Did you read it? I cannot see anything there that addresses my concerns, instead I found another. The cops currently work around the clock - the CALS won't. Care to give a better response than "read the article" now?
You do realize, that if the CALs aren't available, then calls will be handled by the police? If you'd do some research as I suggested, you will find the other answers to your questions. For example, the police will always respond to violent situations. Doing some research would also show you that this policy will be constantly reviewed and tweaked as needed and if it doesn't work out, could be scrapped. Considering the CAL team will not be responding to emergencies, I doubt they will have special cars, but I have not seen any information about that. Police may also accompany a CAL member if it is deemed necessary.
This defunding of police and using that money to fund staffing of non-police to conduct functions now done by police is such a great idea. Although I must say I do not favor the notion of less training or less police in the field that result in longer response times. We know that the number of police in the field can be a deterrent to crime. It's obvious there are a lot of calls handled by police that could be better handled by people trained for those specific areas, especially mental health, drug abuse, or homelessness for example. Police are not trained to solve those problems. Diverting money to abortion though, not on board with that.
We here in Austin support this, we don't need a MOUNTED HORSE police department, we don't need Military equipment for the officers and we are diverting some of the responsibilities in the social realm to more qualified departments. The police are not getting cut for the most part, we are just not getting new ones - and there is no hiring freeze, this is a great thing. DD
Meh, it's Texas, people are pretty good at enforcing laws. You act a fool and you'll get treated like one. Now in a place like LA or NY... lol... probably get a tv show and an oscar for acting stupid.
No one gets hurt more by police being defunded than marginalized communities. The facts are black males commit 60% of violent crime and most of it is in these communities. Even outside, they commit violent crime more than anyone else but due to smaller numbers, it's not as apparent. But ... oh well... since you prefer symbolic gestures to actual change.
Why do you feel so entitled to commit crime all the time? Why is everyone else supposed to be a father figure when you yourself aren't one, statistically? Why play the victim when you're drunk and passed out in a car and steal an officer's weapon? When is the day going to come when you decide to look at yourself and make a change instead of pointing to everyone else to do it? my questions are alot more pertinent to change than your make believe world.
Houston actually increased funding https://www.houstonpublicmedia.org/...ncreases-police-funding-amid-calls-to-defund/ Houston Passes Budget That Increases Police Funding, Amid Calls To ‘Defund’ The $5.1 billion city budget increases the Houston Police Department budget to $964 million in Fiscal Year 2021.
No doubt there will be some tweaking but I still think this whole thing is an unnecessary knee jerk throwing out the baby with the bathwater. All you need is a better recruiting, training and disciplinary/accountability system. The police already have trained people to deal with certain situations - they're called negotiators and they can handle most of the situations outlined in the St. Petersburg plan. Sure, you can specialty train some more of them but I think my suggestion is sufficient.
The police have supposedly been better training and bettter recruiting for years. How do you propose they have better discipline and personal accountability? Regardless of what St. Petersburg and other cities do, they still need everything you suggested... and I think most people would agree with those suggestions. But... in general who is better equipped to handle a suicidal individual? A policeman or a psychologist? Should we be wasting a few hours of an officer's time by sending him after a truant student? On a "routine" drug overdose, what need is there for an officer? Do we need an officer if a couple of 4th graders get into a fight? Do we need an officer to tell panhandlers to move on? If officers can reduce the time taken on calls like that, it frees them up to do more, such as more training, neighborhood interactions, stress relief time, etc.
I reckon the use of more non deadly weapons such as Tazers and pepper spray etc, would probably resolve more conflicts with the desired results. If George Floyd had been tazed, it would have been a different outcome.
Do officers shoot drug overdoses? Don't they call for paramedics? Will panhandlers listen to someone who is not authorized to use force? Truant officers are the usual avenue to track down truants. See, there are logical answers for your queries.
I was in the process of posting this up when some a$$hat two minutes above me said I was lazy. I see no apology, but he gets reps... Guess that is the mentality in here.
But why waste police officers for these things when they could be doing more important things? Again... according to the St. Petersburg police department, they handle around 13000 of these types of calls annually. Think of the 1000s of hours of police time that can be better used. Think of the thousands of hours that officers won't be writing reports.
What would society be without them? I would wager palenty of democrats like them too. Hell, about half of them are democrats.
The whole idea behind defunding the police is that it will supposedly result in less black victimization. Personally, I don't see it happening - the same number of black people being killed by other black people will likely continue as will the number of cops doing their jobs.
Who knows? St. Petersburg's plan is to utilize the police more effectively in neighborhoods with some of the excess time the police will now have due to not having to respond to generally unnecessary calls. Gee... what a concept. Effective use of time for more/better training (a position you advocate), neighborhood interactions to improve relations among the citizens they are protecting and a more visible police presence to perhaps deter black people killing black people and other crimes.
Never said it was a bad idea. I see a lot of problems with certain aspects. I think it comes down to education and inculcating a more positive mindset. Obama made good inroads in reducing the black dropout rate from 11% to 6.5% but still couldn't do much to the killing aspect. It needs more attention than defunding the police.
Technically true, but you said this... "I think it is shortsighted.To put it mildly." "I look at the danger presented by lowering the numbers of police." "What I am not for is reducing the force when there is clearly a need for the ones we already have. They are even reducing cadet training. Ridonculous." "...I still think this whole thing is an unnecessary knee jerk throwing out the baby with the bathwater"
