It's amazing how fast we moved from defund the police to refund the police

[DemocratSinceBirth]

Thoughts?

[Hugh_Lebowski]

1. I was never part of that 'we' myself

Always seemed an awful slogan, and an even worse idea, both politically and practically.

And I don't particularly like 'the cops' to start with.

[Amishman]

13. agreed. The concept is fundamentally flawed

Redirecting police funding to humanitarian services to address the root of problem failed to account for lag time

Cuts to police funding reduce their capabilities far faster than public assistance can work as a prevention measure. This leads to a gap where police effectiveness has dropped but criminal behavior has not.

Funding for non-police actions to reduce criminal behavior need to happen first, law enforcement can only be pared back once those steps have proven successful. This of course make a big financial issue as there is probably a multi year transition period where extra funding is needed. Given the stigma of criminal records and the issues of habitualization of property crime, it may take a generation as those who our society has already failed will be very difficult to rehabilitate.

[Caliman73]

38. Not the concept. The implementation.

The concept has been proven in other countries like Spain and Portugal.

The problem is that people, as you said, cut funding for police before any efforts to mitigate root causes got under way.

The way you described it at the end of your post, is the way it needs to be implemented. More expense in the beginning, but a longer term sustainable system in the long run.

The problem is that Americans always want a quick fix, with no sacrifice. Conservatives don't care at all. They do not think ANY money should be going to fix problems of poverty.

[Amishman]

39. We're saying the same thing in different words

To me the concept was that intervention and aid could be a direct substitute. Meaning the funding could be shifted directly and immediately - hence the 'defund' slogan.

I view that immediate and direct fungibility as part of the concept itself. Other than that little wrinkle (which is semantics really) it seems like we agree.

[Caliman73]

40. I can agree to that.

My only response is that the concept, the idea, of shifting funding away from "policing" to actual mitigation of the factors that contribute to criminality is sound, but it has to be implemented soundly as well.

[ck4829]

2. I'm sure a well-funded police will never be a force for anti-choice fascism

"But we funded you! Why are you going after poor women instead of violent criminals?! Why are you standing around while a mass shooting is happening?!"

[brooklynite]

18. And that's why DTP failed so spectacularly.

Seeing all police as "anti-choice facists" is the kind of left-wing stereotyping that led to activists thinking defunding the police would be popular and successful.

[ck4829]

19. So when they're enforcing state-sponsored sexism and control of a woman's body

What are we supposed to call it?

What's your name for it?

[ck4829]

26. ... I see.

[ck4829]

24. If they choose to defy what is going on, then I'll be wrong

If the police collectively rise up and declare "The SCOTUS, this right-wing bent in the courts, and these states have said what the law is, but we're going to say what is right" on female autonomy; then I will be wrong about this.

And it's not just that "I'll be wrong"; I want to be wrong, I hope I am wrong, and I pray I am wrong.

And please bookmark this, so then if I am wrong, you can hang this over my head for as long as you desire, and you can reply with "Hey, look at what ck4829 typed that one time, he was really wrong about this!" to anything I type and my reply will always be "Yep, and I am glad I was!"

[brooklynite]

25. Point 1: I'm not aware that police are responsible for enforcing abortion laws

Point 2: As much as you don't like abortion laws, the responsibility lies with the State Executive and Legislature. Do you want Police arbitrarily deciding which laws to enforce, or just the ones you don't like?

Point 3: Far too many people lump ALL police (even those in cities with Democratic Governments) into "one size fits all" with respect to their personal biases.

[Dorian Gray]

27. #1

Also, I would like to add, that here in NYC many people joining the police force are people from Black and Latin American communities. They are recruiting more people of color, and those communities don't want to defund the police.

I think some activists think it's a zero sum game, but we should always have had our eyes on advocating for real change within the systems. More training, more partnerships with mental health care within the police force, more recruitment from marginalized communities.

[ck4829]

32. Oh. Oh, maybe you'll answer the question then, since he didn't

So when they're enforcing state-sponsored sexism and control of a woman's body

What are we supposed to call it?

What's your name for it?



https://democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=16775357

What's it going to be when this happens?

Enforcing Criminal Abortion Bans Post-Roe: ‘A Massive Escalation of Surveillance’

New York-based privacy group Surveillance Technology Oversight Project (S.T.O.P.) released a chilling report last month detailing the digital surveillance threats facing pregnant women who seek abortion information and services, and how these threats could escalate dramatically if the Supreme Court repeals abortion rights and states criminalize abortion. “Police, prosecutors and private anti-abortion litigants will weaponize existing American surveillance infrastructure to target pregnant people and use their health data against them in a court of law,” according to the report, titled “Pregnancy Panopticon: Abortion Surveillance After Roe.” “This isn’t speculation—it’s already happening.” The report explains how anti-abortion governments and private entities are already using cutting-edge digital technologies to surveil women’s search history, location data, messages, online purchases and social media activities by using geofencing, keyword warrants, big data and more. “Every aspect of pregnant people’s digital lives will be put under the microscope, examined for any hints that they sought (successfully or otherwise) to end their pregnancy,” states the report.

https://democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=16775726

So, when they're using funds to spend hours poring over a woman's social media messages and using her phone's GPS to see where she went because she might have had an abortion, then... What. Are. We. Supposed. To. Call. It?

If my mistake was calling this fascism, then correct me, what should it be called?

Freedom?

[Dorian Gray]

34. This is not going to happen

This is alarmism.

If police start combing social media or arresting women who have had abortions, I'll be first on the front lines protesting.

[inthewind21]

3. Indeed it is

Now that Uvalde has made it clear to everyone they are not going to protect the public, one has to wonder, exactly what are WE, the tax payer, funding? In Uvalde, it's clearly to make sure NO ONE can even try and save the kids. I mean they did a fine job harassing the parents.

[doc03]

4. That's a good thing. I don't know who started Defund the Police it was one

stupid f---g idea.

[DURHAM D]

5. The Republicans gave us the "Defund" thingie. nt

[doc03]

7. No I don't think so I heard much of that talk on the MSNBC shows

and the Republicans picked it up and ran with it.

[Dorian Gray]

28. The defund the police

came out of the BLM marches in 2020. It was an angry response to abuses the police perpetrated in the killings of unarmed members of the black community, most notably George Floyd.

There was also an abolish the police movement, but most activists settled on defund the police.

We should understand the anger that led to the sentiment and act upon it. But we know that it's not a winning movement, so democratic leaders and legislators need to address the problems with real positive change.

[AntivaxHunters]

29. No. Try BLM

Are some of you even paying attention?
Are you aware what's happening in our communities all across the country?
Fuck cops.

[brooklynite]

33. "The Republican National Committee approves this message..."

[comradebillyboy]

6. Albuquerque has had a long term crime wave.

Defunding the police, awful as they are, is a great way to get more Republicans elected. It seems to me that a lot of "progressives" in deep blue districts are really out of touch with the general public.

[PTWB]

8. The slogan was bad but the idea was rock solid

Divert some of the bloated police budgets to combat the root causes of crime — addiction, poverty, homelessness, mental health problems — and crime will go down while we help those who need it most.

Poor branding and marketing doesn’t diminish the quality of the idea in the first place.

[Ohio Joe]

15. +1 - nt

[leftstreet]

20. +1

[tishaLA]

23. The guy who drowned in Tempe recently is a good example

I watched the video of the thing, which cuts off as he starts drowning, and the guy and his wife were homeless, had obvious mental health (and perhaps drug/alcohol abuse) issues. They didn't have a "police" issue except insofar as they were arguing in public and some very lethargic cops responded.

They wanted to run his name for warrants because that's just what they do and that's when he went into the lake and died, but it could have been avoided if a much-maligned social worker came and could address any of their actual problems rather than do a warrant check.

[greenman3610]

9. I think GOPers are doing push-poll mailings on this

I got one the other day asking "do you want to defund the police" but I can't believe
any serious group on the Dem side is so clueless as to amplify that Fox Friendly message.

[samnsara]

10. always thought 'reform' should have been used instead of 'defund'

[Pyryck]

11. That phrase should be attributed to the man refusing to pay his $2mil police protection fees

Is that not what the former failed CEO is doing by not paying for police protection during his political gatherings?

[WhiskeyGrinder]

12. Too many people think that one more increased budget cycle will fix the problems the police have.

When the police ARE the problem.

[onecaliberal]

14. Defund was never a policy. Why did every republican vote no on INCREASED funding for police

Proposed by the Democratic majority Congress?

[sarisataka]

16. Winston Smith nt

[brooklynite]

17. It was a stupid idea that revealed itself as a stupid idea.

[In It to Win It]

21. I think the 'defund' movement has a point in that police can useless and detrimental

at the most critical times. My question from the movement is how do you fix that?

How do you make police more accountable to the public? I don't have an answer to that.

Police have an important job and sometimes they really fucking suck at it. When they are bad at the job, what can you do about it to make them less bad?

[MineralMan]

22. That was always a poorly chosen slogan.

Like so many such ideas, it's another all or nothing, zero sum thing. If the police somewhere are unjust or corrupt, it's so easy to say "defund them," but the reality is something different. It was a mistake to take up that slogan in the first place. I understand the social justice source of it, but it was always a losing slogan.

Sadly, people tend to want to apply drastic solutions to problems. Understandable, but misguided, with very costly consequences sometimes.

So, we have a pressing need to reform the police and make them more oriented toward justice for everyone. But, we will always have criminals and dangerous people around, so we need a police force. That police force cannot be defunded. It could be reformed, starting with a new philosophy of law enforcement, but it cannot simply be abolished.

Once again, a poor slogan has damaged our cause, because the other side turns it back on us.

[AntivaxHunters]

30. My thoughts? Fuck cops.

Defund the shit out them.
ACAB & FTP.
"They think they have the authority to kill a minority".

Why defunding the police would actually make our streets safer
In 2014 and 2015 New York officers staged a “slowdown” to protest the mayor, arguing that if they did less police work, the city would be less safe. Instead, crime dropped


While “defund the police” makes for a catchy slogan, the logic behind it is nuanced. It doesn’t simply amount to getting rid of the police force (though this end is certainly fundamental to the idea – MPD150 explicitly call for a “Police-Free Future.”) Rather, the goal is reallocation – resources, funding, and responsibilities taken away from the police and funnelled into other initiatives that might improve public safety.

In Los Angeles, for instance, Black Lives Matter has been pushing for a “people’s budget” that lowers the general fund to law enforcement from 51 per cent to just 5.7. “The concept of defunding and dismantling police departments is not just about getting rid of them,” says Philip McHarris, a doctoral candidate in sociology at Yale University and lead research and policy associate at the Community Resource Hub for Safety and Accountability. “It’s also about creating new things.”

Over the last 40 years, police have been leant on as a solution to social problems, writes Alex Vitale, a professor of sociology and the coordinator of the Policing and Social Justice Project at Brooklyn College and the author of The End of Policing. From dysfunctional schools to inappropriate mental health interventions to the opioid epidemic, police have been asked to step in to solve social ills. This solution has proven particularly widespread in America because the country’s welfare state is so threadbare.

Over the same period of time, the cost of policing in the US has tripled, to $115 billion. In most cities, spending on police dominates city budgets, like the $1.8bn spent on police in Los Angeles, for example, which is more than half the city’s general fund, or the $165 million for the Minneapolis police department – accounting for 30 per cent of the entire city budget.

[Dorian Gray]

35. I think your message stinks

Just want to say that. "ACAB" and "FTP" are provocateur messages.

That's all I have to say in this thread.

[AntivaxHunters]

36. I think you defending cops sucks

Provocative message? You know what's provocative? Having a damn knee on your neck like George Floyd and then dying because of it.
We're being murdered in our communities.
But go off I guess.
Today this happened.

Link to tweet

?s=20&t=GirqmCWnJxZpqvh-c_OvGg

[Sugarcoated]

41. The bad messaging gives Republicans

ammo to defeat Democrats. If we don't get elected

[Dorian Gray]

43. Pointing out that

FUCK COPS and "ACAB" are provocateur messages is not the same as defending cops who murdered people. I am sure that you are smart enough to know that, and I won't infantilize you by calling you "hoodwinked" or using some other term that takes away your agency.

Being angry abut injustices that are perpetuated by the police is good. It moves society and our systems into positive change.

Trying to abolish the police are claiming "ACAB" is not good. It leads to a sense that societal structures are immovable and we must go to war with them.

^^This is my very strong opinion. I can't change your opinion. Just call out what I think is problematic.


Also, I'm not even arguing this in a political outcomes sense. That's a whole other ballgame. (One in which this board is based on. Supporting democratic candidates and their success.) If I were to make that argument, I'd say that your posts further prevents Democrats from winning elections and I would question why you would want to post such things on a Democratic message board in the first place.

[eShirl]

31. "We" were never at defunding the police.

Stop repeating repuke talking points please.

[tenderfoot]

37. Now do "build more prisons!"

eom

[gulliver]

42. It's a Republican talking point

Funding the police is a good way for Dems to get people better police services while repudiating the foolishness that is DTP.