Host Alisyn Camerota asked, “But to be clear, you’re not talking about reform. The word dismantle is intentionally different than reform. This is more than reform. This is dismantling. I mean, activists who support this are calling this a police-free future.”
Bender said, “Yeah, and you know, a lot of us were asked if we could manage a future without police back in 2017 when we were running for office, and I answered yes to that question. To me, that future is a long way away, and it would take an enormous amount of investment in things that we know work to keep people safe. For a lot of folks in our community, stable housing is a safety issue. Having access to health care is a safety issue. So, having, you know, I think one thing folks are asking is to stop investing so much money in this militarized police force and instead invest in the things that our community really needs. So, you know, I know the statement was bold, and I stand by that bold statement, but the work ahead of us will be long, it will include every member of our community. It has to.”
Now her answer is inconsistent. First she says that it's possible to have a society without police and that she's for dismantling the police then she says it's a way off in the future thing.
Rhetoric like this, shared by 8 other city council members, however sounds like a call to get rid of police now.
But it's also insane. Does anyone think that stable housing, access to healthcare will lead to no crime?
It's a core Democrat belief that everyone is a saint, other than Republicans, and that if we just be nice to people they won't commit crimes.
That's simply an indefensible claim given what we know of human behavior.
This is what Democrats like Bender want rioting when they don't get their way, no police to protect the innocent, and no guns for the innocents to protect themselves.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment