Because the funding given to the police is outsized compared to other agencies. Not only would funding be removed from the police, but also specific responsibilities. This is vital, because the police are not trained to handle the myriad situations they are placed in. For example:
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2020/06/19/what-does-defund-the-police-mean-and-does-it-have-merit/#:~:text=%E2%80%9CDefund%20the%20police%E2%80%9D%20means%20reallocating,does%20not%20mean%20abolish%20policing.
The concept of "defunding the police" would actually use the police in a role they are trained for. Specifically, combatting crime, responding to violent threats to the public, and homicides. This would remove a ton of administrative overhead for Police Departments while allowing them to focus on the most critical aspects of law enforcement.
It seems strange to me that you actually want police to respond to things like cats in trees, or domestic arguments that they aren't trained to handle. Instead of having the police respond to situations involving mental illness, or homeless people, wouldn't it be better if they were streamlined and allowed to focus on the urgent matters needed to protect society. Why would you want this (see quote below) to continue?
https://www.thecut.com/2020/06/what-does-defund-the-police-mean-the-phrase-explained.html
I don't mean to be rude (and I apologize if it comes across like that), but it sounds like you know very, very little about this subject and haven't taken the time to research it.
Quote:
Data show that 9 out of 10 calls for service are for nonviolent encounters. Now, this does not mean that an incident will not turn violent, but police at times contribute to the escalation of violent force. Police officers' skillset and training are often out of sync with the social interactions that they have. Police officers are mostly trained in use-of-force tactics and worst-case scenarios to reduce potential threats. However, most of their interactions with civilians start with a conversation.
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2020/06/19/what-does-defund-the-police-mean-and-does-it-have-merit/#:~:text=%E2%80%9CDefund%20the%20police%E2%80%9D%20means%20reallocating,does%20not%20mean%20abolish%20policing.
The concept of "defunding the police" would actually use the police in a role they are trained for. Specifically, combatting crime, responding to violent threats to the public, and homicides. This would remove a ton of administrative overhead for Police Departments while allowing them to focus on the most critical aspects of law enforcement.
It seems strange to me that you actually want police to respond to things like cats in trees, or domestic arguments that they aren't trained to handle. Instead of having the police respond to situations involving mental illness, or homeless people, wouldn't it be better if they were streamlined and allowed to focus on the urgent matters needed to protect society. Why would you want this (see quote below) to continue?
Quote:
According to some estimates, law enforcement spends 21 percent of its time responding to and transporting people with mental illnesses. Police are also frequently dispatched to deal with people experiencing homelessness, causing them to be incarcerated at a disproportionate rate.
https://www.thecut.com/2020/06/what-does-defund-the-police-mean-the-phrase-explained.html
I don't mean to be rude (and I apologize if it comes across like that), but it sounds like you know very, very little about this subject and haven't taken the time to research it.
