Should democrats rethink "defund police" and push for law and order?

This has alot to do with the recent ambush of 2 police officers in Los Angeles and the aftermath where protesters on the left showed up at the hospital to cheer and hope the officers die. I’m not going to link because everyone should know about this. There was also a similar police officer shot and killed in North Carolina. In 2019, 48 police were killed in the line of duty.

Now Trump slammed it, of course, and Biden also condemned it. However many people feel what lead to this was the democrats embrace of anti police rhetoric. Notice all the police chiefs in major cities being forced out by democrats, democrats telling police they cant use tear gas on rioters, democrats refusing to prosecute rioters even after being arrested by police, and democrats called for defunding police. Democrats allowing CHAZ.

You have to admit democrats really want to see themselves as being on the side of BLM and demonstrators for racial justice and portraying Trump as being a racist and on the side of fascism.

Should democrats switch and come down on the side of police and the “defund police” movement? Should democrats stop telling police what methods they can and cannot do? Should democrats take the lead in seeing rioters punished instead of being let go? Should they stand behind their police chiefs?

What do you all think?

I think you should re-read all the times what was explained to you before about “defund the police”.

The democrats just need to come up with a better phrase than defund the police. The police have enough guns and riot gear, what they need are social services that work with the police and can help the police better do actual law enforcement instead of locking up or brutalizing people with mental issues, drug problems or simply commit the crime of being poor or being a minority. This war against our own citizenry needs to stop.

The purpose of defunding police is not to get rid of them. The purpose is to reconstitute them in a way that will emphasize transparency and accountability while eliminating the “Code of Silence” that, in essence, is a “Code of Consent”. So, in that light, that is increasing law and order because it is eliminating criminal behavior withing the ranks of the police themselves.

I think we’ve been down this road with you before.

Also in 2019, at least 228 officers died by suicide.

ETA a cite for this.

They are on the side of the police – at least the ones interested in treating black lives as if they matter. As for “defund the police”, the majority (if not vast majority) of Democrats don’t support it.

If you’re referring to things like banning chokeholds and no knock raids, then this kind of reform is a positive good, and Democrats should indeed advocate for them.

Democrats are indeed in favor of punishing violent rioters.

If they’re good (and want to reform police such that black lives are treated as though they matter), then sure. If they think BLM is some sort of evil communist invasion plan, then they should oppose them.

I think Trump is largely responsible for the violence, since he’s encouraged violence on multiple occasions, including deploying Federal forces to brutalize peaceful protesters on multiple occasions, and since his campaign is on record as desiring chaos and violence because they think it helps Trump. I think the Democrats should strongly oppose Trump and his violent and chaotic policies, and defeating him would help improve “order” and make a more peaceful society.

You’ve not been paying attention at all, have you? There is no “switch” required. Biden and all Democratic Party leaders, including members of the Black Caucus have been saying exactly this. That peaceful BLM protests are fine and that all those who are committing acts of violence and looting should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

Why don’t you know this? They’ve been consistently vocal about it.

This is exactly why you should link it. If you did, you might notice that nobody except opinion sites are reporting the cheering and “we hope they die”.

If you want to be a smart news consumer, you should automatically reject any news story that has your opponents cheering or laughing or bragging. It’s almost always a ruse to rile up readers and get them to share articles that they hate.

Probably because his news sources constantly lie to him, including literally photoshopping pictures and showing misleadingly edited video. It’s really not his fault, other than his refusal to change to reputable news sources who don’t lie and whose main goal is not creating outrage.

I assumed as much. Mine was a bit of a rhetorical question. It’s exhausting to keep going over the same old ground, time and again, with none of these conversations with the OP ever making the slightest impact. Just watch if the next OP isn’t more “concern” about Biden’s mental fitness for office.

I don’t think Democrats are going to move in favor of “law and order” until or unless the polling indicates they ought to favor law and order.

It probably happened. Just as the terrorism and brutality has gotten to the point where there are individuals who have become radicalized enough to commit violence against the police, there are individuals who are also fed up enough that they will cheer that violence.

But to make a sweeping generalization that it is anything other than a few individuals who are participating or cheering is to play into the hands of those who want to stoke fear and resentment.

The cracks in our society, in our civilization are deepening and widening. And the way to fix it is not by just doing more of what we are doing.

We could increase police brutality until the protests stop, but that will only cause people to find less productive outlets for their frustration.

At some point, people need to be responsible for the media that they choose to consume.

A bit of a hint, if it ever relies on “many people are saying” then it’s probably not worth putting under consideration.

Can you please provide a cite for any of this? I think Biden, for example, is in favor of law and order and has specifically come out against violent protests and riots. I further believe that polling, even among Democrats, is in favor or law and order.

What the does this even mean? The Democrats are already in favor of “law and order” and have stated so many times. Do mean that they should be OK with police officers choking people to death? That they should be able to align themselves with armed vigilantes? Should they allow goon squads to pick up people and take them away in unmarked vehicles to undisclosed locations without charging them? Please elaborate on what you mean by supporting “law and order”?

The OP should also respond to his dog whistle post as well.

I am not ruling out that it 's in the world of plausibility. I am just pointing out the obvious, that we do not accept plausible stories as true without links. Also to note that conservative-grifting media frequently adds unverifiable color like “cheering and dancing”. It riles up gullible people who are looking for something to get angry about, and it usually turns out to be unverifiable or ambiguous.

Personally I think it’s important to challenge and dismiss a thread that leads off with unverifiable, emotionally charged anecdotes that are offered as self-evidently true, but that’s just me.

OK, I’ll do your work for you, for your ridiculous implied assertions here:

Republicans were more likely to say law and order is a major problem (78%) than Democrats (58%) or independents (62%).

So, a majority of Democrats and a bigger majority of independents say that law and order is a major problem. Since I imagine Biden is hoping to get both of these demographics, he should move in favor of “law and order”. Oh, wait, he has, from the same article:

Though Biden denounced violent protests on multiple occasions beginning in May…

God, this place can be exhausting sometimes.

You do realize that it’s not a dichotomy, right? That you can be for law and order, and also be against police brutalizing and murdering the people that they are supposed to be protecting.

That you can be for law and order, and also be for the people exercising their rights to assemble and address their grievances to the government.

For instance, was gassing the peacefully assembled demonstrators in Lafayette Park an example of “Law and Order” to you? Which side of that do you think that Democrats should be on?

I don’t think that the Democrats are going to accept that it is either/or, and that will always piss off those who demand an excluded middle.

What the Republicans want is not Law and Order. They want unrest, they want people fighting in the street. They want fear and mistrust and hatred, as those are what their party feeds on, that’s what polling tells them that they should favor.

Unfortunately, fear is a strong motivator, and there are plenty who will spread their fearmongering message, and work to help to divide our country. People will claim that you either have to come down on the side of Law and Order, or on the side of the people, and pretend that that is a choice that actually makes any sense. Fear also causes people to act irrationally, and to cling to anyone who promises security, even against a fear that is entirely manufactured for the purpose of getting the populace to cling to those who promise security.

The leopards who eat your face are promising to keep the tigers at bay.

Head. Board. Nails. Wham.

Wait… what was intended for @k9briender. He’ll appreciate it anyway.

Some people are still pushing the “defund police” movement, but it’s mostly a dead letter. Now it’s mostly conservatives working each other into a panic over it. If they don’t want to panic, then they can just stop talking about it. But they don’t want a solution, they want to be mad.