police really means, this is illustrative of many efforts. The police department actually gets some additional resources with no corresponding cuts to regular service. This was the result of a defunding initiative by the way. Not all defunding means the cops actually lose money. Much of the time they get additional resources as well.
Link: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.pennlive.com/news/2020/12/harrisburg-city-council-approves-2021-budget-that-creates-17-new-police-jobs.html%3foutputType=amp
(no message)
The point is most are not.
And Seattle and Minneapolis and Portland and San Fran and Baltimore and various mid-sized cities.
But not in Harrisburg. No sir. And not in, wait for it, Camden. Probably not in Fort Wayne, either.
I believe the outgoing FBI director validated your claim in the same paragraph in which he announced that Antifa is a concept, not a group, and roving bands of white supremacists marauding about the countryside are the biggest internal terrorist threat.
In short, nobody really wants to defund or abolish the police.
the end of this year?
One of the problems with the sophistry at work here is that the definition of "defunding" keeps changing. Define the term.
Yes, I would say stripping departments of tens of millions of dollars is "defunding." Yes, it is absurd to argue, for example, that if San Fran isn't disbanding its police force, it must mean that none of the lunatics on local government want to abolish the police eventually or at least defund them to levels at which they are completely ineffective.
The count, as of a couple months ago, was something like 13 major U.S. cities had begun defunding. That doesn't include all the mid-sized cities, like Austin, Madison and others, with lunatic city councils and mayors who are committed to diverting money from the police to unscientific, proven failure methods, along with more social workers and equity shysters. As I mentioned a couple weeks ago, LA's massive cuts are about to claim its sex crimes unit.
But "no one wants to defund the police!"
What I am saying is as a practical matter, defunding that makes it impossible to perform core functions is unlikely in MOST places. Your mileage can vary on this, and there will be some exceptions. Defunding also in some circumstances becomes reallocation which is what HARRISBURG and others have done. I think our city council got it right and was glad to be part of that effort.
I guess it's convenient to trumpet something good as the manifestation of a term that you now say is 'Ill defined".
I could give 1000 examples of people calling for "abolishing", "defunding", etc. that doesn't at all mean this. And all not socially distanced and mostly not wearing masks.
But that doesn't fit the narrative, does it?
Why this is important: if the original response to George Floyd, et al, when most of the country was in favor of change, the ridiculousness of the abolish bullshit was a message of reform, we wouldn't have duelling radical partisanship on this issue, resulting in either no action or action detrimental to society.
This isn't "defunding", it is a rational response to rioting and social unrest that explicitly called for more radical action.
But my real question is: why does it take looting and rioting and violence to create common sense change?
The point is that the knuckle dragging belief that there is a widespread movement across the nation to abolish or defund the police is BS. Sure, there is some of that nonsense in some cities. But mostly not, and much of what is out there gets diverted into this which might be positive.
I don't think a "Knuckle Dragging" description of people that oppose what's been stated explicitly and trumpeted "Abolish" and "Defund" is really very helpful.
Do you think that it takes radical language and tactics to implement change?
And yes, in some cases.
(no message)
(no message)
Any modifications to your original thoughts or ideas?
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)