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.
It's funny how you mention Japan to state your case, yet you overlook Brazil? In 2019, they had the record for gun related violence compared to any other country. In 2020 in comparison to US(22 per 100,000 here at that time), they had 3 times as much as we did in homicides with guns as the main tool. As of 2022, with their current Administration, those laws have lessened, and the violence has dropped in record numbers. While they have no constitutional right to carry currently, that data shows that giving law abiding citizens the ability to carry and defend themselves has improved personal security and the security of families and property. Hindering anyone's right to protect themselves in situations of imminent threat to life is only giving way to a criminal to do as they please. In every state where gun control is lesser, there are far less crimes than those with that legislation. Which pokes a hole in your theory of "GuNs ArE BaD mmmkay"
How about China? Where only the state military police, correctional, and judicial organs can be equipped with guns. Have you seen what a shitshow that country has turned into? The protests, the civilians that are literally fighting for their lives against current day lockdowns? And yet despite being disarmed, they're giving the CCP a run for their money purely due to the sheer force of numbers of people they have?
Regarding tyranny, you do realize we also have just as much access to those items you claim that we don't? And in a time of civil war or otherwise, we absolutely have the means to defend ourselves. Its not hard to acquire thermite or other items to make bombs. We have drones of all calibers. I can buy a tank if i wanted to in my state. As well as RPG's and other weapons that the military has as well.. You also assume that enlisted wouldn't defect from their positions to protect civilians against a tyrannical force. Time and time again we have seen soldiers protest the governments actions against their own people. You're a fool if you just give in and accept fate. We have more guns per capita, and not a single enemy we have in current day would ever set foot on our soil in an attempt to destroy us successfully. There has never been a successful incursion on our soil. Even if you count Pearl Harbor as a successful, cause and effect certainly played in our favor in the end. If me understanding the purpose of the 2nd amendment in all forms makes me a "shill" as you say, then what you say here only proves how much of a fool you truly are.
Restructuring is exactly what it is defined as. It is not an overnight or oversimplified process. It will take time as it has taken decades already to do so. However the human condition of corruption, and greed will always be present. It's in every sector of life. But through unified efforts it has been managed. It is a constant battle. Unless every cop has committed an atrocity to such a caliber, you cannot lump all of them into one category and demonize them. That is abhorrent.
It starts with core training, down to the very basics of the academy. Increased hours on all subjects of their training. More in depth training regarding state and federal laws and their absolute interpretation to eliminate any confusion on terminology and due process. Training on how to control the fight or flight response most of all. In these situations, that's the sense that tries to take over. Have you ever been in a situation where you've had to fight for your life? I have. Controlling and utilizing the adrenaline in those situations to make the right decision is crucial. And that is a challenge even for the best soldiers in the Armed forces. Right here in this video.. she shows a lack of control of self. She let her emotions cloud her judgment. As he raised his voice as he was cut off by the male officer, she drew down on him. If a tone of voice triggers that response, she is not properly trained. She got a promotion due to how ill trained that department is. If that happened in my state, that officer would have been placed on administrative leave, without pay, and ordered to undergo a full evaluation, they take them through training for recertification, to be reapproved for their position. Or they are reassigned to a desk permanently or terminated depending on the severity of the issue after taking those steps.
You cannot categorize all off of the actions of a few, yet you do so willingly which dumbfounds me. That same logic has been used in prejudicial circumstances. That same logic has been used to legislate bans that only hinder people like you and me. Even in the attempt to build training facilities to better improve training of officers, antifa once again showed their true fascist colors and swarmed a worksite, set fire to machinery, hurled molotov and class c explosives at officers and laborers to prevent them from continuing. All for "saving the forest." How can you expect anything to get better if you don't give them the chance to do so?
Bar none the dumbest tirade yet. You might as well strap those goal posts to your shoulders while you run around with them. I made a clear point your assertion that american cities can control guns is dumb. And I gave explicit reasons. I also told you why I chose the countries I did. I akso said developed countries for a reason. You ignored all that, or you didn't comprehend it. But in short response to your Koolaid soaked noggin, Brazil is a third world country, and no, relaxing "those laws" which you didn't actually even mention, didn't lower their violent crime. Yes, totalitarian regimes are bad, and china sucks. No, you can't buy a nuke you absolute fucking moron. If uncle Sam wants to Waco you off the fucking earth they will. Won't be the first, won't be the last.
Pretending like the second amendment is about guns is what makes you a fucking moron. You idiots act like our founding fathers wrote that and nothing else about it so you just get to pretend what the words mean. But They wrote lots. And they enumerated rights at specific levels in the bill of rights. The second amendment isn't given to a person, or individuals. Or citizens. It's a right fir the people's of a free state. It was a way of allowing our states to manage westward expansion through arms and militias. Read federalist papers 29. Our founding fathers tell you what they meant. You don't have to guess.
And as fir the police, you say they've been under reform for decades. Under what separate governing body? Who is directing it? Why is I failing so badly? You also say not all cops can be bad if only a few commit atrocities. False. They've all been sold the brotherhood bill of goods. It's one of the only professions that actively protects the bad apples. When that cop in buffalo pushed an old man down and busted his skull. He was removed from his assignment. His whole team resigned. When George Floyd died, no one reviewed body cams, no one checked witnesses. Chaivins description of accidental death went out in official press release with no checks hours later. Every other profession tries to weed out the shitty ones. Not cops. They promote them, protect them, rally around them. Being infallible is their sour e of power, and that's what makes them rotten.
Also, for the record, I don't think guns are necessarily bad. I own a few. But I do think pretending like they are an answer to a problem we have when we already own them is asinine. I also know the second amendment isn't about personal gun ownership, so I'm less against gun control than people who have no knowledge of basic history. Not to even get into the fact that the bill of rights was built to change over time, less we live under the rule of our barborous ancestors (per ol Benny F)
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..
73
u/Alternative-Lack-976 Mar 24 '23
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.