Defund the Police U.S or anywhere?

[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.

[Nurasu]

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.

His city doesn't even have high crime. There's a very low number of incidents per capita. If he wants to actually talk about NYPD protecting people, just point to the cops roughing up homeless people while the subway gets shot up a block away. Even still, Dems have to realize that Americans scare easily, and they need to watch their messaging on this.

[The Stormbringer]

Well it seems like a lot of cities ignore the conditions that lead to crime, so crime increases which leads to demands for more police. Due to the demand, they lower standards to get more police out in areas that have crime. We already have police with military gear, training and funding but it isn't helping. It just creates more problems.

I know this is an old post, but I have to point out how the bolded part is incorrect. They absolutely are not trained like the military are. If every cop had to go through a 13 week bootcamp, then additional training, on top of all the things they have to learn as a cop? Then we wouldn't be seeing NEARLY as many fuck-ups as we are now, and not just from the drop-outs who can't handle it. Not to mention, I would hope that they would have the same sort of command structure and accountability as the military, meaning you'd be seeing people get roasted over the coals for doing shit like shooting civilians that are running away, etc.

[Forogil]

His city doesn't even have high crime.

Depends https://www.neighborhoodscout.com/ny/new-york/crime says that Manhattan where his work, NAN, seems to be located isn't that safe (only safer than 19% of US cities). And that is for Manhattan as a whole - it seems that NAN is an especially crime-prone part of the city.

[motorized]

how do stupid posts like this not get closed

[Kathandira]

how do stupid posts like this not get closed

Why do you believe it is stupid?

[Santti]

Why do you believe it is stupid?

Well, it's a bit stupid, in the "or anywhere" part. This problem is quite uniquely American, or at the least when the other Western countries are concerned. Our police are already "defunded", and has been for the longest time.

[UnifiedDivide]

So, now that republicans are on board with defunding everything from the police to the DOJ, are certain posters suddenly going to be ok with this?

[Endus]

So, now that republicans are on board with defunding everything from the police to the DOJ, are certain posters suddenly going to be ok with this?

It'll be interesting to see if "defund the ____" is suddenly a "good slogan" now that it's serving Republican interests, at least.

[Milchshake]

So, now that republicans are on board with defunding everything from the police to the DOJ, are certain posters suddenly going to be ok with this?

Thing is, "Defund" has a longer history of usage for right wing policies. Defund the EPA, Defund Planned Parenthood, etc... That's why it makes the median voter so nervous.
But trying to explain marketing and branding makes you sell out.

[jonnysensible]

Thing is, "Defund" has a longer history of usage for right wing policies. Defund the EPA, Defund Planned Parenthood, etc... That's why it makes the median voter so nervous.
But trying to explain marketing and branding makes you sell out.

bit of a difference between abolish and defund