Just knock it off. We are not talking about budgets when we are talking about passing laws.
Actually, that’s exactly what I’m saying. I dont know why you’re having such a hard time with this.
A budget is a law. It must be presented to the City Council, voted on by said Council, and then signed by the Mayor.
You are beginning to bore me with your juvenile nit picking. The fact remains, the City can defund their police department and set new policy regarding enforcement of traffic laws by the police, without passing any new statues.
No, they can’t.
The funding and responsibilities of the BPD are codified into law. To change that, new laws must be passed - and new contracts must be negotiated.
All of which requires that the City Council vote, and the Mayor sign.
If you cannot move past your nit-picking “budgets are laws” schtick I’m done with you.
Ok. Buh-bye.
I don’t even understand what you’re trying to say, but if you need to flounce, I won’t stop you.
Your inability to follow simple statements does not mean that I am flouncing. I am stating a fact. The City does not have to pass new legislation in order to defund their police. They have that authority, power and ability through the existing budget process.
1 Like
Cluster Foxtrot
So this entire conversation was just you picking a semantic nit to death? That was your whole point?
When I say “law”, I meant a more general context than changing statutory law. Perhaps “legislation” would be a better word.
Henie penie the sky is falling the sky is falling???
If they are going to create a new civilian, unarmed force – they will have to pass something crerating it, determining their policy and proceedures (will be different than law enforcement ones), and set their budget and decrease the police budget. All through passage of the city council by appropriate vote, and public hearings if required.
Good. Armed officers for traffic violations are not necessary, imo.
Just install round-a-bouts at every intersection…then…no need for lights…problem solved.
Until you pull over someone who is armed and dangerous.
Libs live in la-la land where that doesn’t happen…until it does…and they’re unprepared. “Defund the police.”
If a vast majority of their time is spent giving traffic tickets, why do they need a gun?
-
What do you think the statistics are for that scenario?
-
What about an armed officer is going to make the armed and dangerous less armed and dangerous?
-
How violent do you think said armed individual is going to be when jail or a shootout aren’t possibilities?
I mean, have they never seen how violent some people, especially young males, can be? I was in a car with a guy once when a guy in another car cut him off, he got out at the next red light, beat a hole through that guys windshield, drug him out of the car through it and beat the crap out of the other driver.
Good luck to an unarmed traffic cop who pulls somebody like that over when they are having one of those days.
All the more reason to lessen the number of scenarios where police need to pull people over. We have the technology…
This.
