> Without trying to pick sides, the argument would be that these redistributive programs will not enhance public safety but instead will make things worse. The

> Without trying to pick sides, the argument would be that these redistributive programs will not enhance public safety but instead will make things worse. The police spend relatively little of their time doing what anyone would consider essential police work: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/19/upshot/unrest-police-time-violent-crime.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/19/upshot/unrest-police-time... I see no reason that redistributing their duties related to things like traffic infractions, non-criminal calls, property crime, medical emergencies, etc. would do anything but help public safety, as cops are not particularly good at most of those things. They lack the training and professional culture to handle them appropriately. Rather than give them yet more money to train in such a wide variety of situations, we should have actual professionals that know how to handle, say, mental health crises respond to them, and only involve police as a backup to them at most. Also, the vast majority of crime is related to poverty. Even gang violence is a product of poverty and the drug war, both of which can be addressed through policy and reallocation of funds. > For those who can afford it, the safety "gap" will be addressed by private security forces, gated communities, or simply re-locating (and taking their tax dollars with them). I wouldn't mind this much, as anyone interested in using their capital to do such things are also meddling unhelpfully in local politics.