• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Defunding police is this a good idea?

X Factor said:
It’s an incredibly stupid idea and one I fervently hope the Democrat party gets fully behind.
Click to expand...

It's one of those ideas which I suspect and I hope citizens with common sense will find appalling.
How could getting rid of more police protection result in less crime in those areas which need more police protection?
When minority women in poor neighborhoods call the police to protect them from their boyfriends, husbands, or ex-husbands, will the police be there to respond and perhaps save from defenseless woman from being beaten to death?
Will mayors like Chicago's Lori Lightfoot just throw up their hands and say they haven't been able to do anything about black-on-black shootings anyway so just let the criminals kill each other? Hopefully, collateral damage (innocent victims) will be controllable.
The smartest thing the Trump campaign can do right now is to associate the Democratic party to the party that is weak on law and order and are willing to reduce police department budgets in order to give money to those neighborhoods that are spawning criminals who cannot be controlled.
 
beerftw said:
Defunding police, I think it is a bad idea, from a law and order standpoint, but I also think it aids police corruption. My logic is that defunded police forces are strained to keep anyone no matter how corrupt due o their experience, especially with budget problems blocking proper numbers from joining, this can lead to an issue where xyz station is forced to keep xyz corrupt cop due to lack of funds for replacement police through training programs.

Where I think thee is a problem though is in police forces buying military gear in bulk, it is bad when when you are so strained on budget that hiring proper numbers is an issue but you can afford multiple mraps and a fully armed swat team but somehow not normal officers. This latter issue is a big one as well, and the prior has to do with funding but the latter has to do with spendin, meaning police stations need to be funded however they still will have the same problems if the money is not spent properly.
Click to expand...


I think it’s a great idea but only in democrat controlled cities like St. Louis, Detroit and Baltimore.
 
Lutherf said:
I see a lot of people saying that this is a bad idea but I suspect that many who say that haven't looked at the big picture.

If we simply make drug possession legal, stop arresting people for petty theft, misdemeanor assault and property crimes resulting in less than $2500 damage we won't have as many crimes for the cops to deal with and we can then afford to cut funding. We can then redirect that funding to something useful such as school programs that affirm the personhood of underprivileged children, teaching people about social injustices perpetrated against people of color, LBGTQ persons (if they identify as such) and other oppressed classes and making our cities and towns more user friendly by requiring all business to provide free public WiFi.
Click to expand...

I admire your sentiments and your lofty ideals. After seeing how memorials all over the country eulogized a life-long criminal like George Floyd and turned him into some sort of example for African-Americans to follow, I am disgusted by those politicians who feel they need to take money out of police budgets and 'buy off' the black communities to keep them quiet.
 
beerftw said:
Defunding police, I think it is a bad idea, from a law and order standpoint, but I also think it aids police corruption. My logic is that defunded police forces are strained to keep anyone no matter how corrupt due o their experience, especially with budget problems blocking proper numbers from joining, this can lead to an issue where xyz station is forced to keep xyz corrupt cop due to lack of funds for replacement police through training programs.

Where I think thee is a problem though is in police forces buying military gear in bulk, it is bad when when you are so strained on budget that hiring proper numbers is an issue but you can afford multiple mraps and a fully armed swat team but somehow not normal officers. This latter issue is a big one as well, and the prior has to do with funding but the latter has to do with spendin, meaning police stations need to be funded however they still will have the same problems if the money is not spent properly.
Click to expand...

Defunding the police is a stupid, knee jerk reaction to the issue.
 
Lutherf said:
Well sure! The government serves the people and if the people want reparations and a basic income then it's the duty of the government to provide those things. Government is kind of like god but not the religious kind (because that's offensive). One can petition their government through votes just like religious people petition their gods with prayer. Government, however, ALWAYS provides.
Click to expand...

Let's give everyone a guaranteed national income so no one has to go out and find work.
Moving up in an organization in order to make a higher income is hard to do and is greatly overrated.
It is embarrassing to a college snowflake to have to go out and ask for a job.
And even worse, after one lands a job then that same snowflake has to suffer possible rejection by having to ask for a raise.
No wonder so many people stay in school (which should be free) so they won't have to face the pressures of being a productive citizen making money.
 
Well, if the liberals get their way and defund the police, I certainly hope folks like Lebron James get their homes ransacked by looters as the police stand idly by.
 
Yeah, Trump is looking like a dead man walking, so what do the libs do? They come up with a way to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

Defunding police is the dumbest idea I've heard in a long while. Reforming police is much better.

Keep it up dumbasses, and you'll have 4 more years of the worst president in modern history.
 
If anything, we should be increasing funding because they obviously need more training on ways to respond and restrain without excessive force.

And I promise, you don't want a country without LEO, it would be pure anarchy, chaos, and lawlessness.
 
De-funding the police is a great idea and way overdue. There are plenty of things the police should not be given as toys - like an APC with a .50 caliber belt fed machine gun as in the case of Richland County, South Carolina. The police department refer to it as 'the peacemaker'. That's not a weapon that should ever be fired at people or anywhere outside of a war zone. There is no reason the police should be ever be using such a weapon and they wouldn't be tempted to use it if they don’t have it in the first place. There’s no evidence that militarizing the police does anything to reduce crime or increase safety, it only serves to make police less trusted and therefore less able to do their jobs. This is largely the fault of the Pentagon who have given over $7 billion of military equipment to police departments this century.

Is anyone aware of 'civil forfeiture'? This is the definition of civil forfeiture; Civil forfeiture laws allow the government to take cash, cars, homes and other property suspected of being involved in criminal activity. Unlike criminal forfeiture, with civil forfeiture, the property owner doesn't have to be charged with, let alone convicted of, a crime to permanently lose his property. This means that police can seize your car, home, money, or valuables without ever having to charge you with a crime. There are many, many stories of innocent people being stripped of their money and property by law enforcement. This has to change along with those police departments that are so not fit for their purpose. The best thing a mayor or governor can do is fire everyone, shut the whole thing down, and start fresh. A few rotten apples rot the barrel - and at that point the best thing may be to empty the barrel, abolish the entire police department, and start over with an entirely new one generally on a smaller budget.

There are more efficient ways of preventing crime, because budgets are inflated and spent on things that are either not useful or sometimes outright harmful to policing, and because some police departments are bad enough that the best thing is to start over. And every so-called fiscal conservative who complains about government waste should be in favor of cutting funding for the police for these reasons.
 
HumblePi said:
De-funding the police is a great idea and way overdue. There are plenty of things the police should not be given as toys - like an APC with a .50 caliber belt fed machine gun as in the case of Richland County, South Carolina. The police department refer to it as 'the peacemaker'. That's not a weapon that should ever be fired at people or anywhere outside of a war zone. There is no reason the police should be ever be using such a weapon and they wouldn't be tempted to use it if they don’t have it in the first place. There’s no evidence that militarizing the police does anything to reduce crime or increase safety, it only serves to make police less trusted and therefore less able to do their jobs. This is largely the fault of the Pentagon who have given over $7 billion of military equipment to police departments this century.

Is anyone aware of 'civil forfeiture'? This is the definition of civil forfeiture; Civil forfeiture laws allow the government to take cash, cars, homes and other property suspected of being involved in criminal activity. Unlike criminal forfeiture, with civil forfeiture, the property owner doesn't have to be charged with, let alone convicted of, a crime to permanently lose his property. This means that police can seize your car, home, money, or valuables without ever having to charge you with a crime. There are many, many stories of innocent people being stripped of their money and property by law enforcement. This has to change along with those police departments that are so not fit for their purpose. The best thing a mayor or governor can do is fire everyone, shut the whole thing down, and start fresh. A few rotten apples rot the barrel - and at that point the best thing may be to empty the barrel, abolish the entire police department, and start over with an entirely new one generally on a smaller budget.

There are more efficient ways of preventing crime, because budgets are inflated and spent on things that are either not useful or sometimes outright harmful to policing, and because some police departments are bad enough that the best thing is to start over. And every so-called fiscal conservative who complains about government waste should be in favor of cutting funding for the police for these reasons.
Click to expand...

Anyone who preaches that police officers should be abolished cannot, also, credibly claim to care about preventing or deterring crime.
 
Lutherf said:
I see a lot of people saying that this is a bad idea but I suspect that many who say that haven't looked at the big picture.

If we simply make drug possession legal, stop arresting people for petty theft, misdemeanor assault and property crimes resulting in less than $2500 damage we won't have as many crimes for the cops to deal with and we can then afford to cut funding. We can then redirect that funding to something useful such as school programs that affirm the personhood of underprivileged children, teaching people about social injustices perpetrated against people of color, LBGTQ persons (if they identify as such) and other oppressed classes and making our cities and towns more user friendly by requiring all business to provide free public WiFi.
Click to expand...

Then you have a San Francisco with people shooting up on the bus stop, and crapping in the street, car windows smash and grab anything of value.
 
HumblePi said:
De-funding the police is a great idea and way overdue. There are plenty of things the police should not be given as toys - like an APC with a .50 caliber belt fed machine gun as in the case of Richland County, South Carolina. The police department refer to it as 'the peacemaker'. That's not a weapon that should ever be fired at people or anywhere outside of a war zone. There is no reason the police should be ever be using such a weapon and they wouldn't be tempted to use it if they don’t have it in the first place. There’s no evidence that militarizing the police does anything to reduce crime or increase safety, it only serves to make police less trusted and therefore less able to do their jobs. This is largely the fault of the Pentagon who have given over $7 billion of military equipment to police departments this century.

Is anyone aware of 'civil forfeiture'? This is the definition of civil forfeiture; Civil forfeiture laws allow the government to take cash, cars, homes and other property suspected of being involved in criminal activity. Unlike criminal forfeiture, with civil forfeiture, the property owner doesn't have to be charged with, let alone convicted of, a crime to permanently lose his property. This means that police can seize your car, home, money, or valuables without ever having to charge you with a crime. There are many, many stories of innocent people being stripped of their money and property by law enforcement. This has to change along with those police departments that are so not fit for their purpose. The best thing a mayor or governor can do is fire everyone, shut the whole thing down, and start fresh. A few rotten apples rot the barrel - and at that point the best thing may be to empty the barrel, abolish the entire police department, and start over with an entirely new one generally on a smaller budget.

There are more efficient ways of preventing crime, because budgets are inflated and spent on things that are either not useful or sometimes outright harmful to policing, and because some police departments are bad enough that the best thing is to start over. And every so-called fiscal conservative who complains about government waste should be in favor of cutting funding for the police for these reasons.
Click to expand...

yes, community based policing not a military like invasion force
 
chuckiechan said:
Then you have a San Francisco with people shooting up on the bus stop, and crapping in the street, car windows smash and grab anything of value.
Click to expand...

Who would have guess that Utopia smells like stale urine and feces?
 
X Factor said:
Anyone who preaches that police officers should be abolished cannot, also, credibly claim to care about preventing or deterring crime.
Click to expand...

I'm not advocating abolishing police forces, that would be idiotic. What I'm saying is more on the line with the city counsel of Minneapolis who called to 'disband' the Minneapolis police which in reality means dismantling the police and starting fresh with a more community-oriented, non-violent public safety and outreach program. There are already existing pilot programs in Minneapolis where de-escalation is emphasized and where under circumstances like that of George Floyd, police can resolve it without pulling out handcuffs or drawing a weapon. Certainly no community can do without police but police need to be hired that are going to commit to working with communities. Cities need to address the systemic racism in their laws and in their policing methods.
 
HumblePi said:
I'm not advocating abolishing police forces, that would be idiotic. What I'm saying is more on the line with the city counsel of Minneapolis who called to 'disband' the Minneapolis police which in reality means dismantling the police and starting fresh with a more community-oriented, non-violent public safety and outreach program. There are already existing pilot programs in Minneapolis where de-escalation is emphasized and where under circumstances like that of George Floyd, police can resolve it without pulling out handcuffs or drawing a weapon. Certainly no community can do without police but police need to be hired that are going to commit to working with communities. Cities need to address the systemic racism in their laws and in their policing methods.
Click to expand...

No matter how you rebuild to try to make them passive and non reactive to, well, anything they’ll still get tired of being blamed for everything out there. Seems to me understanding should be a two way street.
 
X Factor said:
No matter how you rebuild to try to make them passive and non reactive to, well, anything they’ll still get tired of being blamed for everything out there. Seems to me understanding should be a two way street.
Click to expand...

'Tired of being blamed' ? I don't think there's any police officer that has allegations thrown at him that he can't easily disprove if he was innocent of the allegation. Cops wear body cams, they have cams on the dashboard of their vehicles. The police literally have a record of every stop they make, every person they question. If there's unfounded allegations lodged against a police officer, they have many ways to disprove the allegation if it's false. Regular citizens on the other hand, really don't have that type of comprehensive documentation present with them at all times. Police can easily say they were resisting when they weren't. If there weren't witnesses at the killing of George Floyd with cellphones to record this event, nobody would be protesting today, no riots would have taken place last week, and no National Guard would have been called up to quiet looting and burning.
 
HumblePi said:
'Tired of being blamed' ? I don't think there's any police officer that has allegations thrown at him that he can't easily disprove if he was innocent of the allegation. Cops wear body cams, they have cams on the dashboard of their vehicles. The police literally have a record of every stop they make, every person they question. If there's unfounded allegations lodged against a police officer, they have many ways to disprove the allegation if it's false. Regular citizens on the other hand, really don't have that type of comprehensive documentation present with them at all times. Police can easily say they were resisting when they weren't. If there weren't witnesses at the killing of George Floyd with cellphones to record this event, nobody would be protesting today, no riots would have taken place last week, and no National Guard would have been called up to quiet looting and burning.
Click to expand...

What I’m saying is that people like you won’t ever back or support police officers regardless of what their body cams show. This is evident by the constant citing statistics of cops killing black people and assuming the only factor was race.
 
X Factor said:
What I’m saying is that people like you won’t ever back or support police officers regardless of what their body cams show. This is evident by the constant citing statistics of cops killing black people and assuming the only factor was race.
Click to expand...

That's absolutely not true at all. I am a white woman. I have eyes and ears. I have seen how blacks are treated differently by police. Don't try to tell me what I see. If I see what's on a cop's body cam video, I believe my eyes not what someone else tells me I should believe. And since you don't know **** about me, I'll inform you right now that my son in law is on our police department in my city and has put 20 years in so far. So don't put me in a box with your other misconceived notions. You're dead wrong about it.
 
HumblePi said:
That's absolutely not true at all. I am a white woman. I have eyes and ears. I have seen how blacks are treated differently by police. Don't try to tell me what I see. If I see what's on a cop's body cam video, I believe my eyes not what someone else tells me I should believe. And since you don't know **** about me, I'll inform you right now that my son in law is on our police department in my city and has put 20 years in so far. So don't put me in a box with your other misconceived notions. You're dead wrong about it.
Click to expand...

Yeah, this is about as convincing as “I can’t be racist, I have black friends.”
 
Moon said:
Defunding the police is a stupid, knee jerk reaction to the issue.
Click to expand...

To some extent, yeah, it does have this "Abolish ICE" feel to it. On the other hand, it's not exactly that. It refers to a spectrum of various cost-cutting measures that advocates argue impact many of the egregious problems surrounding the police force. Some of them seem quite good at reducing the power of Unions and many of the perverse incentives that their power has created with regard to the lack of accountability measures. A lot of them seem very familiar if you look at how conservatives looked at the education system and the power local teacher unions had over every layer of decision-making and educator or administrator behavior.

Now, I really don't subscribe to the dichotomy these folks have put on the issue (where "reform" is tagged as ineffective and "abolition" is referred to as good), and I'm less than convinced about what they think the overall impact of these things would be, but it gave me a bit of a different way to look at this.

https://static1.squarespace.com/sta...3539/CR_NoCops_reform_vs_abolition_CRside.pdf

You can tell that what informs them is a lack of positive impact of training, oversight boards, criminal prosecutions, and so forth. But I think their faith in outcomes derived from shifting funds from one public sector to the other is perhaps misplaced. Could more funding be used in education or human services? Sure. But there's plenty of problems that exist with making good with existing or new funding. What they are looking for, quite understandably, is an influx of funding at disproportionately poor and black neighborhoods and services that have been underfunded in the past. There's difficulty in doing that and there will be a lot of difficulty in demonstrating that it provided a benefit, because many problems with making police responsive to the needs of the public are found in other sectors of the service bureaucracy and its employees. I guess you could argue that at least that money didn't go to killing them like the police did. So there is that to consider. But still, I'm more than a bit skeptical here.
 
Last edited:
beerftw said:
Defunding police, I think it is a bad idea
Click to expand...

I do too but I think we need to "defund the police" and then start over and make a full accounting as to where those funds go, and take a long hard look at how necessary things are. Cops do not need military tanks and they don't need military hardware.
And they don't need to be trained to shoot first and ask questions later.

Obviously this is a huge effort and it needs to be done in an organized manner.
Stop freaking out, people, everyone knows the police will NOT BE defunded, but it's interesting to watch your reaction when for the past three and a half years Trump's been defunding anything and everything on a whim, and you think that's funny.
Interesting to see your reaction when it comes from outside Camp Twumpy.

And amusing, too.
Maybe we should threaten to defund another right wing sacred cow, just to watch all the Trumpsters start screaming and crying again.
 
Lutherf said:
Well sure! The government serves the people and if the people want reparations and a basic income then it's the duty of the government to provide those things. Government is kind of like god but not the religious kind (because that's offensive). One can petition their government through votes just like religious people petition their gods with prayer. Government, however, ALWAYS provides.
Click to expand...

One seems to be better off by petitioning the government with campaign cash.
 
jaypatriot said:
I admire your sentiments and your lofty ideals. After seeing how memorials all over the country eulogized a life-long criminal like George Floyd and turned him into some sort of example for African-Americans to follow, I am disgusted by those politicians who feel they need to take money out of police budgets and 'buy off' the black communities to keep them quiet.
Click to expand...

It's more that the people focused on his case to turn cops like Chauvin into a symbol for all the other police brutality and abuse cases against people of color to show the racism and disproportionate use of force that seems endemic and mostly unpunished. Mostly ignored.



This is the barely coherent and grammatically inept speech of a man who desperately wants to be able to claim that he "cured coronavirus."

That's it, in a nutshell. When we do get a handle on this crisis, he wants to be able to pull out footage and declare "I called it! I said use this! I said try this! I told them to do this, it was my idea!" He's just doing it with lots of stupid stuff because he doesnt want to miss an opportunity. He's afraid 'the big one' will be mentioned and he wont get credit for it.

It's all about declaring himself the savior of the cv crisis and we'll hear all about it, esp in his campaign. (Which is basically each of his press briefings these days) --- Lursa
Click to expand...
 
plenty of gangs and cartels that are going to love increasing their influence in liberal controlled cities because you defunded the police.... hope you will enjoy gang crime like it occurs in Mexico.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom