The End Result of "Defund the Police" is not Anarchy or The Purge. It's Federal Police.


I'm not sure why people think anarchy would take over after the crime fighting force of any city was disbanded. In what world would the government stand by and watch a city burn? In reality, if a city refuses to protect its populace, the federal government will step in. Introducing the federal police. Police that answer directly to the federal government. You think the executive branch has power now, wait until the federal police arrive. Think Trump's a dictator? Wait until he controls the police. Then you'll see a dictator. Mayors, governors, city councils, who needs 'em? The federal police are here to save the day. You've removed your city's one and only line of defense and now you have nothing. Everything a federal government could ask for. Know who else was a fan of federal policing? Hitler, Stalin, Mao Zedong... you know, only the greatest mass murderers in history.

So go ahead. Run outside. Break glass, burn buildings, loot stores, hold those "defund the police!" signs up high, because if you ask for it hard enough you'll get it, but you don't know what you're asking for. Under no circumstances does any national government let a city deteriorate into a lawless wasteland. They'll step in and do the city's job for it if said city abdicates that responsibility. Don't fool yourself into thinking otherwise. Others who did so either ended up dead or under fascism's heel.

The End Result of Defund the Police is not Anarchy or The Purge. Its Federal Police.
The End Result of "Defund the Police" is not Anarchy or The Purge. It's Federal Police.
Add Opinion

Most Helpful Guys

  • goaded
    No, it's not, it's local community policing. As created in the early 19th century.

    Written in 1829, these principles still hold true.

    "4. To recognise always that the extent to which the co-operation of the public can be secured diminishes proportionately the necessity of the use of physical force and compulsion for achieving police objectives."

    "5. To seek and preserve public favour, not by pandering to public opinion, but by constantly demonstrating absolutely impartial service to law, in complete independence of policy, and without regard to the justice or injustice of the substance of individual laws..."

    "6. To use physical force only when the exercise of persuasion, advice and warning is found to be insufficient to obtain public co-operation to an extent necessary to secure observance of law or to restore order, and to use only the minimum degree of physical force which is necessary on any particular occasion for achieving a police objective."

    "7. ... the police are the public and that the public are the police, the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen..."

    "9. ... the test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and disorder, and not the visible evidence of police action in dealing with them."
    Is this still revelant?
  • Ad_Quid_Orator
    They're talking about compartmentalizing the police forces in major cities where instead of having a single police department for the whole city, individual districts will have their own precincts. In other words, they're talking about de-centralizing the police force.

    What a lowly attempt at fear mongering on your part -_-
    Is this still revelant?
    • What they're talking about and what is actually going to happen aren't the same thing. Police forces are already "decentralized". That's why we have separate bureaus for separate areas. What they're talking about doing is removing the police entirely and replacing them with social programs. IE Minneapolis.

    • Decentralized versus centralized aren't categorical variables. They fall on a continuum and many people are advocating further decentralization.

Scroll Down to Read Other Opinions

What Girls & Guys Said

  • Thatsamazing
    No it isn't, federal police already exist, you're a moron, please don't reproduce.
    • Yeah let’s go ahead with “defund the police”. We will look you in with the republic of Chaz. We aren’t giving you any supplies though. You are supposed to be autonomous. Let’s see if you make it 3 months.

    • @youknowbetter Let's go ahead with writing utter nonsense, I guess. Would be better to avoid that course of action, but hey, you're living dangerously here I see. You're just as stupid as ^ the OP is, apparently. Good work out there.

    • The FBI is not the federal police. I'd thank you for trying, but you didn't.

    • Show All
  • Snakeyes7
    The police IS the federal police, they are partly funded by taxpayers. And yes it will be anarchy, I invite you to look up what happened in Montreal on October 7th, 1969 where the famous Murray-Hill riots took place when the police went on strike for 16 hours.
    • The police are funded by local city taxes. The difference between the police and federal police will be whose laws they uphold. Right now, city governments and state governments hold a lot of sway over how laws are enforced in their jurisdictions. That's why things like sanctuary cities exist. Remove local police and introduce federal police and sanctuary cities go away over night. So do state rights and constitutions.

    • Snakeyes7


  • BoountyHunter
    This entire concept of defunding (or abolishing) the police is absolutely ridiculous

    much of this movement right now has lost its path
    its less about equality and fair treatment
    and more about spreading hatred
    • goaded

      It depends what you call the police. UK police, for two hundred years, have been more or less successfully part of the community. In the US, police are descended from slave catchers and union busters and sometimes seem little better than gangs, themselves. (1829 UK policing principles)

    • @goaded

      If we are going to use that standard
      why not not discuss Constable Joshua Pratt?
      or the history of the Rattlewatch?
      or the Pennsylvania State Police?

    • @goaded But to be honest
      its not a great argument to make

      We are not talking about 200 years ago

      We are speaking about today

    • Show All
  • Surely
    So True.
    The Devil you could get, might be worse then the Devil you already have!
    Also, if President Trump declares Martial Law, there will be no election until it is lifted.
  • humanearth
    Once they are in place, there no going back. There will there for good. Till a stronger force takes them out.

    In WW2 there were the Allied powers. It was Great Britain, France, the Soviet Union, the United States, and China. This group stopped it then.

    Who going to save us when Hitler return from the dead in the USA.

    I think the world would be totally fucked then.

    Like what countries would team up and go against these big countries that won WW2. Because you know, they will stand behind each others back in todays world
  • not329446
    It lets people know how many idiots are out there.
  • Radio4men
    If that happens welcome to HELL!

Share the first opinion in your gender
and earn 1 more Xper point!