4 ms·

Nah, I'm talking about taking away all their funding. If an organization is a criminal racketeering organization, you don't get to pretend like you're just fun

• SkipperCat 4y ago
  In theory that sounds good, but I think in practice it would fail. The vacuum would just be filled by some other nefarious and violent group. I like the idea of police having to have personal insurance. If they screw up enough, they lose their insurance and thus cannot afford to still engage in policing. Add to that outside oversight to their affairs (internal affair investigation is just prone to corruption) and let their unions only fight for working conditions, wages and benefits instead of being a lobby to keep bad cops.
• zoklet-enjoyer 4y ago
  1. Increase funding for other agencies and programs that deal with causes of crime and poverty 2. Fire all or most police officers and administrators and rehire based on different criteria 3. De-escalation training and zero tolerance for escalation 4. Stop protecting killer cops. Get rid of qualified immunity and every cop needs insurance coverage.
• tunesmith 4y ago
  Another example of how the marketing is lousy. Some people strenuously say "No, it doesn't mean remove all funding entirely, that would be insane, how dare you interpret it that way?" and others say, "That's exactly what we mean."
  • notch656c 4y ago
    It's intentionally vague as a form of trickery, as are most slogans intended to unite masses.
    • deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]