democrats: willing pawns of Black Lives Matter

@Michael: Bitch, you got owned…by Jay.

@Jay:

If the other protest groups – and/or the Democrats disagree with the plain ‘This means 100% of the funding’ statement, where have they made any public statements to that effect?

Here:

Biden’s campaign rejected the phrase “defund the police” and called for more funding for police departments to implement policy changes. But the former vice president also supports some of the principles the phrase’s advocates champion.

Senator Bernie Sanders (I., Vt.) broke from progressive counterparts in calls to defund the police, saying instead that the country needs “well-trained, well-educated, and well-paid professionals in police departments.”

On Friday, Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot told reporters that “What I’ve heard from people in neighborhoods is that they want more police protection, not less.”

“Defunding police departments are not the answer,” House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, a Democrat of Maryland, told CNN on Monday. “We need police departments; we need to keep peace and order

Others were more blunt. “That’s stupid. OK, that’s crazy and anyone that talks about that is nuts,” said Sen. Joe Manchin, a conservative West Virginia Democrat.

“No one is talking about eliminating all police or anything like that; it sounds at first glance like they are,” said House Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler, who plans to hold a committee vote on his new policing bill as soon as next week.

“I do not support defunding the police,” said Sen. Gary Peters, a Michigan Democrat facing voters in the fall. “The police departments are out there protecting citizens, and the overwhelming majority of law enforcement and police are protecting citizens.”

“I don’t think that’s a good idea,” said Sen. Doug Jones, an Alabama Democrat facing a tough road to reelection. “Defunding and disbanding is not something I would ever, ever support.”

Just because you don’t see this stuff does not mean that it doesn’t exist.

So, for the eleventeenth time: the calls to “defund the police” mean different things to different people. You will find people on the Left who do, in fact, want to eliminate the police altogether. These people will not be taken seriously as this discussion progresses. You will also find people who take “defund the police” to mean reallocating tasks and funding to other groups who can deal with things that don’t require an armed response: performing wellness checks; dealing with the homeless and the mentally ill.

The fact that some people who say “defund the police” mean “eliminate the police” does not mean that all people who uses the phrase means the same thing. I know that you must understand this; you just need to pretend that you don’t.

@Jay:

It’s easy to pretend that the only version of “defunding the police” being discussed is the one being discussed by the most extreme advocates. I haven’t said one time in this thread that that interpretation of the term wasn’t out there; all I’ve said is that it wasn’t the only interpretation.

Here are some others–actual words written and spoken by actual people:

Defunding the police is shorthand for a divest and invest model: divesting money from local and state police budgets and reinvesting it into communities, mental health services, and social service programs.

The idea is that American communities have come to rely on their more than 18,000 police agencies to do much more than police. They’re fighting terrorism abroad, performing homeless services, working with children in schools, responding to calls for mental health crises, performing social work and welfare checks, mediating domestic disputes, and responding to drug overdoses. Often, they’re not trained to perform these tasks.

Those who call for police defunding say they would rather have some duties handled by nonviolent specialists trained in social work, education, or drug counseling.

Here:

Even some cops resent society’s overreliance on them. “We’re just asking us to do too much,” said former Dallas police chief David Brown in a 2016 interview. “Every societal failure, we put it off for the cops to solve. That’s too much to ask. Policing was never meant to solve all those problems.” And the outcome can be deadly: In 2015, the Washington Post found that one in four people killed by a police officer suffered from a serious mental illness at the time of their death.

Here:

Municipalities can begin by changing policies or statutes so police officers never respond to certain kinds of emergencies, including ones that involve substance abuse, domestic violence, homelessness or mental health. Instead, health care workers or emergency response teams would handle these incidents. So if someone calls 911 to report a drug overdose, health care teams rush to the scene; the police wouldn’t get involved. If a person calls 911 to complain about people who are homeless, rapid response social workers would provide them with housing support and other resources. Conflict interrupters and restorative justice teams could mediate situations where no one’s safety is being threatened. Community organizers, rather than police officers, would help manage responses to the pandemic. Ideally, people would have the option to call a different number — say 727 — to access various trained response teams.

The good news is, this is already happening. Violence interruption programs exist throughout the country and they’re often led by people from the community who have experience navigating tricky situations. Some programs, like one in Washington, D.C., do not work with the police; its staff members rely instead on personal outreach and social connections for information about violence that they work to mediate and diffuse. We should invest in these programs, which operate on shoestring budgets, so they have their own dedicated dispatch centers outside of 911.

Dallas is pioneering a new approach where social workers are being dispatched to some 911 calls that involve mental health emergencies. The program has shown success, and many of the people receive care that they would never have gotten in jails or overcrowded hospitals.

Here:

On Sunday, the Washington Post published an op-ed by Christy Lopez, a professor at Georgetown Law and a co-director of the university’s Innovative Policing Program. Lopez describes the idea as “not as scary (or even as radical) as it sounds,” noting that a “defunding” in this instance wouldn’t mean completely cutting funds, nor would “abolishing” mean doing away with police departments in their entirety.

“Defunding the police means shrinking the scope of police responsibilities and shifting most of what government does to keep us safe to entities that are better equipped to meet that need,” she explains. “It means investing more in mental-health care and housing, and expanding the use of community mediation and violence interruption programs.”

Here:

Taken literally, calls to defund police departments conjure images of empty precinct stations and the proliferation of citizen patrols. But if the ideas behind the movement take hold, their implementation may look less like the Minneapolis City Council’s vote to disband its police department and instead resemble more moderate experiments already underway in cities and towns around the country. That includes projects like RIGHT Care that don’t reject police or seek to take away their entire budget but rather aim to decrease their role in situations that are not dangerous, while allowing medical and social services workers to take the lead.

“There is no magic switch to turn off and boom there’s no police department,” said Alex Vitale, a sociology professor at Brooklyn College, whose 2017 book “The End of Policing” has become a manifesto for protesters and police-reform advocates.

Here:

Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti vowed to cut as much as $150 million that was part of a planned increase in the police department’s budget, and New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio said Sunday that the city would move funding from the NYPD to youth initiatives and social services, while keeping the city safe.

@Michael:

Just because you don’t see this stuff does not mean that it doesn’t exist.

Just because you’ve been indoctrinated into seeing things with a limited and politically advantageous view doesn’t mean it exists in that way.

The absolutism of the Left, coming to teenage level consciousness but not progressing further, is one that can now be leveraged to produce violence.

You think you are right in a complete and absolute sense, though you only have a small part of the picture.

It’s easy to pretend that the only version of “defunding the police” being discussed is the one being discussed by the most extreme advocates.

The ultimate goal is to make the police Leftist saturated, as with other institutions. That’s why the pretend-racism, and the complete ignoring of actual crime statistics and improved policing numbers.

Black men are over-policed because they are over-committing crime. White people can’t solve that by telling them it’s not their fault and White Privilege is to blame. That is actual racism, and keeps blacks in a kind of mental oppression.

The Democrats are the party of black slavery, pure and simple. Idiots like you with a child’s view of history and anthropology are hapless foot soldiers.

@Michael #153

[If the other protest groups – and/or the Democrats disagree with the plain ‘This means 100% of the funding’ statement, where have they made any public statements to that effect?]

Here:

Biden’s campaign rejected the phrase “defund the police” and called for more funding for police departments to implement policy changes…

Senator Bernie Sanders (I., Vt.) broke from progressive counterparts in calls to defund the police, saying instead that the country needs “well-trained, well-educated, and well-paid professionals in police departments.”

“Defunding police departments are not the answer,” House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, a Democrat of Maryland, told CNN on Monday. “We need police departments; we need to keep peace and order

Others were more blunt. “That’s stupid. OK, that’s crazy and anyone that talks about that is nuts,” said Sen. Joe Manchin, a conservative West Virginia Democrat.

“I do not support defunding the police,” said Sen. Gary Peters, a Michigan Democrat

“I don’t think that’s a good idea,” said Sen. Doug Jones, an Alabama Democrat facing a tough road to reelection. “Defunding and disbanding is not something I would ever, ever support.”

Just because you don’t see this stuff does not mean that it doesn’t exist.

So, for the eleventeenth time: the calls to “defund the police” mean different things to different people

True enough. I stand corrected. At least for not having seen these.

However, did you happen to notice that not a single one of those politicians equivocated about what ‘defund’ meant? About it having different meanings for different people or any nuances in interpretation?

It seemed pretty clear that they knew precisely what ‘defund the police’ meant. Just sayin’

I found this one interesting.

On Friday, Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot told reporters that “What I’ve heard from people in neighborhoods is that they want more police protection, not less.”

So, in that case does ‘defunding the police’ actually mean giving them more money? I’m not sure how you provide more police protection otherwise.

I know that you must understand this; you just need to pretend that you don’t.

I don’t need to pretend anything. You say you see shades and nuances and penumbras in what is meant. I say they said what they meant to say and when it polled badly they started trying to spin their way out of it.

The grass-roots movement in the wake of George Floyd’s death to defund the police — or at least reallocate some police money to other community services — is not something Democratic politicians in Washington want to touch. And a new poll shows why.

An ABC-Ipsos poll out Friday is the first major national poll to ask about this, and it finds that 64 percent of Americans oppose the movement to defund the police. That’s a strong majority saying they think what’s become a rallying cry among a sizable number of protesters is a bad idea.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/06/12/potentially-dangerous-politics-defund-police-democrats/

64 percent of the population opposed to something the Dems supported would be a lock on a second term for President Trump. I don’t need a magic 8 Ball to see why the weasel words to try and redefine the term started.

We have a difference of opinion. Not the first time I’ve disagreed with someone, won’t be the last.

@Michael #154

[As the protesters run around destroying the past.

You have a child’s view of history.

Taking statues out of the public square does not destroy history. I do not think that there is a single public statue of Adolf Hitler standing—perhaps anywhere on planet Earth—yet we are in no danger of forgetting who he is and what he did.

Oops – Godwin’s Law

Of course we won’t forget. How could the left condemn every Republican president (or candidate for president) as ‘literally Hitler’ if he got ‘unpersoned’.

They might have to start discussing substantive policy issues rather than name calling.

Apparently our current colleges ‘don’t know much about history’ – or at least can’t teach it.

Rioters deface monument honoring all-black regiment of Union Civil War soldiers

Exactly 123 years to the day that it was dedicated, the Shaw Memorial, a monument honoring the first all-volunteer black regiment of the Union Army in the Civil War, was defaced by rioters demanding justice for African-Americans.

One of the soldiers, Sgt. William Harvey Carney carried the American flag throughout the battle, never dropping it despite being shot 7 times. Carney was the first black American to win the Congressional Medal of Honor for action.

Liz Vizza, the executive director…was shocked that a memorial to black soldiers was defaced by rioters. She noted that the black men who fought in the 54th Massachusetts Regiment were not only risking death, but also the potential of being enslaved if they had been captured.
https://disrn.com/news/monument-honoring-all-black-regiment-of-civil-war-soldiers-defaced-by-black-lives-matter-rioters

Not sure what defacing it did to promote the cause, but if it’s a monument, it must be bad, right?

Plus these two:

Protesters have defaced a statue of Philadelphia abolitionist Matthias Baldwin…Baldwin argued for the right of African Americans to vote in Pennsylvania during the state’s 1837 Constitutional Convention, and helped establish a school for African American children where he paid teachers’ salaries for years.

“He hired blacks in his shops when that was not the norm,” Walsh said. “He was BLM [Black Lives Matter] before there was a slogan.”

Protesters also defaced Philadelphia’s Civil War Soldiers and Sailors monument with graffiti reading “BLM.” That monument’s inscription reads, “All who have labored today in behalf of the Union have wrought for the best interests of the country and the world not only for the present but for all future ages.”

“The irony of vandalizing a monument to those who died to end slavery is lost on the morons who don’t know their history,” Walsh said.
https://www.nationalreview.com/news/park-volunteer-outraged-over-vandalism-of-monument-to-philadelphia-abolitionist-he-was-blm-before-there-was-a-slogan/

And *my* view of history is ‘childlike’?

Are those ‘traitors and villains’?

@Michael: I’m glad you realized you can’t debate with me.

Good boy.

Now go read some books and stop bothering the adults.

Word and fact parsing is a very junior-level approach to discussion and doesn’t make your case in any way.

@Michael:
@Jay:

I believe that we probably shouldn’t celebrate Americans killing other Americans, so yes. The Indian Wars are a shameful part of our history. Museum: yes. Town square: no.

This is the oldest trick in the book: destroy a people’s tie to the past as to better subjugate them. I’ll keep our history, blood and all. The CHAZ citizens literally don’t know our history, but a skewed politically minded version that allows them to be willing pawns.

Keep the Buffalo Soldiers up. Keep them all up. Let citizens know what happened here, warts and all….

…or…destroy the culture so they can’t resist. Works every time. Germany, Russia, China, and every bloody place where a population was made to suffer.

@Michael:

All of this just goes to reinforce my initial points, which were a) this topic is now part of the national discuss and b) there is a spectrum of definitions to the term “defund the police.”

Very disingenuous to say. There is no national discussion, just another Left-wing relativist cause to vilify and marginalize their enemies with, and the subsequent cowardly relativist speak about what you just said doesn’t actually mean what you said.

Reminds me of Bill Clinton: “Define the meaning of the word ‘is’…”

In case you are too young, too uneducated, or too Leftitized, that was what a sitting President of the United states said at his real impeachment.

No national discussion, just Democrat chaos.
No spectrum of meaning. De-fund means to shrink and eventually do away with.

@Nathan Blue:

No national discussion

Despite the fact that the topic is literally being discussed by Lefties and Righties, in government and out, in newspapers, on radio, TV, podcasts and blogs (including this one). Trump has addressed it. McConnell has addressed it. Right. Gotcha. Except for all that discussion by all those people across all those different media, it’s not being discussed at all.

No spectrum of meaning. De-fund means to shrink and eventually do away with.

Except for all the people I’ve quoted in this thread, from presidential candidates to big-city mayors to academics to reporters, staking out various positions on the topic of what “defund the police” looks like, you’re absolutely correct. Except for all that.

@Michael: So the media and favored politicians who like the camera is your idea of a “national discussion”?

I can see your problem quite plainly, now.

A national discussion happens when I can voice my views and not get fired or vilified for them.

A national discussion does not take down the CEO of Crossfit for saying what the majority of American’s think.

Again, your “point” is inane.

@kitt:
Well, he wasn’t recalled from his governorship of Hispaniola and brought back to España in chains for shits and giggles.

@kitt:

A 1920s Klan smear campaign still lives and breathes in the hearts of progressive anti Catholic bigoted fools.

Is the Encyclopedia Britannica objective enough for you, or is it, too, in the pocket of Big 1920s Klan?

Columbus’s report to his sovereigns from the second voyage, taken back by Torres and so known as the Torres Memorandum, speaks of sickness, poor provisioning, recalcitrant natives, and undisciplined hidalgos (gentry). It may be that these problems had intensified, but the Columbus family must be held at least partly responsible, intent as it was on enslaving the Taino and shipping them to Europe or forcing them to mine gold on Hispaniola.

How It’s Done: Asheville, NC Protesters Attempt an Autonomous Zone, Police Immediately Dismantle It

The difference between leadership and lack thereof.

Witness how rule of law will prevail over lawlessness…

Then this:

Antifa Faction Of Occupy Seattle Group Turns Violent – CHAZ Community Attacks and Chokes Christian Speaker…

Things are slowly devolving into violent confrontation in the nation of CHAZ Seattle. However, the violence is not with law enforcement; the violence is internal as Antifa factions within the occupy movement begin doing what they are famous for, being violent.

An openly christian man walks into the occupied zone within Seattle, the Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone or CHAZ, to share the message of Jesus Christ. The Antifa elements immediately confronted the man, threw him to the ground and began choking him.
The Christian Preacher professed his own humanity and proclaimed he was a “free man”, but the rulers within the CHAZ community would not accept his cries for freedom.

The Chazukstan mob surround the preacher, shouting at him, berating him, and eventually trying to beat him into submission. At one point they sat atop the preacher in the same choking position that killed George Floyd. No-one noticed the irony.

The occupying CHAZ mob can be heard cheering for blood shortly before they stole the preachers possessions. The preacher said “stealing is not right” but the crowd did not care. This is the anarchist nation of CHAZ, where the mob rules.

@Deplorable Me:

Actually, YOU insulted HER, showing how you didn’t care about her mother’s safety.

This is the stupidest thing I’ve ever seen you type, and that’s really saying something. How, precisely, did I show that?

Defund means defund.

Well, as I suggested elsewhere in this thread, either the word will take on a new meaning to accommodate a new usage (as often happens in the English language), or a different phrase will come into use to describe the process of restructuring that is likely to take place. If you bothered to do any reading on the topic, you’d have seen that many people in power who want to change policing in America would rather that “defund the police” had not become the rallying cry, since it doesn’t describe what most of them would like to do. They know that it is confusing for fools.

Do you think no one can decode “reallocating funds and tasks away from the police” to mean something other than the police will cease to exist?

I think that a person who’s not determined to be angry about the topic would understand that “reallocating funds and tasks” does not equal—or even imply—reallocating all funds and all tasks. If you bothered to read any of the quotes I cited last night, you would have seen the one from the Dallas cop who was complaining that the police are being called on to perform societal functions that they are not necessarily trained to perform. Those could be transferred to another organization.

Columbus wasn’t “woke” and was no more a villain than anyone else of his time.

I would posit that he was less of a villain than all the folks of the time who didn’t kidnap and enslave people.

He was torn by the rebellion and hated it but could not abandon his STATE, which was far more personal and close to citizens of that day.

That’s pure rationalization. There were plenty of folks during and after the war who called for Lee, Davis, and others to be hanged as traitors, and they all lived at the same time he did. The rest of the entire Union knew, in fact, that what the rebels was doing was wrong, and they were living at the same time, too. Why are you so determined to defend traitors? Why do you support people who took up arms against your own country?

@kitt:

Geeze orphan can you read the entire statement? You just have zero comprehension how much of a brainwashed pussy you really are.

Then go ahead and explain to me how I don’t care about your mother’s safety and well-being. If it’s so clear, this should be easy for you.

That’s pure rationalization, yes its rational and sane.

You clearly don’t understand the meaning of the word “rationalization.”

You can hold those from different time eras to todays standards of thought, with out rational or sane thought.

If we’re going to celebrate them in today’s world, then that’s reasonable. If your approach is better, please explain to me why the Model T Ford is not voted “Car of the Year” every year. It was the best car in existence at its time.

It isnt that we dont get the point you are trying to get across its that your point is dumb and we reject it.

I would respectfully suggest that you don’t get it at all.

@Michael:

If we’re going to celebrate them in today’s world, then that’s reasonable. If your approach is better, please explain to me why the Model T Ford is not voted “Car of the Year” every year. It was the best car in existence at its time.

You see only select people get to vote on these things.
Like tearing down statues seems only select people get to decide Lenins statue stays and Jeffersons gets torn down.
Seems the left became super pussies only in the last 3 years or so, unable to accept any freedom of speech, differing opinions that there are those that like certain statues and they were there for many years if you dont like them ignore them. You cant accept a proper definition of a word. If that isnt what they mean let them correct their language, not misuse a word.
Those attacking the police know exactly what that definition is, they wont compromise on it dumb politicians will try to tell them what they really mean, last I heard that isnt going very well for them.
What you define as rationalization others say is simple truth, you dont like that truth well, F*ck off. We will celebrate whom ever we please, dont need your permission to do so.
https://www.carthrottle.com/post/wbxgy5x/

@Michael:

I’m still hoping you can tell me what I said or did that showed I have no concern for your mother’s safety and health. You suggested that it was obvious, but I’m not seeing it. Perhaps you could help me.

Not inclined to do so I dont feel like catering to an someone that is emotionally retarded. Go see your shrink.

@Michael:

This is the stupidest thing I’ve ever seen you type, and that’s really saying something. How, precisely, did I show that?

She mentioned your mother (anyone’s mother) needing 911. You replied your mother was deceased. It could be taken to mean since YOUR mother didn’t need 911, you didn’t care about 911. Kitt replied her mother was still alive and, being well, worth protecting, something you disagree with. She didn’t insult you, you insulted her.

Well, as I suggested elsewhere in this thread, either the word will take on a new meaning to accommodate a new usage (as often happens in the English language), or a different phrase will come into use to describe the process of restructuring that is likely to take place.

If someone means “reorganize” or ” discuss” or “analyze” or any of the other excuses you are trying to make take hold, they should use THOSE words, not “defund”. Defund means defund.

I think that a person who’s not determined to be angry about the topic would understand that “reallocating funds and tasks” does not equal—or even imply—reallocating all funds and all tasks.

Well, that’s what “defund” means. If they don’t mean defund, they should and COULD be using a different word.

That’s pure rationalization. There were plenty of folks during and after the war who called for Lee, Davis, and others to be hanged as traitors, and they all lived at the same time he did.

There were also people, not long after the war, that named military bases for the best military leaders. Some people, even those actually affected, were able to get over it or, at least, not stir up hatred for political purposes.

@Deplorable Me:

It could be taken to mean since YOUR mother didn’t need 911, you didn’t care about 911.

Only by someone looking to get angry about something.

Kitt replied her mother was still alive and, being well, worth protecting, something you disagree with.

I never said I disagreed with protecting her mother.

She didn’t insult you, you insulted her.

You explained it, and it’s still not true. Ah, well.

If someone means “reorganize” or ” discuss” or “analyze” or any of the other excuses you are trying to make take hold, they should use THOSE words, not “defund”. Defund means defund.

Well, as I actually said in the paragraph you quoted and elswhere in this thread, that’s what seems likely to happen.

Well, that’s what “defund” means. If they don’t mean defund, they should and COULD be using a different word.

Yeah, but we were talking about the word “reallocate” at that point, weren’t we? Not “defund.”

There were also people, not long after the war, that named military bases for the best military leaders. Some people, even those actually affected, were able to get over it or, at least, not stir up hatred for political purposes.

Good for them, I guess…? Just because somebody made a decision 150 years ago doesn’t mean that we’re bound by that decision until the crack of Doom. It’s not Moses’ Covenant with Jehovah. They’re statues, and the names of military bases. Not even the military bases themselves, mind you–just the names of the bases. Most statues that are moved will likely be accessible to treason-worshipers in museums or in private collections.

It wouldn’t hurt for you to look at the actual reasons some of those statues were erected, especially those after the turn of the twentieth century. You might learn something.

@Michael: Go to your shrink, I cant fix you, or even begin to explain to you it wasnt me looking to get angry, you lashed out pretending ability to have genuine emotion then as I suspect is part of your mental damage attempt to blame me. While you fling insults and then get your thong in a knot when they are returned, just F*ck off and try to get some help from a mental health professional.
And for goodness sakes quit whining it is sickening.

you made fun of me. Remember?

Democrats are dealing with something they cant control not even with all the media behind them.

Odd Contradiction – Chicago Officials Support ‘Defund Police’ Movement But Cancel Police Day’s Off and Require 12hr Extended Shifts…

Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot has previously down-played the violence, looting and riots in the city; while simultaneously telling city aldermen they were over-hyping the problems and issues within the city. Oddly enough Mayor Lightfoot said this while begging the looted merchants not to abandon the city… so that was always an odd juxtaposition.

Today, the contradiction gets even more weird as the entire Chicago police department; you know, those horrid people Lightfoot previously disparaged and said were unneeded; are now required to work their day’s-off and extend to 12 hour shifts.

CHICAGO – Chicago police officers on Sunday were once again ordered to work 12-hour shifts and have their days off canceled amid some protesting that has persisted in parts of the city following George Floyd’s death at the hands of Minneapolis police nearly three weeks ago.

[…] Until further notice, Chicago officers who are on active duty and not on vacation will have to work the 12-hour shifts — a normal shift is about 8½ hours — and come in on their days off, the Chicago police spokesman, Luis Agostini, said Sunday morning. (read more)

Isn’t the purpose of ‘defunding‘ the police, essentially to have less policing? Apparently Chicago is doing the ‘defunding‘ thing backwards.

Odd that while they want to eradicate the police they also want them on work on their days off and put in overtime. If it is established thinking on the part of the radical left that there is no need for police, why this policy now?

@Deplorable Me: Take away effective highly trained policing you will soon have chaos. Major flight of taxpayers of all kinds and businesses, More Detroits and Baltimores.
There is a movement against investment and improvement of the urban areas or gentrification. Seattle is the 3rd most gentrifed city in America, go search for images of before and after. Crime rates dropping is just one of the horrible effects of gentrificaion. The Democrats tax black home owners out, but its all the fault of those nasty developers.

@Michael: Oh he who thinks he knows it all El Paso, Houston, Dallas, San Antonio and the Rio Grande Valley, democrat, from California and NY flight from taxes. They followed corporations, never learned that democrats are destructive to everything they touch.
I know when some guy buck naked high on drugs waving a machete is spotted you will call your shrink or will you need 911.

@Michael: I would have to ask him how is this different from the beginning of policing. Police and peace officers have always dealt with every societal failure, what happens after the police have ended a situation is the failing not the police.

@Michael: Apparently you are considering someone carrying a weapon as an “armed response”. Maybe you should venture out of your own neighborhood every so often.

When my daughter was training as a nurse, she would have to visit poor communities. She was instructed NOT to wear her scrubs or any uniform as this would make her a target for being mugged for drugs. The places that need the wellness checks the most are also the areas where carrying a weapon is most necessary. It is also a sad fact that the THREAT of an “armed response” is what keeps the peace in many cases. The THREAT that laws will be enforced is what maintains law and order, not the constant drone that cops are racist brutes.

Also, are you aware that a “wellness check” might be a visit to a crime scene or a crime in progress?