What "defunding" ACTUALLY means
 

From a city that recognized a problem with their police department and knew, after trying to change the "culture" many times, failed because of the power of the union...and had to do something drastic.


Making a change (click here)



Rutrow though...

From your link

First, it’s worth defining “defunding the police” as policymakers are debating it. Despite some opponents fear mongering with scenes from the movie “The Purge,” in which all crimes are made legal for a 12-hour period, the policy has more to do with allocating a city’s funding away from policing and more towards efforts that might reduce the need for policing, such as mental health resources, public education, or employee training programs. As House Speaker Nancy Pelosi recently summarized, “what it means is [with] the resources that we have, let us spend it in a way that gives the most protection for the American people — protection for their safety, protection for their rights.”

I don't think violent criminals tend to partake in these programs they divert police funds to

According to the most recent data from the FBI, the total crime rate in Camden is 4,671.9 per 100,000 people. That's 81.90% higher than the national rate of 2,568.4 per 100,000 people and 189.64% higher than the New Jersey total crime rate of 1,613.0 per 100,000 people.

From your link;

It’s worth noting, however, that Camden’s county police force eventually unionized after disbanding the city’s prior unionized police force, and its operating costs have soared. Camden budgeted $68.45 million for police this year, accounting for nearly a third of the city’s overall budget. An internal state analysis cited by the Philadelphia Inquirer notes that its police spending “compels the contraction of other vital city departments and services

So they have police unions again, made some feel good diversions of funds, and now their costs are soaring and still have one of the highest crime rates in New Jersey.

Good Plan :MOJE_whot::MOJE_whot:

This is an example of good or bad?

With a crime rate of 47 per one thousand residents, Camden has one of the highest crime rates in America compared to all communities of all sizes - from the smallest towns to the very largest cities. One's chance of becoming a victim of either violent or property crime here is one in 21.

The goal is to reduce the risk that a person will BECOME a violent criminal in the first place. It isn't to stop people who are already violent criminals.

Most violent criminals have "issues" in their backgrounds that lead them to become violent criminals. It's not a goal. You don't hear Jimbob Villager's grandson say "I wanna be a violent criminal when I grow up, Pappy." You also don't hear Bobby Sue Trailermom's 14-year-old daughter say "Mama can I be a violent criminal when I get my drivers license?"

No - that doesn't happen. Something "happens" to cause people to become violent criminals. By improving education systems, social health and welfare, you increase the odds that kids will grow up to become productive members of society, and decrease the odds that they'll end up violent criminals.

This is all probability and statistics. Ask your local bookie, see what he thinks about it.

I am trying to look at all sides of this. CMN didn't link us to his source. Here is an article from NPR;

How Camden, N.J., Remade Its Police Force : Live Updates: Protests For Racial Justice : NPR

I am concerned about what will work opposed to what sounds nice. That is usually the issue that we are constantly at odds about. Yes. Yes. Yes. We want it, will it be practical, will it address the needs of real humans? Will it keep us safe or just spend more money? Or both???

Say what? :oops:

You need to go look at the post again.

P.S. It looks like this :ohdear:

Making a change (click here)

Thanks for showing us how defunding doesn't work and ends up costing more.

Very helpful

You're trying to explain to people who probably thought tightening air pollution emissions on vehicles didn't work, because the first few years after they were instituted...the air was still polluted. :oops:

Never mind that 98% of the vehicles on the road were pre-emission control and that...it takes time for things to change. :ohdear:

Just like in my link, that was conveniently ignored, where it said...

Complaints of excessive force have come down 95% since 2014, according to the department’s own metrics, and unlike violent protests across the Delaware River in Philadelphia last week, Camden enjoyed shared, peaceful protests between police and demonstrators

Honey, lets move to Camden! Police complaints are down!

Attachment 84505

I'm a literal kind of guy. When a politician says they are going to "defund" the police I take the statement at face value. Maybe their goal is to shock the public so that when they come in with a plan that lowers the police budget and reallocates the funds to "social improvement programs" the sheep will just say "oh, that's MUCH better".

That is what "they" say anyhow. I had everything going for me to go down the drain. I practically raised myself. I have had two speeding tickets in my whole life. I have had a lot of heart breaking things and scary health situations and not much money early on. We couldn't afford dance lessons or piano lessons or summer camp and we would not accept charity. I don't know. In a choice between propaganda and common sense, I will choose the latter. And I do think a lot of us are born with personalities that lead more to success than others. Now I am asking for it. P.S. I hated Hitler awfully.

Knowledge starts with a complete understanding...of the actual definition of a word.

Definition of "defunding." (Click Here)


Note that none of the examples states..."completely removing ALL financial support."




Versus the definition of..."unfunded."

UNFUNDED (Poke Here)


Hopefully, that makes things clearer...for some folks. :ho:

So what is the example here? A lot of words. Did they defund the police? If so, did anything get better? It is currently one of the most dangerous cities in the US. Your whole topic is suggesting something good happened. Sounds like a fiasco.

De

prefix
1.
(forming verbs and their derivatives) down; away.
"descend"
2.
(added to verbs and their derivatives) denoting removal or reversal.
"deaerate"

Great example. As we all know, Camden is a garden spot.

The actual definition(s)...are in post #12. :ho:

You might want to add the definition of "dismantling..."

Democratic Rep. Ilhan Omar went beyond calls to defund the police, instead calling for dismantling the Minneapolis Police Department because it is “rotten to the root.”

“We need to completely dismantle the Minneapolis Police Department. Because here’s the thing, there’s a cancer,” she said, continuing that amputation is needed so it doesn’t spread.

“The Minneapolis Police Department is rotten to the root, and so when we dismantle it, we get rid of that cancer.”

All I know, is that when an intruder is in my house and I call 911, I want a SWAT team, NOT a social worker

It seems to me that much of the violence that requires police attention is over drugs. I think that if you legalize drugs, crime will plummet. But, that’s not going to happen because too many powerful people are getting rich off illegal drugs—from drug cartels to private prisons—and they are bribing our elected officials.

Spot on !!
 

Spot on !!
If you want to control something, make it legal, tax it, and legislate (manage) it.
"Illegal" things are only punishable, not manageable.
Prohibition did not and still does not work.
Legalization and licensing is what worked.

Yes, I agree with you. It’s interesting how the same set of adversities affect people different ly.

One thing that needs to be addressed is — mental illness and addictions. These play a huge role in criminal behavior. And mental illness, not the person’s fault btw, can be hard to detect. But these areas deserve more attention and funding.

Exactly which “politician says they are going to “defund” the police? Exact quote please.

Camden has a poverty rate of 37.4 percent. A city that budgets 40% to policing and 10% to education and social welfare. Since 1990 we have seen a 30% drop in crime but a 445% percent increase for policing (FBI statictics). Teachers need to spend there own money for school supplies but it seems like there are government subsidies to buy military grade combat vechicles

I totally agree. Make dangerous substances legal so that the no-loads in society can kill themselves off....LEGALLY. And make more money for the government by taxing it so that the gov, that knows better than the lower minions also known as voters how to better spend our money can waste it some more and complain about not having enough money to give away to the surviving no-loads.

It is very interesting how some on here have finally seen the light and decided that unions can be the cause of much consternation and duress. Thank you for pointing out the "failure" of unions.

Citizens also deserve to be protected against those that are deemed/labeled as "mentally ill." Rather than steal funds from law enforcement, why not just allocate funding for those "behaviorists?"

Armored vehicles are utilized to protect those that protect us. They are not weaponized for war. Rather than put our protector's lives in jeopardy by cutting their much needed and under funding, why not just allocate funding for school supplies. Perhaps utilize the state lottery like other states supposedly do for education?

Which explains a lot, on why we lead democratic nations on the planet...with the % per capita that are in prison. :oops:

After all, what kid can restrain themselves...from playing with their new toy(s)? :ohdear:

So Why can't we KEEP police funding AND INCREASE SOCIAL SERVICES PROGRAMS or whatever they're advocating for the diversion of funds?

Defunding makes no sense to me. RETRAINING yes. REORGANIZATION yes. Let's not get to where we're giving criminals a free pass.

May I suggest.....rather than "improving education systems, social health and welfare, you increase the odds that kids will grow up to become productive members of society, and decrease the odds that they'll end up violent criminals", you start in the home. Teach your children respect, teach them to respect their elders, teach them to respect the law, teach them to respect themselves and life, and teach them to respect authority. So often the teaching in the home is sadly missing and is reflected in the attitude of the child, in their youth and in their adult life. They are being taught to defy authority, defy responsibility and defy taking control of their own actions. The education system and certainly social health and welfare are not going to have any positive effect if the parents don't provide the discipline in the home.

Part of the problem is time and again police everywhere respond to calls they're not trained to handle. An emotionally distraught person, unless armed, doesn't need a police officer they need someone who is trained to talk to them and reel them in.

Many times in dealing with EDPs police do only what they know and that's to restrain and arrest the person then they get put in the court system which is also undertrained for these situations and overtaxed by them. Sometimes due to improper training police have actually escalated EPD calls and they've caused serious injuries or deaths.

Police should handle crimes and criminals, people crying out emotionally for help don't need a cop they need a counselor.

So, what explains the fact that multiple children can be raised in the same household, under the exact same "respect/morals/attitudes/Etc."...yet turn out completely different? :confused:

The effects of 'nature versus nurture'...is a very old subject.

I've always said that we parents usually get too much credit, and too much blame...on how our children turn out. :shrug:

Of course, there will be some with great and successful kids (which I fortunately have)...that will totally disagree. :D

You've just described the result of improving educational systems, social health and welfare.

President Johnson’s war on poverty worked right? Some children need a parent transplant and no amount of money will change that.

And that is why the police officers need the monies to protect themselves and the community.

Better yet, call the meat wagon.

History has proven that government funding does not improve quality of life. This country spends billions to "help", yet only succeeds in keeping the downtrodden down. We only offer handouts instead of hands up and out of the quagmire.

If the majority of Americans feel the police are too aggressive and “defunding” them is the right thing to do then why does just the talk of it cause this response? Anyone who thinks defunding should be done should walk through Seattle’s “capital free zone” if the warlord will let you pass.

During the last week of May, firearm sales were up 78% over 2019.

Going to make a great movie. "Cities Without Police"

The problem is not too much funding, but not enough funding. Why would anyone want to be in law enforcement when they are so badly under paid? Most departments work with the equivalent of flintlocks against criminals with automatic weapons. And anyone that would ask for a social worker to respond when they call 911 does not have an emergency. Police officers are trained to be social workers, clergy, EMT's, etc. Not all training is the same, but most train for just about any contingency they are sent on. If you want a better police force, then you need to spend money on it. I have seen some Departments that require at least a two year degree before they will hire. And believe it or not, Affirmative Action did NOT always improve policing. Having almost a million police officers in the U.S. is sure to have a few failures. I bet if you were to take the percentage of bad cops to the percentage of bad doctors in our country, you would say there is no problem in comparison. Police Dept's are not the problem, people are the problem. But, like anything else run by the gov whether local or federal, it won't be as well managed as the private sector.