zlacker

>>js2+(OP)
If you defund the police but keep them around (after all, they are necessary), won't that just force them to self-fund by seeking funding from corrupt sources such as civil asset forfeiture and drug busts?

Isn't this already a solved problem in other parts of the world, such as Britain, Ireland, Norway, Iceland and New Zealand, where most officers are unarmed when they are on patrol? Why can't we learn from other countries?

>>remmar+1a
You’re reversing the sequence Mr. Vitale seems to be suggesting.

He’s saying let’s analyze the work they do, find alternatives for those roles, and _then_ reduce the scope of the police force.

Defunding seems much less important and farther down the road than making their jobs achievable, and the rest of us safer.

>>macint+hc
> Defunding seems much less important and farther down the road than making their jobs achievable, and the rest of us safer.

There are secondary effects too, though. The police force competes for funds with other public infrastructure like schools. Defunding the police means we can allocate that money to more productive and less violent causes.