Yes, replace police with unarmed community based responders for non-violent calls

The police need to be funded MORE, but I am not opposed to community responders bc that will free up the police to handle real problems

No, don’t do that because then the crime relates will raise even higher then they already are because police are the ones keeping us safe from the criminal that are out there.

The police force is necessary because it guarantees an attempt at protection, with physical force being used only when threatened (assuming unbiased/uncorrupted officers).

Crime rates are increasing, younger criminals. Increase in drug use plays a part. We need to increase our spending and get more police presence. Society needs law & order.

without the police, people can steal,kill,rape,deface and do anything else that is against the law while facing little defiance

You never know what could happen and keeping our police armed is the best way to combat that. You never know if they are walking into a trap.

How could the police protect everyone with no weapons. There is no threat and you are putting them at risk.

Don't, armed policemen and women are, while at times unfair with choices and actions, those fair and reasonable should remain armed in response to the number of armed citizens in the states.

Making cops go into dangerous situations unarmed will probably make their lives more in danger, and will endanger the lives of others by not stopping a criminal faster

Without a trusted police force this nation could go to ruin because people won't have the incentive to follow the law.

Abolishing police departments within communities will severely affect crime rates, and civilian safety. Police are trained professionals for dangerous situations. While this question only pertains to non-violent calls, it offers no alternative for calls that are violent. The army or special forces as a response to these calls are unnessescary, dramatic, and not their job. Furthermore, this argument doesn't account for non-violent calls that can escalate to a violent situation. If an unarmed community responder is placed on a job that escalates to a violent situation, this responder has…  Read more no way of defending themselves effectively, as they are unarmed. This could lead to a loss of community lives that could otherwise have been prevented with a police force. While I understand the motives behind this argument come from a place of concern for civilians, as some officers have alternate motives

Our police keep us safe 24/7 around the clock, and if you take that away and put in community based responders, you run the risk of someone not being available to help.

What happens when a violent call happens and there is no cops with guns or that are even paid. People won't feel scared to commit crimes if there's no lethal force to go against them.

Do you really think that citizens who have no experience should be in charge of things the police usually handle

There will be no protection and i think a lot of people would feel very unsafe with no armed police and i think it would increase the crime rate

Then what happens when a gunman walks into a school. What happens when someone with a weapon robs your home at night. Who's gonna save you then?

I don't agree with that because what if the suspect in question turned violent? Police should hold some sort of weapon on them just in case the suspect does something to the safety of themselves, others, or the police.

Some non-violent calls can quickly turn into life threatening situations, this has been displayed several times, as if a unarmed officer is sent into a situation, that is seemingly safe, it rapidly can turn into a deadly situation in which they get ambushed or a gun drawn on them, and they are left defenseless.

police should not be defunded they are already under funded but I do think more training for police officers to handle mental health patience. I my opinion sending unarmed is going to put there lives in danger.

We have already seen what happened with a major defunding of the police with capitol hill in Oregon, and it overall is just a bad idea

Police are the people that protect you from murders and all other kinds of dangerous things and they can’t do their job if you defund them

A call that is supposudely non-violent can easily go south. The purpose of the police is to enforce the order of the law onto America's citizens, and maintain justice. Often, this can require force, even at the smallest levels. Better to be safe than sorry and have a protector in a situation, versus another liability.

Police are needed to keep communities safe, without police, crimes will become more common. Just look at major cities that have decreased police spending. They are seeing higher crime rates.

Without police your in constant danger. What happens to you if someone breaks into your house and holds your mom at gun point and there is no police to help you.

Police officers keep order, just like regular people there are some bad apples in the bunch, but police are key in protecting our country, without them the streets would be ramped and there would be little control.

No, keep the police funding because they are here to keep us safe and they have been doing their job

Some people may believe this is a good idea since it will “give the people more power” but in reality it will give people who have not been trained to assess situations they are not prepared for while being armed and unstable. This will lead to more deaths. Defunding the police is a crazy idea because they will keep you safe and punishing good people for the bad decisions of a few would mean that many businesses and government led things would have to be shut down as well.

The Police are more trained and regulated to deal with all types of incidents, so replacing them with community members is a horrible idea. Police officers are more dedicated and prepared for those situations, and have had more experience to evaluate possible outcomes more effectively. In my opinion, the Police should be better funded and have more training that focuses on the psychology of victims and non-violent offenders.

This is particularly useless. Imagine the situation where a not a good person with a gun shows up and starts shooting. If you particularly have peaceful calls, do you realistically believe that this is attainable? No it isn't. And even if it was non-violent calls, imagine it's a surprise attack. There's a saying better to be safe than sorry. You want to take that risk then go for it.

This would cause more crime to happen because if someone knows that there is no police and only “peaceful” unarmed people they will more likely commit crime.

NO. POLICE SHOULD ALWAYS BE ARMED. They won't resort to drawing their firearms unless they feel their lives threatened. As crazy as people are, that non-violent call could be an ambush or become violent

The police should protect us at all costs. People who are unqualified should stay out of it as the police are specifically trained to handle these situations.

This entire mindset is twisted into believing situations cannot and will not escalate to violence. Police officers are sadly required to respond as medics, social workers, parents, dog handlers, you name it, they do it. Police should never be replaced, instead trained on how to respond to calls better. Training and funding should be increased.

It is stupid, why should we give up our safety against criminals who are willing and able to kill us because of people who do not like the police. Those views are radical and the people need to understand that if this were to happen the death of victims during a crime will skyrocket because there will be no police to investigate, locate, and arrest the criminal. If your house was being broken into and the armed assailant had a gun to you, how would you feel knowing that no cops would ever be coming to help. What if the assailant shot you in the stomach area hitting a rib and puncturing a lung or causing it to collapse? there would be no one to help because the police arrive first to a scene such as this one explained so that other first responders can go in. Banning guns wouldn't work either because criminals already get them illegaly.

Criminals will always find a way to obtain illegal weapons and firearms. If we limit the tools used by the police and other peace officers than we will only be hindering them.

If we have unarmed Responders and an attacker that is armed decides to cause violence they are ultimately in control until they run out of ammo or stops whenever they decide, because we do not have the force to match what they have.