Politics Portland's police chief just quit.

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Well okay then. I guess you guys want crime rates to skyrocket as well. Because that will happen if you defund the police.
 
tlongII said:
Well okay then. I guess you guys want crime rates to skyrocket as well. Because that will happen if you defund the police.
Click to expand...

Actually if you focus the police it's been shown the crime goes down.

There are a few very good examples of this.

Go read about Camden, NJ. They defunded their police department years ago and then expanded the county sheriff's office. There has been some good and bad and I'm not providing links because it's something that you should look for in your favorite news sources. Google it, read about it.

Then go read about crime in Colorado since pot was legalized. Their taxing of the pot was better than ours, some money went to specific police programs. Combine that also with the police not having to deal with pot anymore and they were able to focus on solving real crimes.

Then there is the fact that police have long enjoyed increased funding at the expense of reducing services in other areas.

Biggest one: Mental health. In Portland we're training police to do mental health evaluations. That's not their job and a 2 week class doesn't help the community. This leads to increased homelessness. The police aren't going to refer people to mental health and services.

Then look at how the police are still agents for the DMV. The police can run your plate and know instantly if your car has valid registration and insurance. Yet still they ask for these things because they're required too. These are civil tickets.

So much of what the police do isn't solving or stopping crime. It's getting stats so they can claim they're doing things.

Defunding is also another term for refocusing. We need to refocus police to stop crime.
 
andalusian said:
Defunding it in order to restructure it with new rules is the method that makes sense, I do not think anyone believes that a police as a concept is one that makes no sense, what makes no sense is a police with authority and no regulation, responsibility and the ability to enforce changes - that's basically tax-payer funded anarchistic militia.
Click to expand...
Agree, and accountability should start with the local governments to establish the needed standards. The mayor usually appoints the commissioner If he/she isn’t doing it themselves. With superb leadership in critical areas as this, there should be positive results.
 
Last edited:
There needs to be performance reviews that are more than a formality for the police. Measure each cop objectively by criteria established from a representation of those heading up the new reforms.
Cannot let the union be a short circuit to getting something done.
 
Last edited:
SlyPokerDog said:
Actually if you focus the police it's been shown the crime goes down.

There are a few very good examples of this.

Go read about Camden, NJ. They defunded their police department years ago and then expanded the county sheriff's office. There has been some good and bad and I'm not providing links because it's something that you should look for in your favorite news sources. Google it, read about it.

Then go read about crime in Colorado since pot was legalized. Their taxing of the pot was better than ours, some money went to specific police programs. Combine that also with the police not having to deal with pot anymore and they were able to focus on solving real crimes.

Then there is the fact that police have long enjoyed increased funding at the expense of reducing services in other areas.

Biggest one: Mental health. In Portland we're training police to do mental health evaluations. That's not their job and a 2 week class doesn't help the community. This leads to increased homelessness. The police aren't going to refer people to mental health and services.

Then look at how the police are still agents for the DMV. The police can run your plate and know instantly if your car has valid registration and insurance. Yet still they ask for these things because they're required too. These are civil tickets.

So much of what the police do isn't solving or stopping crime. It's getting stats so they can claim they're doing things.

Defunding is also another term for refocusing. We need to refocus police to stop crime.
Click to expand...

If defunding is another term for refocusing then I suggest using the term refocusing. Defunding by definition means reducing the amount of funds available to the organization. I don't believe that is an appropriate action to take.
 
tlongII said:
If defunding is another term for refocusing then I suggest using the term refocusing.
Click to expand...

The refocusing may necessarily take some of the public safety focus off of cops and onto other measures that reduce the crime rate. If so, we'd be spending less on the police (defunding) and spending more on other public safety measures. It's all about the most efficient way to spend money to create safer communities--the answer may not be "throw more cops at it."
 
I say cut the money off from districts that are failing terribly to protect and serve....start there...regroup and reallocate public service funds to groups that keep neighborhoods clean, fed and out of trouble....the Black Panthers were very successful in ghettos by holding fish fries and feeding poor people while getting them to register to vote...When the cops start passing out food and providing homeless with simple shelters...they'll be viewed as protectors instead of feared as henchmen
 
tlongII said:
If defunding is another term for refocusing then I suggest using the term refocusing. Defunding by definition means reducing the amount of funds available to the organization. I don't believe that is an appropriate action to take.
Click to expand...

wait...you're in favor of reform just as long as it isn't called de-funding?

how about this then: "we plan on revising budgetary priorities and reallocating limited resources, and the police will not be exempt from that process"

is that better?
 
Last edited:
wizenheimer said:
wait...you're in favor of reform just as long as it isn't called de-funding?

how about this then: "we plan on revising budgetary priorities and reallocating limited resources, and the police will not be exempt from that process"

is that better?
Click to expand...

I have not heard one good reason for decreasing their budget.
 
tlongII said:
Well okay then. I guess you guys want crime rates to skyrocket as well. Because that will happen if you defund the police.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure you know what defund means.
 
tlongII said:
de·fund
/dēˈfənd/
Learn to pronounce

verb
US
  1. prevent from continuing to receive funds.
    "the California Legislature has defunded the Industrial Welfare Commission"
Click to expand...
Incorrect.
The way the expression is being used means to reduce some of the funds which they plan to use in other ways thereby reducing the need for some police resources and improving lives at the same time.
You don't need a dictionary to figure out what they are saying since they qualify the expression several times.
It's called vernacular.
Also, I don't need to learn how to pronounce it since my lexicon is very wide and I am meticulous at pronouncing things correctly.
 
Lanny said:
Incorrect.
They way the expression is being used means to reduce some of the funds which they plan to use in other ways thereby reducing the need for some police resources and improving lives at the same time.
You don't need a dictionary to figure out what they are saying since the qualify the expression several times.
It's called vernacular.
Click to expand...

Lanny, How can you say an official definition is incorre4ct? LOL. Could it be that the label Defund, should be changed to be more accurately defined? Like overhaul restructuring or something?

Defund means remove funds per Webster's.

Its a poor choice of words by the activists and its causing major confusion.
 
Orion Bailey said:
Lanny, How can you say an official definition is incorre4ct? LOL. Could it be that the label Defund, should be changed to be more accurately defined? Like overhaul restructuring or something?

Defund means remove funds per Webster's.

Its a poor choice of words by the activists and its causing major confusion.
Click to expand...
Easy - The expression is qualified. I thought I explained that.
 
Lanny said:
Incorrect.
The way the expression is being used means to reduce some of the funds which they plan to use in other ways thereby reducing the need for some police resources and improving lives at the same time.
You don't need a dictionary to figure out what they are saying since they qualify the expression several times.
It's called vernacular.
Also, I don't need to learn how to pronounce it since my lexicon is very wide and I am meticulous at pronouncing things correctly.
Click to expand...

Are you using alternative facts on me?
 
tlongII said:
I have not heard one good reason for decreasing their budget.
Click to expand...

LOL...c'mon man. There are 18,000 police departments in the US. That's 18,000 budgets....cities, counties, states. And all those budgets are either right on or too low according to you? You do know that's a ridiculous argument, right? In order to make it you'd need to know every single one of those 18,000 budgets, line by line, as well as the needs of the constituency they serve.

I'd suggest that almost all of those budgets should be and will be examined closely. I'd suggest that with the existence of laws granting police immunity nobody else has, and legal protections nobody else has, added to the obstinate power of police unions, the only leverage governments have to influence behavior of police is the allocations of revenue. It may be a blunt instrument, but unfortunately, blunt instruments are needed to battle stubborn militancy, brutality, intractability, and institutional racism
 
I'd say quitting a job as chief of police in the current climate is avoiding going down with the Titanic....give me that lifeboat!
 
Lanny said:
It supersedes it via the qualifier.
Why is it that you guys don't get this?
Click to expand...

Just see social media. Its being fairly universally misunderstood. To help unify and support this quicker, it would help to have a more accurate description title. Not trying to argue. Just saying, its a fact its being misunderstood and its my opinion that it could be alleviated easily is all.
 
wizenheimer said:
because getting into ridiculous semantic arguments is easier than debating the issue
Click to expand...

Okay, but if people are misunderstanding the answer to the issue(Defund Police) , isn't that ALSO an issue?

Not everything is an argument man.....
 
Orion Bailey said:
Not everything is an argument man.....
Click to expand...

LOL

pot-kettle.jpg
 
"Defund" is being used accurately. The movement is about reducing the budgets of police forces. Now, you could say that there's more to it that's being lost in the word "defund," which is true, but "Start a review and overhaul of how we address public safety and reduce both the scope of police work and the number of police while we put more money into revitalizing neglected communities, more social workers who know how to connect with people and other measures that might better reduce crime rates" doesn't fit on a sign, nor is it an efficient rallying cry. It's better as the preamble for a website or policy paper. No single word is going to describe everything going on in a complicated issue, but "defund" isn't being used incorrectly.

Anyone who actually cares to consider the issue in a good faith way will look into why and how people want to defund the police. Anyone who doesn't want to consider it in a good faith way will just keep saying "Sure, get rid of all the police and watch crime rates skyrocket."
 
Minstrel said:
"Defund" is being used accurately. The movement is about reducing the budgets of police forces. Now, you could say that there's more to it that's being lost in the word "defund," which is true, but "Start a review and overhaul of how we address public safety and reduce both the scope of police work and the number of police while we put more money into revitalizing neglected communities, more social workers who know how to connect with people and other measures that might better reduce crime rates" doesn't fit on a sign, nor is it an efficient rallying cry. It's better as the preamble for a website or policy paper. No single word is going to describe everything going on in a complicated issue, but "defund" isn't being used incorrectly.

Anyone who actually cares to consider the issue in a good faith way will look into why and how people want to defund the police. Anyone who doesn't want to consider it in a good faith issue with just keep saying "Sure, get rid of all the police and watch crime rates skyrocket."
Click to expand...

See, ive seen conflicting descriptions, which is why I dont think the term should be used. Its confusing.

Ive seen some say its simply redirecting. Not as much Militia gear, but more training. To me that isn't reducing the funds, its moving them around from one dept. to another still within law enforcement.

My only point, which by making I guess makes me "argumentative"..(though everyone else can make them and not get shit for it...) is that people are not clear on what it means and in typical American fashion, jumping on board or off board based on their own understanding of defund, which is more often than not, NOT the correct understanding. It can easily be solved by changing the words labeling the desired change.

Now people can "argue" with me all they want. I am just stating my opinion about the words and whats happening right now.

Ill just go back to my hole now, cause you know... all I do is argue around here. No one else does....lol.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top