Will those screaming about defunding police departments change their tune if crime increases as a result?

I was joking with a coworker about this issue.
Maybe they'll replace police departments with multi-billionaire vigilantes.
You know ... like Batman or Iron Man.

Well, the actual wealth requirement will be based on the local cost-of-living.


Or, we could keep the police departments ... and just rescind every law.

De-funding wouldn't work.
More funding to ensure better education and supervision (ensuring zero tolerance for racism and abuses of power) would.
The investment would save the lives of hundreds of innocents and millions in property not vandalised and looted.

 

  The ACLU will step in and provide both service and protection. Criminals and would-be criminals are already quaking in their boots, paralyzed with fear of creating any new victims. 

The more I learn about what it means to defund the police, the more intrigued I am by the possibilities. The Minneapolis City Council has declared its intention to disband the police and replace it with another model of public safety. Many of the issues that the police deal with, such as homelessness, domestic violence, drug use etc. might benefit by having someone trained in that issue responding. Putting more money into communities and less into a para-military law enforcement department might be a way that problems can be solved before they start or solved in less combative way. I'm not advocating or opposing this approach, but I do want to find out what it would look like. Our jails are full now, maybe police aren't the answer. We'll see. Also, this movement has been around for a long time, I wouldn't call it a knee-jerk.

 

  As the knee-to-the-neck is not an authorized use of force tactic, Derek Chauvin acted on his own volition in murdering George Floyd.  Taking funds away from a law enforcement agency and/or closing down law enforcement agencies does not efficiently address an illegal act by one of its officers.
  Regardless of what happens criminally in this case (a trial), there is clearly a civil lawsuit in the future, and either the Minneapolis police department itself, the city, the county, or the state of Minnesota can expect to be named as defendants.  This is in addition to Derek Chauvin himself being sued separately due to having acted outside of policy. The plaintiffs very well may seek millions in damages, and there is a high likelihood that they will prevail in the suit and the judgement may meet their named figure. 

  Outcry for defunding might only work as appeasement to the masses, but in my opinion, it is unnecessary. 

~

If by "disbanding" you mean eliminating police departments, I would not be in favor.  If you mean taking some of the money allocated to the police to institute, improve and/or expand community programs to help wayward youth so that there are fewer adult criminals later on, that I can see.  Truth be told, we expect our police departments to be social workers as well as enforcers of the law and in some cases, mental health experts for none of which are they trained properly.  Having said that, I'm sure there are police officers who are not psychologically suited for the job.  Those who see having a badge and a gun as an extension of power are those who should probably find some other field.  Training then comes into play once they are on the force.  Except under the most extreme conditions, no officer should have the authority to put their arms around someone's neck - certainly when there are three or four other officers at the scene.  To be fair, I think most police officers are good people who try to do the right thing, keep the peace, and go home in one piece.  Most police officers never even draw their guns, let alone shoot at anyone.  They do have a right to defend themselves and others and if that means fatally shooting someone completely out of control, so be it.  Remember, that police officer also has to live with the consequences of their action.  We are taught from childhood that life is precious and to take a life goes against everything ingrained in most of us.  

Did you here about the protesters for defunding the police who had to call the police?    A man in TX threatened them with a chainsaw.  (He was arrested by the police) 

I found it a little funny.  

 

  (here hear)

READ!!!


John Oliver made an impassioned argument for defunding the police on Sunday’s episode of “Last Week Tonight.”

Oliver, who dedicated the entire segment to the growing support for the Black Lives Matter movement, calls to rethink the functions of American law enforcement in the wake of the murders of George Floyd, Breonna Taylor and countless other Black people at the hands of law enforcement.

“Defunding the police doesn’t mean we eliminate cops and succumb to the Purge,” Oliver said. “Instead it’s about moving away from a narrow conception of public safety that relies on policing and punishment, and investing in a community’s actual safety net, things like stable housing, mental health services and community organization.”

Over the course of the 33-minute episode, Oliver examines the law enforcement’s history of discrimination in the United States, as well as its steady militarization under both Republican and Democratic administrations.

Oliver also lays out the pattern of opposition that police organizations demonstrate when pushed to reform, pointing toward police unions as a significant obstacle in keeping officers accused of misconduct off the street. He explained that many officers are granted legal immunity, even in particularly egregious cases of excessive force.

  

“This clearly isn’t about individual officers. It’s about a structure built on systemic racism that this country created intentionally and now needs to dismantle intentionally, and replace with one that takes into account the needs of the people that it actually serves. This is going to take sustained pressure and attention over a long period of time from all of us,” he concludes.

This post was edited by Zack at June 9, 2020 2:56 AM MDT