Defund the Police U.S or anywhere?

[Endus]

Sure thing champ. Let me know how how the polls have been going for all the people who want to defund the police. Tons of them in office right? None of them have been recalled? I'm not talking about yougov polls. I'm talking about the voting polls.

I'll say it again, very clearly. I am more interested in being honest than I am in being successful I would rather not win hearts and minds at all than to propagandize to them in order to "win". In fact, I would argue your insistence on better marketing/propagandizing is an attack on democracy, fundamentally. But allow me to let Noam Chomsky make that case for me since he does it better than I could;

“In fact quite generally, commercial advertising is fundamentally an effort to undermine markets. We should recognize that. If you’ve taken an economics course, you know that markets are supposed to be based on informed consumers making rational choices. You take a look at the first ad you see on television and ask yourself … is that it’s purpose? No it’s not. It’s to create uninformed consumers making irrational choices. And these same institutions run political campaigns. It’s pretty much the same: you have to undermine democracy by trying to get uninformed people to make irrational choices.”
- Noam Chomsky

The ideas of funding social services to replace police on calls they're not qualified for and supporting social services that actually prevent crime are popular ideas once you explain them. The problem is getting those people to listen to an explanation.

They really aren't as popular as you suggest. Hence the overall failure of the Defund movement, dude.

Pretty apparent. You don't really seem like you want to solve the problem, and a lot of your posting here has been about how america is unsaveable or other psuedo-accelerationist claptrap about how we should just let the country fail. It's incredible how bad your takes have been lately on anything other than climate change.

You're just saying you don't like me, and not actually making any critical argument against anything I've said, here.

Oh man, look at how effective those capitalists "marketing" was.

You're pointing to McCarthyism as a successful model we should pattern ourselves after.

That's propaganda. Lying to people to garner support is not ethical.

The whole point is that people support the ideas once they've had them explained to them, and that they don't sit around for that explanation when your messaging gives them the idea that you want to make them less safe.

Then the truth will win out. Why should I lie to them? Because that's what you're suggesting. That we lie to people, because the truth is intimidating.

Again, I'd rather lose honestly than win dishonestly.

[Ripster42]

I'll say it again, very clearly. I am more interested in being honest than I am in being successful I would rather not win hearts and minds at all than to propagandize to them in order to "win". In fact, I would argue your insistence on better marketing/propagandizing is an attack on democracy, fundamentally. But allow me to let Noam Chomsky make that case for me since he does it better than I could;

“In fact quite generally, commercial advertising is fundamentally an effort to undermine markets. We should recognize that. If you’ve taken an economics course, you know that markets are supposed to be based on informed consumers making rational choices. You take a look at the first ad you see on television and ask yourself … is that it’s purpose? No it’s not. It’s to create uninformed consumers making irrational choices. And these same institutions run political campaigns. It’s pretty much the same: you have to undermine democracy by trying to get uninformed people to make irrational choices.”
- Noam Chomsky

And you're saying it's lying, when it's not. Where do you buy all your straw?

They really aren't as popular as you suggest. Hence the overall failure of the Defund movement, dude.

Again, is it the ideas or the 'marketing'?

You're just saying you don't like me, and not actually making any critical argument against anything I've said, here.

Right on schedule I guess after I reminded you about your usual strategy. It's you who brought it up though: you don't have an iron in the fire, and it's been obvious because you've been pushing accelerationist pap.

You're pointing to McCarthyism as a successful model we should pattern ourselves after.

He had incredibly effective messaging. The fact that it was put to a negative purpose is the problem, not the fact that he used effective messaging. It's like saying all knives are bad because some serial killers use them when talking about surgery.

That's propaganda. Lying to people to garner support is not ethical.

Once again, it's not lying. It's not even telling half truths.

Then the truth will win out. Why should I lie to them? Because that's what you're suggesting. That we lie to people, because the truth is intimidating.

Again, I'd rather lose honestly than win dishonestly.[/FONT]

1) It's not lying.

2) There are a lot of times the truth doesn't win out. Because of shitty messaging.

[Endus]

He had incredibly effective messaging. The fact that it was put to a negative purpose is the problem, not the fact that he used effective messaging. It's like saying all knives are bad because some serial killers use them when talking about surgery.

Propaganda is a manipulative, unethical method, in and of itself. That you're defending it is . . . alarming.

Once again, it's not lying. It's not even telling half truths.

It's telling empty non-truths, in pursuit of not telling open and honest truths.

Sorry, I'll stand on the side of open honesty on this, and basically any, topic.

[Ripster42]

Propaganda is a manipulative, unethical method, in and of itself. That you're defending it is . . . alarming.

Sure champ. Propaganda. Unethical.

It's telling empty non-truths, in pursuit of not telling open and honest truths.

Sorry, I'll stand on the side of open honesty on this, and basically any, topic.

It's arguing for a better slogan so people don't immediately dismiss you. It's not a "non-truth". You'll stand on the side of being stubborn because, as you said, you don't have an iron in the fight and don't care if the problem actually gets solved. That's what's alarming: You don't actually give a shit. You want america to fail as a democracy. You don't believe any corrective action should be taken on any number of issues, including the messaging surrounding this, because we're a failed state that's beyond repair. I've seen your posting:

I've also clearly stated myself that unless the USA can suppress and marginalize fascist and bigoted voices, the country's already doomed and in the process of collapse. So that's not really a contradiction of my general position.

[Endus]

That's what's alarming: You don't actually give a shit. You want america to fail as a democracy. You don't believe any corrective action should be taken on any number of issues, including the messaging surrounding this, because we're a failed state that's beyond repair. I've seen your posting:

And somehow, you didn't make any effort to understand it. What you quoted was not a statement of desire, it was an observation of a current reality that I was bemoaning and arguing for action to forestall, in the very post you're quoting. It's right there in what you quoted; that efforts need to be made to address the rise of bigotry and fascism or the country will collapse.

If someone's suggesting to you what changes need to be made to correct the nation's current course and hoping that can be accomplished, they don't "Want America to fail", nor do they think the country is "beyond repair". I'm literally pointing at how it can be repaired and expressing my hope that it would be.

I'm absolutely baffled how you can read that quote and somehow interpret it in a way that's almost diametrically opposed to what it actually says.

Also, the "I don't have an iron in this fire" comment simply meant that I'm not American, so I'm speaking as an outsider and making recommendations (which, again, contradicts the story you're making up about me). If we had comparable issues here in Canada, I would be more active on that front, but we don't. But I actually do give a shit about the USA, despite you claiming otherwise, and that's why I post so much about American politics. It's not gloating, it's me trying to help. Pointing to my recognition of my own limits as to what I can actually achieve and claiming that means I'm somehow trying to destroy America is absolutely fuckin' ludicrous, man.

[Ripster42]

And somehow, you didn't make any effort to understand it. What you quoted was not a statement of desire, it was an observation of a current reality that I was bemoaning and arguing for action to forestall, in the very post you're quoting. It's right there in what you quoted; that efforts need to be made to address the rise of bigotry and fascism or the country will collapse.

If someone's suggesting to you what changes need to be made to correct the nation's current course and hoping that can be accomplished, they don't "Want America to fail", nor do they think the country is "beyond repair". I'm literally pointing at how it can be repaired and expressing my hope that it would be.

I'm absolutely baffled how you can read that quote and somehow interpret it in a way that's almost diametrically opposed to what it actually says.

Also, the "I don't have an iron in this fire" comment simply meant that I'm not American, so I'm speaking as an outsider and making recommendations (which, again, contradicts the story you're making up about me). If we had comparable issues here in Canada, I would be more active on that front, but we don't. But I actually do give a shit about the USA, despite you claiming otherwise, and that's why I post so much about American politics. It's not gloating, it's me trying to help. Pointing to my recognition of my own limits as to what I can actually achieve and claiming that means I'm somehow trying to destroy America is absolutely fuckin' ludicrous, man.

It's quite possible that Democrats can't win back the Senate. Like, literally not ever gonna happen. And if that's the case, then the elections are effectively meaningless. Manchin is meaningless. Because Manchin just helps you keep circling the drain. He doesn't do anything to help pull America out of the death spiral to fascism.

It is what you said. Actually, I was overly generous, since you directly suggested anyone having an issue with Manchin was a secret 5th column Republican agent working to undercut their opponents.

And frankly; if the choices are a slow-but-inevitable drift rightwards into fascism, or a chance that will likely fail to bring about leftist reform, I'll take the latter option every time. Because failure on that option just leads to the same outcome as the other, anyway.

If the country can't be dragged out of this hole, then efforts trying to keep it from falling in are literally wasted effort and the focus should be redirected. Trying to make sure you keep circling the drain longer but not trying to get out of the sink itself is defeatist, inherently.

Fine, here's you arguing that we're "in a death spiral" or that because we're not pushing strongly enough for progressives that we're in a 'slow-but inevitable drift rightwards into fascism.' That efforts trying to keep it from falling in are 'wasted effort' if we don't push progressive policies. That shifting the overton window from where it's currently at by moving towards the center right from where it is now is 'circling the drain' and 'defeatist'.

It wasn't one post out of context, it's one in a series of posts you've made. Remember, this is you bringing this up. You "don't have an iron in the fire" here. Your inability to acknowledge that shitty messaging is counterproductive just highlights the problem. This isn't you trying to help. If you were trying to help, you'd acknowledge how you yourself respond to messaging, that you also make initial uninformed reactions (the biden thread on the topic of insider trading), that you don't change your opinions when confronted with new information (this thread and your response to it should really be driving this point home for you).

The problem with democrats is that we suck at messaging. We had 10 years of fairly good messaging from in the late 50s early to mid 60s, and one year of effective messaging (YES WE CAN!) in the aughts. That's about it. This resistance to the solution to the actual problem, the dismissal of effective messaging, evinced by you among others, is incredibly damaging.

[Cthulhu 2020]

I dug into this pretty concretely in this thread, and lemme tell you, what I got back was that the messaging was absolutely effective, the problem was that the idea itself was unpopular.

Basically this. For all the tone policing done by conservatives and "centrists" about how the slogan sounds antagonizing, the reality is that they don't like the movement itself, not that the slogan itself failed to sell them on it. We've argued them into a corner, providing ample evidence that shifting funds from militarized police to rehabilitation and social workers would dramatically reduce crime.

The core root of it all is, these people don't actually want less crime. They don't want a better society. They don't want reformed criminals contributing more labor to our economy.

They want retribution. They want to punish criminals. There's a very clear glee they express when talking about locking up criminals.

So yeah, this tone policing of the slogan is one giant distraction. The slogan is fine. People are just sadistic and don't give a shit about other people's well being.

- - - Updated - - -

Also, anyone who knows "plain english" (as they like to claim) would realize that "Defund the police" sounds oddly specific. Phrases such as "Disband the police" and "Abolish the police" are far more straightforward and easy to understand if people actually wanted to get rid of police entirely. "Defund" is a strange little word to use and SHOULD raise eyebrows at its usage.

The slogan would be far more straightforward if people ACTUALLY wanted to get rid of the police. But for as much as I realize this is common sense, we also know that common sense isn't so common.

And again, we know that the people wagging their fingers and tone policing are against the movement no matter what the slogan is.

[Shadowferal]

Basically this. For all the tone policing done by conservatives and "centrists" about how the slogan sounds antagonizing, the reality is that they don't like the movement itself, not that the slogan itself failed to sell them on it. We've argued them into a corner, providing ample evidence that shifting funds from militarized police to rehabilitation and social workers would dramatically reduce crime.

Yes, everyone in blm as well as liberals in general... /s

The core root of it all is, these people don't actually want less crime. They don't want a better society. They don't want reformed criminals contributing more labor to our economy.

Earlier post;

As already said more liberal cities aren't going to hear you.
Portland Sees Spike in Gun Violence; Some Say Defunding of Police is to Blame

Portland police warned that other cities that have made a similar choice saw spikes in homicides. Stockton, California, began disbanding and defunding police units dedicated to gun violence in 2010. Stockton then saw record homicide rates in 2011 and 2012. Data reported by the Stockton police shows homicides significantly declines after the city restored the units.

-----
As a result,
Portland among U.S. cities adding funds back into police departments

“Many Portlanders no longer feel safe,” Mayor Ted Wheeler said. “And it is our duty, as leaders of this city, to take action and deliver better results within our crisis response system.”

Portland isn’t the only liberal city doing an about-face on police spending. From New York City to Los Angeles — in cities that had some of the largest Black Lives Matter protests, and some with an extensive history of police brutality — police departments are seeing their finances partially restored in response to rising homicides, an officer exodus and political pressures.

In recent mayoral elections, some winning candidates have pledged to bolster public safety budgets. In Minneapolis, where Floyd was killed, voters rejected a proposal to replace the police department with a new Department of Public Safety.

[Specialka]

Basically this. For all the tone policing done by conservatives and "centrists" about how the slogan sounds antagonizing, the reality is that they don't like the movement itself, not that the slogan itself failed to sell them on it. We've argued them into a corner, providing ample evidence that shifting funds from militarized police to rehabilitation and social workers would dramatically reduce crime.

The core root of it all is, these people don't actually want less crime. They don't want a better society. They don't want reformed criminals contributing more labor to our economy.

They want retribution. They want to punish criminals. There's a very clear glee they express when talking about locking up criminals.

So yeah, this tone policing of the slogan is one giant distraction. The slogan is fine. People are just sadistic and don't give a shit about other people's well being.

- - - Updated - - -

Also, anyone who knows "plain english" (as they like to claim) would realize that "Defund the police" sounds oddly specific. Phrases such as "Disband the police" and "Abolish the police" are far more straightforward and easy to understand if people actually wanted to get rid of police entirely. "Defund" is a strange little word to use and SHOULD raise eyebrows at its usage.

The slogan would be far more straightforward if people ACTUALLY wanted to get rid of the police. But for as much as I realize this is common sense, we also know that common sense isn't so common.

And again, we know that the people wagging their fingers and tone policing are against the movement no matter what the slogan is.

Where are your proofs that it works ? All I can see is that when it was tested ,it was a failure .

[Deus Mortis]

Yes, everyone in blm as well as liberals in general... /s Earlier post;

As already said more liberal cities aren't going to hear you.
Portland Sees Spike in Gun Violence; Some Say Defunding of Police is to Blame

Portland police warned that other cities that have made a similar choice saw spikes in homicides. Stockton, California, began disbanding and defunding police units dedicated to gun violence in 2010. Stockton then saw record homicide rates in 2011 and 2012. Data reported by the Stockton police shows homicides significantly declines after the city restored the units.

-----
As a result,
Portland among U.S. cities adding funds back into police departments

“Many Portlanders no longer feel safe,” Mayor Ted Wheeler said. “And it is our duty, as leaders of this city, to take action and deliver better results within our crisis response system.”

Portland isn’t the only liberal city doing an about-face on police spending. From New York City to Los Angeles — in cities that had some of the largest Black Lives Matter protests, and some with an extensive history of police brutality — police departments are seeing their finances partially restored in response to rising homicides, an officer exodus and political pressures.

In recent mayoral elections, some winning candidates have pledged to bolster public safety budgets. In Minneapolis, where Floyd was killed, voters rejected a proposal to replace the police department with a new Department of Public Safety.

Since it appears that he has not read the vast amount of links already provided in this thread, I will also add some that have already been posted.
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/...ack-crime.html

Last month—more than a year after the murder of George Floyd, and several months after a Minneapolis police officer was convicted for killing him—a consortium of news organizations asked 800 Minneapolis voters what they thought of the city’s police department. Most viewed the department unfavorably. Nevertheless, three-quarters of the poll’s Black respondents said the city shouldn’t reduce its police force. Black voters were considerably more opposed to this idea than white voters were. When the poll offered an alternative—replacing the police department with a “Department of Public Safety,” which might include cops but would focus on public health and be more closely supervised by the City Council—white respondents favored the idea. But Black respondents, on balance, rejected it.

The findings in Minneapolis and Detroit are part of a larger story. When people are asked what they really think about criminal justice, the answers are complicated. Many white people are open to police reform, and many Black people are wary of curtailing law enforcement. These aspects of public opinion are important to understand as Democratic politicians and advocates of reform grapple with a treacherous political environment. Floyd’s death brought sustained attention to the ongoing problem of unjust police violence, but calls to defund the police backfired in the 2020 elections, hurting Democrats and undermining the movement for reform. Meanwhile, homicides surged in many cities, alarming residents and boosting public support for law and order. Republicans, emboldened by this support, have drawn a hard line in the Senate, rejecting Democratic proposals to reform law enforcement.

One of the worst things to propose, politically, is defunding the police. Americans reject that idea by about 40 percentage points. Democrats and people of color are against it. The only idea that’s less popular is abolishing the police, which, in an Economist-YouGov poll taken this month, lost by 45 points among Black Americans, by 64 points among Democrats, and by 76 points among all voters.

What most Black people want is better policing, not less policing. And they’re willing to pay for it. Sixty percent of Black Americans favor “increasing funding for the police to put more officers on duty,” and 64 percent favor “deploying more police officers to street patrols.” When they’re asked how much money should be spent on “police reform,” 60 percent of Black people say more; only 17 percent say less. It’s not so much the funding or defunding that appeals to them. It’s changing the system and protecting the community.

Given these sentiments, Latinos overwhelmingly favor bigger, not smaller, police budgets. Most Latinos, unlike most white Americans, agree that recent incidents of police brutality and misconduct warrant major changes to police practices. But they don’t want defunding. They want reform.

I have to question why some people are so willing to just go tunnel vision on a losing position when it is obvious they can get what they want if they play the longer game. Keep the same amount of police, add in more specialists for certain calls that do not need police(the majority of people are already for bigger budgets). Then when crime starts to lower and police have less on their plate for the amount of various things they handle, then you will be more likely to get what you want with reducing the amount of police that are on the streets. Atm though the majority of America including all the minorities groups want more police on the streets. They just want better police.

[Cthulhu 2020]

As already said more liberal cities aren't going to hear you.

I'm fully aware that some people believe that throwing police at the situation is the best course of action. When presented with better solutions like deferring funding to social workers and reforming criminals. They don't want that. As I mentioned in my post, it's not about making safer cities. It's about harshly punishing criminals, pure and simple.

Just removing funding from police and doing nothing with that funding we'd of course see small spikes in crime. Thus the whole point of defund, putting that money into social services to rehabilitate.

And as per the NPR link, One officer can prevent anywhere from 0.08 to 0.1 homicides per year, and each additional officer costs easily six figures per year. You need 10-17 officers to prevent a single homicide in a year, and over $10M in operating costs. Other methods have shown far more efficacy in reducing crime. But again, people don't want safer cities. They want retribution against criminals.

Those are just the facts.

- - - Updated - - -

Where are your proofs that it works ? All I can see is that when it was tested ,it was a failure .

You have google. You're being lazy. But here, since you're clueless, I'll give you a bread crumb to get started so you can start doing your own research. Again, your ignorance is not something to be proud of. Educate yourself on a topic before making yourself look bad.

Norway's rehabilitation prisons turn criminals into good neighbors.



The recidivism (chance that a criminal will commit another crime) of the USA is between 44 and 52% depending on which source you look at.

But that's just turning the prisons into rehab centers. There's also other issues, like having more social workers work with low income households, as well as more safety nets. There's numerous solutions that actually lead to less crime. But again, apparently you just want to see punishment, not lower crime rates.



Why are people so dishonest and ask why just removing police has failed? We have numerous examples from tons of other countries where such systems drastically reduce crime. The information is out there, you only need to look it up. But people dishonestly claim that the movement simply wants to remove police altogether. I should be ignoring arguments made in bad faith, but apparently people need things explained out to them in detail.

[Specialka]

I'm fully aware that some people believe that throwing police at the situation is the best course of action. When presented with better solutions like deferring funding to social workers and reforming criminals. They don't want that. As I mentioned in my post, it's not about making safer cities. It's about harshly punishing criminals, pure and simple.

Just removing funding from police and doing nothing with that funding we'd of course see small spikes in crime. Thus the whole point of defund, putting that money into social services to rehabilitate.

And as per the NPR link, One officer can prevent anywhere from 0.08 to 0.1 homicides per year, and each additional officer costs easily six figures per year. You need 10-17 officers to prevent a single homicide in a year, and over $10M in operating costs. Other methods have shown far more efficacy in reducing crime. But again, people don't want safer cities. They want retribution against criminals.

Those are just the facts.

- - - Updated - - -



You have google. You're being lazy. But here, since you're clueless, I'll give you a bread crumb to get started so you can start doing your own research. Again, your ignorance is not something to be proud of. Educate yourself on a topic before making yourself look bad.

Norway's rehabilitation prisons turn criminals into good neighbors.



The recidivism (chance that a criminal will commit another crime) of the USA is between 44 and 52% depending on which source you look at.

But that's just turning the prisons into rehab centers. There's also other issues, like having more social workers work with low income households, as well as more safety nets. There's numerous solutions that actually lead to less crime. But again, apparently you just want to see punishment, not lower crime rates.



Why are people so dishonest and ask why just removing police has failed? We have numerous examples from tons of other countries where such systems drastically reduce crime. The information is out there, you only need to look it up. But people dishonestly claim that the movement simply wants to remove police altogether. I should be ignoring arguments made in bad faith, but apparently people need things explained out to them in detail.

You made the claim, you back it up. Period. I am not doing your job for you.

Btw you are comparing apple and orange. It is not because the USA is a country and Norway is a country that you can compare them from the get go.

[Cthulhu 2020]

You made the claim, you back it up.

I did, your turn. Or are you just sealioning? Please don't make me report you.

The US failed because it removed some officers and didn't implement any new systems for the prevention of crime. Like no fucking shit it failed. The fact remains that such systems work well in every other country that has them. It's rather dishonest for you to claim the system "failed" when the funding wasn't placed into other proper systems.

The initial wave of "defunding" only removed funds from police departments and did not put that money towards other crime preventative measures, the thing this movement is most advocating for.

- - - Updated - - -

Also, it takes 10-17 police officers and $10M to equate to a single prevented homicide in a year, according to to the one source linked thus far. But the source also does not account for all the times police shoot innocent people because they're trigger happy.

There's also the fact that while arrest quotas were made illegal, many police departments still have an unofficial arrest quota systems to skirt around that law. Sometimes police officers will arrest people just to meet their monthly arrest quota.

And then there's the what, hundred police that stood around during an active school shooting?

The USA police are a fucking joke.

- - - Updated - - -

And @Specialka , I realize google is hard (because apparently people who want to participate in politics have no time to actually take 30 seconds and use google), so here's more work for you:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...ay/9054639002/

Fact check: No evidence defunding police to blame for homicide increases, experts say

The claim: 12 major cities led by Democratic mayors broke homicide records in 2021, a result of trying to defund the police
Some conservative commentators on social media are blaming the "defund the police" movement for a recent spike in homicide rates.

"12 major cities broke homicide records this year," reads text in a Dec. 16 Facebook post from a page called The Proud Republicans. "They are ALL led by Democrat mayors. This is what happens when you try to 'defund the police.'"

The post, which conservative content creator Benny Johnson originally tweeted Dec. 15, racked up more than 700 shares within two weeks. Similar claims have accumulated thousands of additional interactions on Facebook and Instagram, according to CrowdTangle, a social media insights tool.



Between 2019 and 2020, the U.S. recorded its highest increase in the national homicide rate in modern history. And in 2021, 12 cities did break their annual homicide records.

However, most of those cities did not substantively cut their 2021 police spending as part of a defunding initiative. While it's too soon to say for sure, experts told USA TODAY a combination of social unrest, rising firearm sales, economic stress and other pandemic-related factors could be behind the spike in homicides.

"In a nutshell, there doesn’t appear to be evidence that the defunding movement has caused violent crime increases," David Carter, a criminal justice professor at Michigan State University, said in an email.

Not all cities defunded police.

The reports indeed identify the 12 cities as Albuquerque, New Mexico; Austin, Texas; Baton Rouge, Louisiana; Columbus; Indianapolis; Louisville, Kentucky; Philadelphia; Portland, Oregon; Rochester, New York; St. Paul, Minnesota; Toledo, Ohio and Tucson, Arizona.

But the blame here is misplaced – most of those cities did not substantively cut their 2021 police spending as part of a defunding initiative.

Defunding the police generally means taking money away from police departments and, in many cases, reallocating it to social programs or other city initiatives. The movement grew in 2020 after the murder of George Floyd by Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin sparked nationwide protests.

Portland was among the first cities to defund its police department. In June 2020, the city cut $15 million from its police budget for the following fiscal year.

While some of the cities that hit homicide records in 2021 followed suit, others did not commit to defunding initiatives. Several actually increased funding for the police.

"Many – most – large cities have Democrat mayors," Ken Novak, a professor of criminal justice and criminology at the University of Missouri-Kansas City, said in an email. "There are many cities with Democrat mayors that are not on this list, so to suggest there is a ‘cause and effect’ is pretty irresponsible."

When I typed in "Crime went up in cities where police funding was cut" (So that I'd potentially get hits from sites claiming this to be true) the entire first page of results were about how this was a bogus claim made by a few conservatives on twitter, or about how crime went up but it went up across all cities, not just ones where police were defunded.

Have a nice day.

[Shadowferal]

MSNBC’s Sharpton: Defunding police ‘something a latte liberal may go for’

MSNBC’s Al Sharpton said Tuesday that defunding the New York City Police Department is an idea “a latte liberal” may advocate, but not by those “Blacker and poorer” who have seen shootings and homicides surge in New York over the summer.

Sharpton’s comments on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” come as the NYPD reported a 166 percent increase in shootings in August compared to the same month last year.

Overall in 2020, New York has seen an 87 percent increase in shooting incidents across the city, with more than 1,000 reported compared to 541 at the same time in 2019.

“We’ve always heard about the tale of two cities. On the side of the city that I come from, which is Blacker and poorer, we’ve seen more in terms of gun usage. I got a lot of attention when I did the eulogy for George Floyd’s funeral, but I also, a month later, preached [at] a 1-year-old kid’s funeral in Brooklyn who was killed by a stray bullet,” Sharpton said.

“Six people were shot over Labor Day weekend at a festival in Brooklyn, so I would say statistically we’re not much higher than where we were, but on the ground it is certainly feeling more violent, feeling more unsafe in unsafe communities,” he continued.

[Cthulhu 2020]

MSNBC’s Sharpton: Defunding police ‘something a latte liberal may go for’

MSNBC’s Al Sharpton said Tuesday that defunding the New York City Police Department is an idea “a latte liberal” may advocate, but not by those “Blacker and poorer” who have seen shootings and homicides surge in New York over the summer.

Sharpton’s comments on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” come as the NYPD reported a 166 percent increase in shootings in August compared to the same month last year.

Overall in 2020, New York has seen an 87 percent increase in shooting incidents across the city, with more than 1,000 reported compared to 541 at the same time in 2019.

“We’ve always heard about the tale of two cities. On the side of the city that I come from, which is Blacker and poorer, we’ve seen more in terms of gun usage. I got a lot of attention when I did the eulogy for George Floyd’s funeral, but I also, a month later, preached [at] a 1-year-old kid’s funeral in Brooklyn who was killed by a stray bullet,” Sharpton said.

“Six people were shot over Labor Day weekend at a festival in Brooklyn, so I would say statistically we’re not much higher than where we were, but on the ground it is certainly feeling more violent, feeling more unsafe in unsafe communities,” he continued.

Al Sharpton is a great man, there's no denying that. But in this case he's wrong.

It has been demonstrated that:

1. There is nothing that links the latest increase in crime with removal of funding from PD's. Crime went up in cities where the police budget actually increased. It's irresponsible to make the claim that the decrease in funding created the crime.

2. Systems where criminals are rehabilitated instead of harshly punished see a massively lower rate of criminal behavior reoccurrence. It creates a society with less crime and less criminals.

3. Social service systems which work with poorer families has in other countries shown a significant decrease in crime before it even happens. On top of that, we know that crime is often borne of poverty. We could take those hundreds of millions of dollars being thrown at police, and put it in the hands of the poor who largely only commit crimes out of desperation. But something something boot straps something something FREEDOM. While ironically being the least free country.

4. Thus far, no system has properly "Defunded" the police as the system asks. As mentioned in this thread, defunding the police is about diverting funding to rehab, social services, welfare, and other systems that would serve to significantly reduce crime. No city actually did this. The only ones that defunded the police took the money and didn't do shit with it. We'd see far more success if something was actually done.

[Shadowferal]

Al Sharpton is a great man, there's no denying that. But in this case he's wrong.

Sharpton would say the same thing to you that voters in Minneapolis said; "You all don't live here."

‘Defund the police’ still haunts Democrats

Polling shows this intraparty fight could hurt them in the midterms

On Feb. 13, George Stephanopoulos raised the issue of Rep. Cori Bush’s statements calling for defunding the police during an interview with Speaker Nancy Pelosi. “With all due respect in the world to Cori Bush,” she replied, “that is not the position of the Democratic Party.”

Pelosi then declared, “Defund the police is dead.”

Two weeks later, in his State of the Union address, President Biden called for increased funding for police: “We should all agree: The answer is not to defund the police. The answer is to fund the police. Fund them. Fund them.”

“Defund the police” may no longer be the position of the Democratic Party, but when Cori Bush, AOC or any member of the Squad weighs in on any issue, the Twittersphere lights up like a cop car in hot pursuit. It seems the media can’t get enough of the Squad, and polling shows that this intraparty fight over the issue of policing and crime has not only become a major headache for Pelosi but is also taking a toll on the Democrats’ credibility.

When the electorate was asked in the Winning the Issues (WTI) February survey if they believed that we need to defund the police, only 21 percent believed the statement, while 64 percent did not. Independents were even more adamant that defunding the police was a bad idea, coming in at an overwhelming 12 percent for and 70 percent against.

[Kathandira]

I have to question why some people are so willing to just go tunnel vision on a losing position when it is obvious they can get what they want if they play the longer game. Keep the same amount of police, add in more specialists for certain calls that do not need police(the majority of people are already for bigger budgets).

Take the money that would go to advanced technology that they don't actually need, and hire staff to handle specialized cases. Mental health professionals, social workers, better training, things of the such. Keep the # of officers as is, no need to remove them. They just don't need military tech to enforce the law. That is all this defunding should be about. Defunding military level equipment that our local officers are needlessly provided.

[Cthulhu 2020]

Sharpton would say the same thing to you that voters in Minneapolis said; "You all don't live here."

It's his opinions. That's all. The experts disagree with him as well.

Also just because his city has high crime, AGAIN, does not mean that throwing more police at it is the proper solution. He doesn't live in my city either. Him living in a city doesn't grant any insight over this issue that an expert wouldn't have better information and understanding of. We've thoroughly established that there are other measures that are far better. Insisting otherwise is either ignorance or folly.

[Al Gorefiend]

America has too many insane people hiding in plain sight. I think the lingering knowledge that the cops could be here any minute is what stops the majority of these insane people from acting out.

[Forogil]

Defunding military level equipment that our local officers are needlessly provided.

As stated before much of the military equipment doesn't cost the police much, as it is part of a federal 1033-program and Obama and possibly Biden have limited that (Trump and Clinton went the other way).

But for some reason people don't associate that with the 'defund' movement.

However, one reason the police has armored vehicles and military weapons is that criminals also have them. Remember Norco?
That doesn't mean that all police officers need them, just that in some cases it is needed - and in other cases to paraphrase Sharpton 'I don't live there', so I don't know how much is needed.