4 ms·
Does that poll support your argument? Spending and funding isn't directly correlated with "spending time". Chicago spends almost two billion dollars each year o
by bastawhiz 5y ago
Does that poll support your argument? Spending and funding isn't directly correlated with "spending time". Chicago spends almost two billion dollars each year on police. Yet it's often cited as one of the most dangerous cities. I'm sure plenty of folks in Chicago's South side would love more patrols. Is the right way to go about that really to keep throwing money at a system which appears to be squandering the funds? Especially when they spend tens (or some years, hundreds) of millions of dollars settling misconduct lawsuits?
- imajoredinecon 5y agoThe idea of "funding" is just a rough proxy for what people really want (or don't): more police presence. Garden-variety "defund the police" advocates think that, due to police violence, bias, and so on, the police should be a smaller part of how we address crime. The people in areas affected heavily by crime think that the police should be _more_ involved. That's the disagreement.
- cnelsenmilt 5y agoBut do they think the police should be more involved in exactly the same way they are now? I don't know, but I do assume that if asked they would suggest some changes in behavior: "police should be more involved but also they should stop with the X and do more of Y". Either way, that angle is certainly missing from the single question cited above.