• FilthyHookerSpit@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    4 months ago

    I think disarming/defending would be two sides of the same issue. I meant to add to the list for defending, splitting police’s workload with some other task force/committees like having dedicated traffic police that only deal with traffic issues/social workers for mental health crises, semi medical personnel (to help paramedics) for injured cases/domestic abuses. If force is necessary, there should be a highly trained specialized force they would call in.

    Being a cop carries too many responsibilities, diverting some of those to dedicated teams/positions would create less scenarios where cops come and shoot your dog (or you) and create more jobs.

    • Alkali@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      4 months ago

      I don’t disagree. My point is the discussion should be stated in a way that is less “shocking” than defund the police. While the goal is to gain traction with the shock value, at this point the narrative needs to be switched to a more nuanced and accurate description.

      Also, apologies for being pedantic, but paramedics are already semi-medical personnel. It literally means alongside medic(cal). In truth, we should be also deploying nursing and medical staff into the outside environment that are supported by paramedics. Currently, the problem is cost and public interest isn’t there.

      • FilthyHookerSpit@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        I agree, maybe instead it should be “stop over paying police”. Then we could change the discussion to shifting some of those tax payer funds to roles/positions that deserve it.