Opening thought: While it's easy to say "DeFund" the police, I think it's both more politically savvy and realistic to say Re-fund the police. All it means is start from zero, and see which features we need, which are optional, or better in other hands, and which are not needed at all. What do you think?
@applemcg Nope. The idea is to take money away from police and give it to other social services. So the police don't have it anymore. Defund. It also drastically reduces the types of things we call the police for, because there would be other more appropriate services to use for stuff like mental illness, wellness checks or traffic stops. We'd only use the police if you need thugs with guns to fight bad guys.
@applemcg Yup. That's the approach I'd take too. Obviously they need *some* budget and we do need their services. I don't think anybody is seriously disputing either of those things. But in some cities the police alone take up more than 50% of the entire budget. Totally nuts. An everything-on-the-table reevaluation is necessary and important, as is the theory of how and why we do policing in the first place.
@ScionAltera @applemcg Ensure background checks remove every and any with current AND former ties to white supremacist groups. Make sure those re-hired have zero complaints about unnecessary force. Extra training for mental health issues.
@ACG2 @ScionAltera As a resident of the NYC media market, a tactic I'm identifying here: on the spot, fire any so-called law-enforcement person who meets a middle finger with a baton to the skull. On training, as retired trainer, my .sig says "training can't repair a bad character". OK on mental health; we now realize that's not a dis-qualifier. Good point, that.
@ScionAltera , at bottom I agree. As a professional MN'n, and long time on Lake St, I was sad to realize it can happen there too. I do support the Mpls City council's approach: start at Zero, which of you do we need for our protection? i.e. re-interview the lot, ergo re-fund.