zlacker

> Policy doesn't keep them in line.

This is correct. It's also the argument for ending qualified immunity and defunding the police.

>>hypeit+(OP)
Does defunding the police mean stop having a police force in the country?

>>trinsi+Ih
"Defunding" has unfortunately become a vague word that means different things to different activists. To me, it means removing the "military tools" that OP mentions, removing their incentives to escalate to violence and otherwise violate people's rights (or providing financial disincentives), and ideally, ultimately disarming them. Stop the money flow from taxpayers that encourages, enables, and results in all the bad behavior.

>>trinsi+Ih
No. Further, the only people (with any serious power) really bringing up this idea are opponents of police reform trying to poison the well on the idea that police reform is needed.

These people may even benefit from over policing wrt kickbacks from private prisons. For example, Marco Rubio [0] is a top recipient of money from the private prison lobby, and he's run attack ads wrongfully saying that his political opponents want to abolish police, and he himself ran on a platform pushing for larger police budgets.

0 - https://www.opensecrets.org/industries./indus.php?ind=G7000

>>trinsi+Ih
No. That would be abolishing the police.

Perhaps defunding eventually reveals that we should abolish the police. Perhaps not.

>>hypeit+(OP)
Defunding the police is a dumb slogan. Consolidating the police and professionalizing the police is a real answer. Also much harder.

>>Spooky+kX
It's dumb if you don't understand it. Most people take it as a knee-jerk literal "take all the money from the police."

In practice most of the common explanations I've seen mean "take a lot of the money from the police and give it to people more qualified to do things that police are filling in for" — so things like social work, for example.

This would also benefit the police, because they could focus on stopping and investigating actual crime.

A common example... if there's a homeless, mentally ill, or otherwise distressed person rambling on the sidewalk in front of your house for an hour... in the US many people would call the police. This is a terrible application of force and innocent people have been shot this way.

With properly staffed and funded social workers, someone could theoretically call them first, and then that person if needed could decide to escalate.

So really "defund the police" in a pithy slogan — "reduce funding to the police so it can be directed to more purpose-fit response teams" doesn't quite roll off the tongue the same way.

This same criticism is levied towards "black lives matter" — some take it as "only black lives matter" (often intentionally despite having it explained to them). So the response is "all lives matter" but the general intent is actually "black lives matter as well." Earlier "vote or die" was sometimes criticized in a warped way of "vote or we'll kill you"

There's this strange insistence that political slogans be perfect or all-encompassing, which seems rather disingenuous.

>>microm+I01
Of course, slogans cannot be perfect. Slogans are tools for communication and should be judged as such. If "most people take it as" meaning something unhelpful, then it's defunct as a slogan. ("Black lives matter" is understood a lot more often, which is why it still works.)

>>microm+I01
The slogan should be about to building out a public service that could accomplish the aims.

The last line for direct assistance is at the county social services level. Those organizations don’t have the capability to scale. You’ll also be challenged as each county and state doesn’t necessarily want improve outcomes.

>>Spooky+Nx1
these are mostly problems that can be solved by redirecting funding

>>microm+tw3
I worked in government for a long time and have implemented real programs. It’s not just cash. You need serious federal legislation that just won’t happen for a long time.