Defunding the police is a very bad idea
|
Bestill
|
Posted 3:40 pm, 10/14/2021
|
Community minded? That is at least a step in the right direction.
|
|
168Amax
|
Posted 3:36 pm, 10/14/2021
|
"This is a huge victory for the Petitioners and all residents of Minneapolis, especially those in the most diverse neighborhoods feeling the brunt of rising crime rates," Doug Seaton, president of the Upper Midwest Law Center, said in a statement.
|
|
JustKnow
|
Posted 3:11 pm, 10/14/2021
|
Probably neither, I'm sure they don't trust the police.
|
|
Bestill
|
Posted 3:06 pm, 10/14/2021
|
Oh, this i know! Less cops more social workers!
|
|
168Amax
|
Posted 10:12 am, 10/14/2021
|
Ask the people who live in high crime areas who they want patrolling cops or social workers?
|
|
Albert Pike
|
Posted 9:34 am, 10/14/2021
|
Bestill,
I'm asking you, you can't relay what "cops" have told you?
|
|
Albert Pike
|
Posted 8:11 am, 10/14/2021
|
Bestill,
So in other words you can't explain how you can "redirect" monies from a law enforcement agency and it not result in less cops.
|
|
Bestill
|
Posted 7:59 am, 10/14/2021
|
Of course, our brains are wired differently. I am putting money on the fact that you consider yourself a conservative, Albert. No shame in it.
|
|
Bestill
|
Posted 7:48 am, 10/14/2021
|
You are young, but my granny was amazed when she got a sewing machine.
|
|
Bestill
|
Posted 7:45 am, 10/14/2021
|
Bestill,
"No one is talking less funding. Just redirecting funding."
You can dress it up however you but if you "redirect" funding from one agency or program to another agency or program, that means the agency or program that experienced the "redirection" of funding is getting less, period, no two ways about it.
As I dear old granny used to say, "you can't have your cake and eat it to."
Not another agency, not another program. Making anything more efficient ends up costing less. Simple economics. Your granny knew that
|
|
JustKnow
|
Posted 7:40 am, 10/14/2021
|
Its not cutting the funds. That's what your handlers have told you. You take it as "lets get rid of all police." And that's not what it really is. Your handlers have scared you into believing that. It is more about looking at different ways to use the funds allocated for the law enforcement.
So let's talk.
|
|
Albert Pike
|
Posted 7:25 am, 10/14/2021
|
Bestill,
"No one is talking less funding. Just redirecting funding."
You can dress it up however you but if you "redirect" funding from one agency or program to another agency or program, that means the agency or program that experienced the "redirection" of funding is getting less, period, no two ways about it.
As I dear old granny used to say, "you can't have your cake and eat it to."
|
|
Bestill
|
Posted 7:16 am, 10/14/2021
|
Just,
how you can cut an agency's funding without downsizing being a direct result.
No one is talking less funding. Just redirecting funding.
When funding is cut there's only 3 places it can come from, by not replacing equipment when it's damaged or aged out,
Imagine more funding for better equipment.
the training budget (less training for LEO's is not a good idea)
Better training
and salaries (the only way to cut salaries is cut salaries which means you get paid less than previous, not hire replacements when openings occur or cut personnel numbers.
No cut in salary
Not an is
If you know a way to cut funding without less officers on the street being a direct result, I'd love to hear how.
Let's talk about it.
|
|
|
Albert Pike
|
Posted 7:14 am, 10/14/2021
|
Bestill,
Then you explain how you cut funding without downsizing being an end result.
|
|
Bestill
|
Posted 7:10 am, 10/14/2021
|
Look at the big picture, Albert.
|
|
|
