Defunding them and diverting those resources into social services that have been shown to actually give back in meaningful ways to the communities and safety/effectively deescalate tense situations without committing atrocities while perpetuating systemic hate-based violence.

There does need to be someone with a gun I can call if someone is literally breaking into my home intent on murdering my family. But outside of those extreme and fringe outlier circumstances, society would be much better served by well-funded social workers and emergency first responders who are trained to resolve conflicts while actually helping those in need of it without threat of eminent deadly violence.

[–] yggstyle@lemmy.world 28 points 10 months ago

Reality is and always should have been cops do cop things. Locally. Traffic shit should be department of transportation. etc. etc.

Make local cops walk local beats and only focus on the community safety and suddenly things get better. 'Us vs Them' is a pretty easy thing to spin when they only are a corrective force with a chip on their shoulder.

Proper training, education, and being held accountable for your actions will filter out the bad blood quickly enough.

Defund is frankly a word that was selected poorly. It implies punishment. It only amplifies the 'Us vs Them' narrative on both 'sides.'

ACAB? No. Problem with corruption and a system that spits out at best tight lipped accomplices and at worst zealots brandishing 'might makes right' ideals? Yep.

Fix the system and the problem fixes itself.

[–] Obi@sopuli.xyz 9 points 10 months ago

Isn't that basically how it is in the UK where most cops don't have guns?

[–] Urist@lemmy.ml 6 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

We have this many places in Europe. The police are not even allowed to wear guns in Norway (and frankly do not need them) unless there is some special intelligence or something making a reason for it. That does not absolve the need for state controlled monopoly on violence. It only means that is should be limited and wielded with the utmost care.

[–] DessertStorms@kbin.social 5 points 10 months ago (1 children)

There does need to be someone with a gun I can call if someone is literally breaking into my home intent on murdering my family

well-funded social workers and emergency first responders who are trained to resolve conflicts while actually helping those in need of it without threat of eminent deadly violence.

If we do things properly, then no one should have a need to break in to your house (because everyone's material needs would be met), and if you've given someone reason to kill you, calling someone with a gun to kill them isn't going to solve anything. If they're mentally unwell, calling a person with a gun is even worse.

The second option you gave is more than enough 99.99% of the time.

Some degree of community defence might be imperative, but it should never be one person with one gun who is in charge of "enforcement", but everyone would be trained and everyone would have access, and in a time of real need (like an external and violent threat to the community) those ready and available can do what is needed, but again - killing someone isn't it 99.99% of the time.

[–] BigWumbo@lemmy.world 3 points 10 months ago

I do not disagree