5 ms·

The need for policing is not going to disappear. If we don't have trained professionals, we'll have untrained amateurs. Doubt that will be an improvement.

ladberg 6y ago
"Defund the police" doesn't mean taking away all police. It just means reducing funding and reducing responsibilities of the police to avoid them becoming a catch-all for any civil issue.
- Sessions 6y ago
  https://newrepublic.com/article/158104/rush-redefine-defund-police https://newrepublic.com/article/158104/rush-redefine-defund-... The meaning is not a settled question.
  - maverick2007 6y ago
    Interesting article, thanks for sharing! That everyone seems to have different definitions of what "defund the police means" and urge each other not to take the meaning too literally whereas others do take it literally reminds me a lot of Peter Thiel and his comments about not taking Trump literally during the campaign.
  - neonate 6y ago
    That's really interesting. I found this too: https://twitter.com/jduffyrice/status/1270380991178321921 https://twitter.com/jduffyrice/status/1270380991178321921. It seems there's a debate between people who mean "defund" literally, that is, who want to abolish police, and people who are trying to moderate or (depending on your perspective) dilute the idea. The first group seems to have been at it for longer. If so, they must resent their slogan and their idea being coopted in this way.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- wolco 6y ago
  What it really means is taking a public sector job and moving it to the private sector. Private police forces employed by the rich will maintain order on private property. The poor will be less protected.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - skannamalai 6y ago
    Okay, but in that scenario, that private police officer won't have the collective benefit of a public union. A DA won't be biting the hands that feed them if they choose to prosecute a private police officer. And the poor are dying from a death of a thousand social services cuts- diminished mental and physical health services, childcare and teen programs, etc. It's not unreasonable to assess whether local spending on police and other services can be re-balanced for better community outcomes.
    - wolco 6y ago
      DA are elected. Voted[in by the same people who want a powerful private police force. I think it would go the other way and protections would be granted to these private forces when they are asked to take over public enforcement in public spaces. They also wouldn't be bound by same standards police have now. DAs wouldn't have access to public information they have now because the information would be private. Nor would private police be forced underlaw to declose facts. That notepad that gets handed in doesn't exist nor does the body camera footage. Don't say it can't happen because many prisons are private and much worse for the prisioner, the guards, the families. Think slave labor doesn't exist? Try earning 45 cents an hour.. in America in jail.
  - Novukus 6y ago
    I'm not sure why people always jump to such extremes. When I see "defunding", I see something more like Camden, where they fired all the police officers and hired non-union to form a new police department. https://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/29/nyregion/overrun-by-crime-camden-trades-in-its-police-force.html https://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/29/nyregion/overrun-by-crime... https://www.citylab.com/equity/2018/01/what-happened-to-crime-in-camden/549542/ https://www.citylab.com/equity/2018/01/what-happened-to-crim... Seems like it was relatively successful without turning into a neoliberal hellscape.
- downerending 6y ago
  I've been watching videos of politicians literally advocating shutting down police departments, and will continue to believe my own lying eyes.
- leetcrew 6y ago
  I suspect it is an example of this: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Motte_and_bailey https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Motte_and_bailey when in ideologically-friendly circles, you say "defund the police!" and don't worry about how literally people will take it. they will assume your position is the same as theirs and agree. when an outsider questions you, you say "oh, of course we don't mean it literally". then you go back to using the unqualified version within your bubble. after a while, who knows what you mean? who cares?
xmprt 6y ago
It's ironic that you say that because the whole reason we have so many problems with police is because they aren't trained in many important areas like dealing with mental health. If instead we specialized the police more and moved funding to other social services, we'd have much better trained professionals which it seems like you're in favor of.
- rodiger 6y ago
  "Whole" reason seems a bit naive-- that probably plays a part in many of these instances but there are many others where it does not.

ladberg 6y ago

"Defund the police" doesn't mean taking away all police. It just means reducing funding and reducing responsibilities of the police to avoid them becoming a catch-all for any civil issue.

Sessions 6y ago
https://newrepublic.com/article/158104/rush-redefine-defund-police https://newrepublic.com/article/158104/rush-redefine-defund-... The meaning is not a settled question.
- maverick2007 6y ago
  Interesting article, thanks for sharing! That everyone seems to have different definitions of what "defund the police means" and urge each other not to take the meaning too literally whereas others do take it literally reminds me a lot of Peter Thiel and his comments about not taking Trump literally during the campaign.
- neonate 6y ago
  That's really interesting. I found this too: https://twitter.com/jduffyrice/status/1270380991178321921 https://twitter.com/jduffyrice/status/1270380991178321921. It seems there's a debate between people who mean "defund" literally, that is, who want to abolish police, and people who are trying to moderate or (depending on your perspective) dilute the idea. The first group seems to have been at it for longer. If so, they must resent their slogan and their idea being coopted in this way.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
wolco 6y ago
What it really means is taking a public sector job and moving it to the private sector. Private police forces employed by the rich will maintain order on private property. The poor will be less protected.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- skannamalai 6y ago
  Okay, but in that scenario, that private police officer won't have the collective benefit of a public union. A DA won't be biting the hands that feed them if they choose to prosecute a private police officer. And the poor are dying from a death of a thousand social services cuts- diminished mental and physical health services, childcare and teen programs, etc. It's not unreasonable to assess whether local spending on police and other services can be re-balanced for better community outcomes.
  - wolco 6y ago
    DA are elected. Voted[in by the same people who want a powerful private police force. I think it would go the other way and protections would be granted to these private forces when they are asked to take over public enforcement in public spaces. They also wouldn't be bound by same standards police have now. DAs wouldn't have access to public information they have now because the information would be private. Nor would private police be forced underlaw to declose facts. That notepad that gets handed in doesn't exist nor does the body camera footage. Don't say it can't happen because many prisons are private and much worse for the prisioner, the guards, the families. Think slave labor doesn't exist? Try earning 45 cents an hour.. in America in jail.
- Novukus 6y ago
  I'm not sure why people always jump to such extremes. When I see "defunding", I see something more like Camden, where they fired all the police officers and hired non-union to form a new police department. https://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/29/nyregion/overrun-by-crime-camden-trades-in-its-police-force.html https://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/29/nyregion/overrun-by-crime... https://www.citylab.com/equity/2018/01/what-happened-to-crime-in-camden/549542/ https://www.citylab.com/equity/2018/01/what-happened-to-crim... Seems like it was relatively successful without turning into a neoliberal hellscape.
downerending 6y ago
I've been watching videos of politicians literally advocating shutting down police departments, and will continue to believe my own lying eyes.
leetcrew 6y ago
I suspect it is an example of this: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Motte_and_bailey https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Motte_and_bailey when in ideologically-friendly circles, you say "defund the police!" and don't worry about how literally people will take it. they will assume your position is the same as theirs and agree. when an outsider questions you, you say "oh, of course we don't mean it literally". then you go back to using the unqualified version within your bubble. after a while, who knows what you mean? who cares?

xmprt 6y ago

It's ironic that you say that because the whole reason we have so many problems with police is because they aren't trained in many important areas like dealing with mental health. If instead we specialized the police more and moved funding to other social services, we'd have much better trained professionals which it seems like you're in favor of.

rodiger 6y ago
"Whole" reason seems a bit naive-- that probably plays a part in many of these instances but there are many others where it does not.