The group asking for 2% doesn’t want to stop there. They want to continue moving resources from the police and putting funds towards things that might actually lower crimes in these communities which the police don’t. Obviously they aren’t idiots and think you can do that instantaneously. Maybe their end goal is 100% but it will be gradual, the resources to help the communities need to be expanded which will take time and with this expansion we can hopefully see improvements in crime so that we can continue taking more from the police.
Just like Black Lives Matter doesnt mean that only black lives matter, defund the police doesn’t mean defund them fully right this instant.
I mean, I get your point, and agree to the extent that different people are connecting with the same slogan, but understanding it differently, or advancing different policy proposals in conjunction. Although the policy proposals are different, they all have one thing in common: taking funds from the police and using those funds to better serve our communities.
And also the New York Times story I posted, which links to other stories showing the same sentiment.
You could Google “North Minneapolis Defund the Police” and find 10 stories saying the same thing; the fact that I’m not doing that for you doesn’t say anything about the validity of my argument.
There’s a lot here. I agree with some of your points and disagree with others. Fundamentally I agree that the police are in need of drastic reform. I disagree that saying “defund the police” or “abolish the police” is going to do anything to accomplish that, because I think it is toxic politically.
Well I’m glad there are a few more anecdotes out there proving your claim. I’ve talked to people affected by police that do and don’t want police defunded but you specifically said more people who aren’t affected by the issue care for this movement which seems like a reach even from looking at the 10 stories online
Seattle city council had a veto proof majority to defund SPD by half. in the end mayor Jenny reduced it by 20% mostly due to revenue shortfall and moving parking tickets out of SPD. in real terms, it defunded like 2% of the dept. ~120 officers left, probably in a hissy fit, which doesn’t include several who went to the Capitol.
know what the police did to this “reasonable” compromise? they stopped responding to calls. they still did all the shit we wanted them to stop doing, and just refused to do neutral/positive stuff.
dem-run city or not, cops want more money and more officers every damn year. democrat mayors are in a lose-lose situation because cops are negotiating in bad faith, and sabotaging the system to get their way.
i mean, how does one negotiate with bad faith actors? i would stop budget increases to SPD and set funding equity targets for social programs. until homeless/drug/mental health programs get enough money, no raises for the department that could not handle that by design.
state/national moratorium on drug raids should help as well. those cost a ton.
The passion with which you argue the policy point does nothing for the political problem you have. “Defund the police” is unpopular. People don’t like it. They are scared of it. It seems like you want it to be one way, but it is the other way.
I think that the people who want to DTP are concerned about their communities and want to prudently and methodically reallocate resources. When some people say DTP they mean 100%, those are usually people who would identify as abolitionists. Other people have a different number in mind.