It’s hard to read much ambiguity into “Defund The Police.” From Techno_Fog via zerohedge.com:
Op-Ed by attorney and investigative journalist @Techno_Fog,
“Defund the police” is quite the rallying cry. It’s a policy statement in five syllables. The language is clear and meaning is impossible to miss. The next steps after defunding the police, however, do require explanation. To whom does a community turn for its security needs when a police force is defunded and therefore eliminated?
Once you understand that there is no good answer to this question, then you get why the media has designated itself as the spokesperson of the movement. It becomes clear why the media has so graciously explained to us, the dumb public, why defunding the police does not mean defunding the police. Take this explanation published in the Washington Post:
“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. It means investing more in mental-health care and housing, and expanding the use of community mediation and violence interruption programs.”
Of course, the movement disagrees. The New York Times is running op-eds with the title “Yes, We Mean Literally Abolish the Police” by an author whose stated goal is “to abolish prisons and police.”