But do they need to spend money on surplus Army equipment? Do they
really need to get the army's ma deuces? Do they need 5x the number of
m-16's that they have employees for? Do they need 2.5 million rounds of
ammo for the m-16's? maybe they are getting it on the cheep but it's
still $$...
On 6/15/20 7:29 PM, Steve Jones wrote:
the problem is the defund the police folks dont understand economics.
there isnt enough money as it is for maintaining the police
presence for the criminal side of things. taking that money and paying
for a bunch of counsellors doesnt lead to having enough cops. Removing
police from schools is a 1 percent thing, the other 99 percent will
pull their kids out without resource officers. Mental health still
will need police, they dont go to a hot environment because they dont
have arrest powers if it goes downhill, and you dont want jonna the
counselor having to fight the loon.
They want to disarm the police. thats a big no, complete non starter.
They consider the bullet proof vests to be a mechanism of
intimidation, anyone who has actually had a vest do its job would
never let somebody else go in without one.
Maybe they try an actual wholistic approach, stop making everything
illegal, and you immediately have less criminals
stop overcharging for pleas, Mike flynn being an ally example I wish
they would recognize. The media says if he wasnt guilty, why would he
take a plea? I can find you thousands of young black men who can
answer that question without skipping a beat.
Get rid of plea bargains all together, make DAs actually work for
their conviction rates at trial, bet you see a less burdened court and
prison system right quick.
Prisons cost 30-70k annually per inmate. Thats a whole lot of dough to
put into those other programs, and over time that cost goes down as
guards age out and dont need to be replaced because the cells are empty.
defund the police is targeting a symptom of a virus and giving it an
antibiotic (its the wrong treatment)
On Mon, Jun 15, 2020 at 7:38 PM Ken Hohhof <af...@kwisp.com
<mailto:af...@kwisp.com>> wrote:
For many people, that seems to mean stop funding the police to
deal with issues like mental health, homelessness, domestic
disputes, street vendors, routine discipline in schools, etc., and
instead use that money to fund specialists, and let the police
handle murders and robberies and stuff.
I had a discussion with someone who is all for defund the police
and I said if that’s what they mean, the term really sucks,
because it conveys something totally different and many people are
not going to support something that sounds like disband the police
and then nobody handles murders and robberies. Rather than saying
reform the police, or narrow their focus, or move some of their
responsibilities to other agencies. But he said I was wrong,
without really explaining why I was wrong. I think he meant we
can call it what we want to, who cares if it’s unnecessarily
provocative. Or maybe he really does want to disband the police.
*From:* AF <af-boun...@af.afmug.com
<mailto:af-boun...@af.afmug.com>> *On Behalf Of *justsumname .
*Sent:* Monday, June 15, 2020 6:14 PM
*To:* AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group <af@af.afmug.com
<mailto:af@af.afmug.com>>
*Subject:* [AFMUG] OT: batcrazy
is it just the 'news' that I'm reading or are things really going
totally bathshitcrazy ?!? "de-fund the police" .... is just
ONE thing.
---
--
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com <mailto:AF@af.afmug.com>
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
--
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
