Should funding for local police departments be redirected to social and community based programs?

Conversation thread

The following is a 4 message exchange between 5 users

@9GLZYLN from Pennsylvania agreed…2yrs2Y

The idea to defund the police is absolutely insane, what would that ever accomplish. Police are here to protect, and they cant do that if they don't have any money. People are saying that police "need more training" and that we also need to "defund the police" which police can't get more training, IF THEY HAVE NO MONEY. Police don't shoot people because their black, police are not racist, every single video I have ever seen of someone getting shot by the cops, there is a damn good reason for it.

▲ 51 2 Replies Reply to this Agree 47 Disagree 4 Link •••Tell me more React Request reference + My feed Report Block user Follow 1

@VulcanMan6 from Kansas disagreed…2yrs2Y

Police are here to protect the interests of capital, not necessarily the public, and the courts have confirmed this already that police have no actual obligation to protect the public. That is why people say that the police, as a structural institution, needs to be abolished and replaced entirely with another form of community security that is actually designed by and for the public good.

Secondly, if you think all police killings are justified, then you're probably just a very pro-state authoritarian person to begin with, so it's not surprising why you would defend state violence.

▲ 5 ▲Reply to this Agree 4 Disagree 5 Link •••Tell me more React Request reference + My feed Report Block user Follow 1

@FaithInFreedom from Colorado disagreed…8mos8MO

While I think you're correct in admonishing the previous answer who implied ALL police-involved deaths are justified, I think your basis for your response is misinformed.

"Pro-state authoritarian" is someone who believes a single system/body should be in control and have all the decision-making ability for the entire state (nation). This is not where our police departments are even close to. As a society, we entered into an agreement with the government that we would allow them to take away our freedom if we met certain conditions (law breaking) in exchange for the protection… Read more they offered to the greater population by enforcing those conditions.

I can't speak for other states, but in Colorado, the actual term is a Peace Officer, not a police officer, and our members of the force are sworn in specifically to protect the public and to serve in the interest of the people. I took that oath once upon a time, and it was a department mantra that we were civil servants to the community we protected.

My final disagreement has to do with the answer you chose for this question: "Replace police with unarmed community based responders for non-violent calls," and my main qualm is that the situations officers are called out to are so dynamic, it is impossible to accurately decide every time which calls are non-violent. "Routine traffic stops" are the most dangerous call an officer can be out on because the unknown of the situation is at its highest. I work part-time as a 911 dispatcher, and the one officer-involved shooting I worked started as a simple, non-violent, victim notification in a different part of the apartment complex. My officer heard a verbal disturbance in a neighboring apartment and called for backup so he could safely investigate the disturbance. Before backup arrived, a male emerged from the apartment and immediately attacked my officer, getting the upper-hand on him, and continually bashing his head into the floor with such ferocity, that officer suffered TBI. It was all my officer was able to do to access his weapon and fire a single, threat-neutralizing shot into the aggressor. Had we sent a uniformed, unarmed officer into that same situation, they very well could have lost their life on a "non-violent call".

What we need instead is more dedicated training to help our officers react with restraint (as the one in that situation did; again, he fired a single shot to neutralize the threat to himself and save his life), and compassion for people from all walks of life. I did not see any race-based discrimination during my time on the force, but I did notice an overwhelming attitude change many cops took when they regarded someone as a criminal. I think it is THIS factor that needs to be addressed and trained to. All people should be treated with dignity, honor, and respect regardless of the acts they have committed or failed to commit. That goes both ways: law enforcement officers should treat the people they contact with dignity, honor, and respect, and the people who come into contact with law enforcement should also treat those uniformed, human beings with dignity, honor, and respect.

▲ 17 Reply to this Agree 6 Disagree Link •••Tell me more Request reference + My feed Report Block user Follow

@BoldChileRepublicanfrom California agreed…8mos8MO

“Had we sent a uniformed, unarmed officer into that same situation, they very well could have lost their life on a "non-violent call"”

Thank you for your service.

There was a case a few years back in my hometown where a welfare check turned tragic. The call was for an unresponsive person, a seemingly non-violent situation. When the officer arrived, he found the person unconscious on the couch. As he approached, the person suddenly woke up, disoriented and paranoid, and pulled a knife on the officer. It escalated so quickly that the officer barely had time to react. If an unarmed community responder had been sent instead, it's chilling to think about what might have happened.

It's a reminder that police/peace offices are constantly putting their lives on the line to keep our families safe.