zlacker

>>dtagam+(OP)
It's worth noting hundreds of police officers lose their life a year in the line of duty: https://www.odmp.org/search/year and many more than that receive serious injuries, even permanent spinal damage:

One cop was paralyzed from the neck down in Vegas protests: https://www.bostonherald.com/2020/06/14/police-officer-shot-...

Retired police chief killed at 77 by looters in St. Louis: https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/500839-retired-st-l...

A federal agent was killed in Oakland in connection with the protests: https://patch.com/california/alameda/fbi-ids-federal-agent-4...

The one-sided narrative against cops is getting out of hand. It's an extremely dangerous job and you cannot treat gangsters with kid gloves while they pack serious weaponry. It's a joke to talk of nerfing or defunding the police for the handful of bad incidents that occur meanwhile over 15K people a year are murdered in the country. It's completely disproportionate and not aligned with statistical reality: cops often have to make split second life or death decisions and they don't get a second shot.

>>chrisc+Eg
The post is a huge list of links of police brutality on innocent protestors, bystanders, and media well within their rights. This post has nothing to do with how the police treat "gangsters", unless you mean something different by that word.

>>joshri+6i
Defunding police because of police brutality is swallowing a spider to catch the fly. You do NOT want to live in a place without police.

I think it would be much more productive and realistic to have a really deep study of how policing in America is different from other countries, and what can be done to normalise it. America is pretty gun crazy, and that doesn't make a cop's life any easier. The flip side of that is that some gun crazy people become cops, and shoot people on their knees with weapons engraved with "you're fucked": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Daniel_Shaver

>>pixelp+Rj
> Defunding police because of police brutality is swallowing a spider to catch the fly. You do NOT want to live in a place without police.

This is a classic example of bad / misleading marketing on behalf of a reform movement. The "Defund the Police" movement has been poorly named. Yes, there are absolutely some folks on the extreme who truly want to disband the police and live in a place without police, but by and large, the major of people who are supporting this movement mean something else:

Defund == defund the CURRENT police organizational structure (militarized, etc.), reallocate funding for things like homeless support, domestic checks, etc. to other departments better suited to handle them, and KEEP a policing organization which is responsible for a much narrower scope of duty with a reformatted training program, etc.

It should be branded "Reboot the Police", not "Defund the Police"...

>>nlh+Sk
If that's really what it is, calling it "Defund" is like marketing Coke by calling it "Shitty Sugar Water" and then issuing a 10 page explainer that says "Shit not included".

>>baggy_+Dl
It's not quite that, but it does sound like cutting all funding. How about "the police have too much money"? It's not an imperative statement though. "Cut police budgets" has the same problem as "defund the police." Any better slogans? Something snappy like "we send the EU £350 million a week. let's fund our NHS instead."