emilynghiem
Constitutionalist / Universalist
- Jan 21, 2010
- 23,669
- 4,181
Two of my Progressive Friends on FB actually shared posts I agree on with
how NOT to defund Police. YES -- Police should NOT be burdened with
"social work" of dealing with domestic relations, homeless or mentally ill.
But all citizens cannot be deprived of police because of the grievances of some.
If people want to reorganize districts to pay for police and law enforcement policies
SEPARATE from social work and health care intervention, I have long rallied to set
up a SEPARATE police for "health and safety" and quit criminalizing issues of
drug and relationship abuse that require counseling and healing therapy, not punishment to fix.
Here are the posts I've found, so far. Please feel free to add any more
FROM PROGRESSIVE SOURCES to show where Sides can AGREE.
NOTE: we see PLENTY of pro police posts and rebuttals from the Right.
What I find insightful is where people on the LEFT are also posting better
solutions instead of being purely "anti police." Have you found other good posts like these?
Lori Lightfoot on NOT defunding Police in a way that harms communities:
So is it fair to say that even in this moment, you don’t believe you have the political capital to start a conversation about defunding? When I hear this issue around defunding, I hear, “We don’t have enough resources in communities of color, and you spend way too much on the police.” I agree with that piece. But let’s break down the practicalities of what defunding means. In our Police Department, about 90 percent of the budget is personnel. When you talk about defunding, you’re talking about getting rid of officers. Most of our diversity lies in the junior officers. So when you’re talking about defunding the police, you’re talking about doing it in a context of a collective-bargaining agreement that requires you to go in reverse seniority, which means you’re getting rid of the younger officers. Which means you’re getting rid of black and brown people. Which means you are eliminating one of the few tools that the city has to create middle-class incomes for black and brown folks. Nobody talks about that in the discussion to defund the police.
how NOT to defund Police. YES -- Police should NOT be burdened with
"social work" of dealing with domestic relations, homeless or mentally ill.
But all citizens cannot be deprived of police because of the grievances of some.
If people want to reorganize districts to pay for police and law enforcement policies
SEPARATE from social work and health care intervention, I have long rallied to set
up a SEPARATE police for "health and safety" and quit criminalizing issues of
drug and relationship abuse that require counseling and healing therapy, not punishment to fix.
Here are the posts I've found, so far. Please feel free to add any more
FROM PROGRESSIVE SOURCES to show where Sides can AGREE.
NOTE: we see PLENTY of pro police posts and rebuttals from the Right.
What I find insightful is where people on the LEFT are also posting better
solutions instead of being purely "anti police." Have you found other good posts like these?
Lori Lightfoot, Mayor of Chicago, on Who’s Hurt by Defunding Police (Published 2020)
“You are eliminating one of the few tools that the city has to create middle-class incomes for black and brown folks.”
www.nytimes.com
Lori Lightfoot on NOT defunding Police in a way that harms communities:
So is it fair to say that even in this moment, you don’t believe you have the political capital to start a conversation about defunding? When I hear this issue around defunding, I hear, “We don’t have enough resources in communities of color, and you spend way too much on the police.” I agree with that piece. But let’s break down the practicalities of what defunding means. In our Police Department, about 90 percent of the budget is personnel. When you talk about defunding, you’re talking about getting rid of officers. Most of our diversity lies in the junior officers. So when you’re talking about defunding the police, you’re talking about doing it in a context of a collective-bargaining agreement that requires you to go in reverse seniority, which means you’re getting rid of the younger officers. Which means you’re getting rid of black and brown people. Which means you are eliminating one of the few tools that the city has to create middle-class incomes for black and brown folks. Nobody talks about that in the discussion to defund the police.