Originally posted by Double Edge
View Post
Now, unprofessional. Sure. But unprofessional is not the same as criminal, and "criminal" has different degrees, which is why murder has different degrees.
Originally posted by Albany Rifles
View Post
Originally posted by TopHatter
View Post
Camden has more cops and more cop presence now than it did before, especially since it has an auxiliary force of 100+ people to do security for commercial sectors.
The biggest police problem is under-policing, not police brutality. That doesn't mean police brutality isn't a problem, but solving one does not require sacrificing the other, and if you have to make a trade, you are better off with more police doing more brutality if they can catch more criminals. There are something like a million violent crimes in the US every year, and police brutality is just not even in the same ballpark as these actual criminals.
De-Arming the police doesn't make sense to me. What are the concrete benefits this is supposed to provide? How much is actually transferred? Of what kind? Stars and Stripes says $5 billion...over the last 30 years? So $160 million of equipment per year?
Also, "defund the police" seems to be the new Medicare for All, except worse because there is no concrete plan yet. However, the radicals who popularized it, at least on Twitter, are VERY clear: they do NOT want armed people in their neighborhoods, they think most issues can be solved by social workers, and they think cutting police budgets by double-digit percentages is a good start. It is NOT a moderate proposal and it all borders on fantasy.
Maybe your best bet is to take cops out of traffic stops, because you probably don't need cops for that.
Comment