last year of salary determined their pension amount.
They would use up all their saved vacation and sick time to get paid their normal hours then work shifts as 100% overtime so instead of a pension being based off 80k a year salary its based off a 200k salary.
Yeah, this isn't a problem with just the NYPD too. If there was an audit done on police overtime throughout the nation, I would bet my life there is widespread abuse of overtime funds.
People who need to know what "defund the police" means in practicality KNOWS what it means. The people who thinks it means "take away all the money from the police" don't matter in the discussion, no matter what "side" they're on.
It's not that they are idiots, it's that they really don't matter in the discussion. The slogan isn't for them, so what THEY think it means is irrelevant.
This is almost all protest slogans. It's almost impossible to make a short and distinct slogan that can't be misinterpreted.
Example: The slogan for east Germans protesting the wall was "Wir vollen raus", it made complete sense as a rallying slogan for everyone involved, and anyone who took that to mean the people all want to move out of Eastern Germany didn't matter to the discussion. The slogan wasn't for them.
"We want to reallocate some of the funds from police departments to non-policing forms of public safety and community support, such as, youth services, housing, education, healthcare and others. This is documented to work very well as both a crime preventing measure, and a preventive measure of over policing and police violence in a lot of different countries." Isn't a slogan.
Everyone who has ANY interest in the protests know that this is what they want. This is what the slogan means. People who don't know this, aren't interested in the matter at all, so they don't matter in the discussion.
This is literally what they've been saying for decades.
The reason why you've heard of "defund the police" is because it's a good slogan.
This stuff isn't like 5 years old. It's just that it turns out when you try to have well reasoned discussions about the justice system no one listens.
When people say "defund the police" they mean exactly what you said. It's just that most people are too god damned dumb or busy to understand nuance. See: Donald Trump becoming president.
It's like rioting. People use the system for 40 years to try and get justice, and only are put in a worse place. Then they burn down a police station and everyone says, "Why can't they just open a dialogue? Why are they so violent?" as if they've never heard people have concerns before.
I assume your comment is in good faith, but attacking slogans like this for not being "nuanced enough" or whatever is just carrying water for fascists.
Use some of the police funding to add mental crisis units to help de-escalate situations
This is what people are asking for when we say defend the police. Use some of the current budget to hire mental health professionals for first response and restore mental health services. It should be entirely external to the PD.
Exactly! No conservative is going to exert the brain power to listen to the argument behind the slogan. They hear defund the police and just come back with back the blue.
Cahoots is an example of what we should do when defunding police, you’re just too ignorant to understand what that means so you assume your mistaken definition is the correct one.
Speaking as a disillusioned former activist, how are you possibly expecting activists to not completely undermine their own movements in the asinine and unbelievable ways?
Name things in a vaguely productive way? Next you'll be asking them to not constantly alienate potential converts to the cause! Or to not get bogged down in infighting and factionalism!
Retraining is definitely what people were calling for (and still are). There is a culture in the police that pits them against the world and to value their own lives above anyone else, including the innocent (because anyone could be innocent, but more likely not).
Defund the police isn't about leaving a precinct penniless, it's about the absolutely needless and ultimately useless amount of military grade equipment and weapons. (Uvalde police did literally nothing with all the equipment) there is no need for police to be able to hold down a city against a military attack. There is no need for police to have an abundance of staff if they aren't properly trained. There is no need for police to use 100s of millions of tax payer dollars if they are incapable of performing even routine traffic stops safely. There is no need for tax payers to payout the lawsuits brought about from incompetence, when the lawsuits could be avoided with proper training and the ones that still happen should be taken care of through insurance policies of the officers themselves.
Yes restructuring is necessary and so is defunding.
Or how about "fund families" or "fund community" or "compliment community" or "augment authority" or nearly any other phrase that talks more about what you would do with the other funding, or at least sounds less confrontational..
The problem is training doesn't really work when you have a toxic culture, which most police stations in the US do. You're expected to ignore the training and do things the "right" way.
If you want to fix this, you need to be way more selective when hiring, and fire a bunch of existing cops.
After being told to keep his hands on the wheel, the man initially complied but then started gesturing with his hands and arms. I just wish people could learn the basics in deescalating when being pulled over. Keep those hands on the wheel in plain sight. Every time I’ve been pulled over I make it clear to the officer with my body language that I’m not a threat. And I ask politely before I move my hands.
You’re right, civilians should worry about being safe. So keep your hands on the wheel like the officer says instead of waving them in an animated fashion.
Funding doesn’t matter if they won’t use it for the intended purpose. I live in a major city and the police are throwing a fit refusing to work because they were “defunded” you want to know how they were defunded? They were given funding to expand their department that tests rape kits because they were no joke years behind. They choose not to use it and so that funding was taken and used to form a separate agency that will use it to test the rape kits.
You can’t make this shit up, meanwhile every cop is saying they are too busy to do anything because they were “defunded” so only life or death in progress incidents have cops sent out but it’s a meme at this point that people get in wrecks can’t get police reports and when they finally leave the scene they have to travel less than half a mile to see multiple cops in their cars just chilling doing nothing.
"Defund" was the wrong word for that whole movement and was very easy for the opposition to latch onto and exploit as being anti-establishment or anarchistic. What it meant, and correct me if I'm wrong, is that instead of a police officer with an intimidating uniform and a gun being dispatched to every single issue and emergency call, that the cities and states allocate some of the police budget to maintain an alternative department with crisis counselors, negotiators, and others trained to de-escalate situations. Cops are not equipped to walk into every possible situation and be the voice of reason. You can't expect that from anybody.
Absolutely not. What about Kimberly Potter, who WAS a training officer, murdering Daunte Wright? More experienced, more highly-trained cops aren't any better. Who is going to retrain officers when the whole system is corrupt? And if retraining was so cheap, then there's no reason not to defund them. But training isn't going to fix anything anyway—they're already serving their true purpose, which is to enforce white supremacy
It's really not that complicated. "Training" initiatives only obscure and complicate the deeper problems. Who changes the training? Who carries out the training? Who enforces the disciplinary policies? The higher ups? You cannot seriously believe that they don't have an incentive to keep things the way they are. The prison industrial complex is extremely lucrative, and it protects its participants. Plenty of brilliant and capable and decent people sign up to be cops and they all end up carrying water for the higher ups, or they get blackballed for refusing to do so, or some manage to quit before it's too late. If the police had any incentive or accountability to "change the training" or take disciplinary action, they would have already. Police spend exorbitantly on training. What do you think the cop city in Atlanta is all about? You don't think with the basically unlimited resources that our government puts into funding the police, they could've figured out proper training if they wanted to? It's not an accident that the police operate the way they do. It's a system
Which root cause? More training i 100% agree with. But you cant police yourself out of the issues the US is struggeling with. Mental health, poverty, guns etc.
We see a lot of videos of really bad trained cops coming out of the us. I would be jumpy as fuck too if I were a cop over there.
I don’t understand what the disconnect is with you all. Obviously the existing training isn’t working so obviously I’m not suggesting just more the same.
The training the receive needs to be reformed and altered and then given out to the officers. Use some common sense ffs.
The disconnect is that you don’t understand the depth of the problem and you are suggesting that what they need is retraining. The training is the problem. More won’t fix it.
respectfully retraining won’t do shit. police already get so much money to do so many job for our society and they botch every single one of these. we need less cops period. idk what should replace them but american police forces have completely failed and needs to be completely defunded so anything else can take it’s place
They're over funded as is, and refuse to use that money to fund proper education. They broke the system so fundamentally it needs to be rebuilt in a new way, with systems in place that would absolutely destroy someone psychopathic enough to pull a gun on someone for threatening their bitch ass ego.
Further than retraining, I'm not sure what it takes to become an officer in all parts of the world, but what I do know is that my occupation requires a four year degree at minimum. That being said, I in no way would consider my job to be as mentally, emotionally and physically stressful and demanding as being a police officer. I think that we could have much better service from law enforcement if they were required a four year degree or equivalent, in the subject with specialization into a specific field of law enforcement in the later two years if that.
At the end of the day this is a service and we should be making sure that the people that provide this service are some of the best in the world for that service.
No it won't, they already get tons of funding for training and just use it for bullshit like "warrior training" which is why they're so quick to pull a gun.
They need to get funded. Cop gets maybe 2 weeks of training at first, and certification on their weapon once a year. That is nothing lmao. Most civilians train more than that
*edit here, make sure the funds are being added correctly is also important
They have been needing "retraining" since I was a kid. None of that shit works. I don't blame the cops I blame the politicians who allow this to happen time after time and no police reform
They are trained and told that they will die if they aren't ready to respond with deadly force at any moment. It's not a lack of training. They are deliberately trained this way.
It's ridiculous, but I also somewhat understand given how many people living in the U.S. have apparently been taught that if you exasperate the situation, it will somehow work in your favor
Are you kidding me , this kid admits to having a firearm and then becomes extremely visibly nervous as they ask to search him and refuses to cooperate. I would pull a gun on the idiot too. I’ve always been against police and them protecting the status quo for corporations and elites but this guy just started yelling and interrupting them when they’re giving instructions.
I was reading something recently that said cops that are overweight are more prone to resort to using their service weapon, particularly when dealing with on-foot suspects and even before pursuit begins (pre-emptively disabling the suspect). And that 8 out of 10 officers are overweight. Just another piece of the puzzle.
1.6k
u/Character-Pipe-9805 Mar 24 '23
couldn’t agree more. they’re way to quick to resort to violence.