That's simply not true. There are some among the defund the police movement that mean abolish.
"Some", huh? Really?
Care to provide a list of "some who mean abolish"? Any actual Democratic leaders, perhaps?
This seems more like what YOU'd like to believe to be the case...rather than the actual case. Why do people on the right insist on debating the Strawman (i.e. that "the left" wants to "abolish" the police, etc.)...rather than the actual merits of the argument?...or even the actual meaning of the slogan itself (according to those who actually coined it)?
It's just not being very honest when you do this.
Further, it actually does mean "less", and some of it can actually make sense, like calling a trained social worker to deal with someone with mental health issues or are cognitively impaired. The social worker would be paid with funds that would be taken from the police to act in an area where they no longer would be called for.
Yes. This is what I've been saying.
And, of course, those redirected resources will result in fewer police officers needed. Armed officers should be deployed judiciously, not randomly. If this is your point of view, I'm not sure that we have much to disagree about.
However, that isn't nearly so easy as it sounds and a police presence would likely still be required unless you want dead social workers. So even then you couldn't defund the police. You'd have to come up with those funds somewhere else.
Not at all. There's no need for armed officer units deployed to address a stray dog showing aggression....or a lose manhole cover....or a wandering octogenarian...or an rowdy frat party, .etc. But certainly there might need to have an armed unit standing by for a domestic violence call....or an intoxicated, jaywalking and/or belligerent neighbor....or physical altercation between neighbors...etc.
So there will certainly be need for fewer armed officers. But, more importantly, what we do NOT need are more decommissioned military weapons and military training of officers in our local police departments. THAT is where millions of funds can be redirected...much moreso than via the necessary reductions in the number of armed officers.
So, LESS armed police and elimination of militarization of the police......and more trained social workers, substance abuse interventionists, counselors, animal control specialists, unarmed civilian patrol groups, and ENFORCEMENT of de-escalation policies, etc. doesn't mean "abolish" the police.
