Yesterday during our Board of County Commissioners meeting we had three speakers that wanted to discuss defunding our sheriff's office.The first speaker, a young lady from the Fort Walton Beach area, discussed the need for more social services and for "reduced" police budgets.
After her comments, I explained to her that every year we struggle to have enough revenue to adequately fund our sheriff's office. I told her about the difficulties the ECSO has had with retaining deputies. I told her I was concerned about even having the ability to hire enough law enforcement officers given the current state of issues in America today. I asked her "Who would want to do this work?" I asked her if she was talking about "defunding" the police----as I have heard that term floated in the media and online. I told her that was a ridiculous idea that I would never support.Then, the other two speakers got up. The second speaker took the opportunity to say I was "rude" to the first speaker. (I wasn't) He got animated when he said "Defunding the police isn't abolishing the police!"
The third speaker got up and said he believed we should "defund the police" but that the term "defund" didn't really mean to defund them--just to reallocate their funding to "other" social programs for the community.
"Come on, you know that's what it means the money just goes to other programs, it doesn't go away--don't be Ignorant!" He exclaimed angrily toward the dais.
But most of the people in the room didn't seem to understand what he meant--and we're not ignorant. It's just what he was saying doesn't make sense.
Defunding means just what it says. Defunding. Taking the whole budget.
Watch this discussion between these speakers and I at this video link, from minute 8:45 forward....
Reducing a budget would seem to be what he was really advocating for. So why not say "reduce" instead of "defund?"
Because if an organization has its budgets "defunded"--that results in a total loss of service such an organization can provide. A police force or sheriff's office cannot operate without a budget--because personnel cost money and they have to be paid. Organizations have costs: facilities, equipment, fuel, benefits costs, pension costs, etc. etc. No Law Enforcement Organization can operate on NO budgeted funds.
If it is a reduced budget--well that is a different thing all together--but equally disturbing.
If it is police we are talking about, less funding (via a reduced budget) would be absolutely disastrous, it would lead to diminished training and equipment budgets and fewer personnel out in the communities keeping us safe. It is an absolutely ludicrous, ridiculous idea that is not grounded in reality.
No rational policymaker anywhere supports "defunding" police budgets. Not even Joe Biden. Nobody supports this. Because it is ridiculous.
Actually, we need increased budgets for enhanced training, better pay, and MORE police.
Yes, MORE police keeping us a country of law and order--because when someone is robbing a bank, holding a teller at gunpoint--we need trained police to respond, not a "rapid-response social work team." When a violent, dangerous drug dealer is shooting his gun into a house or all over a neighborhood--a substance abuse counselor cannot help this situation--and if we sent a substance abuse counselor out to address the violent, armed drug dealer--such a counselor would likely get shot himself/herself.
No. We need MORE law enforcement, well trained, well equipped, and well compensated.
Now more than ever.
