So defund the police and don’t talk to the police. Why have them? Nice to see the mayors who thought this was a good idea have plenty of protection though.
If you think that the phrases "defund the police" and "don't talk to the police" are suggesting that the conclusory argument is that we shouldn't have police, then you haven't seriously taken any meaningful time to understand the point of each.*
Here is what the phrases are essentially saying:
1. Defund the police - it means let's re-organize the structures of police force and train other governmental service agencies to handle certain situations in conjunction with the police. For example, let's instead of sending 6 officers to a tense scene let's send 4 officers and a social worker and a mental health professional. It also means lets de-militarize the police forces so counties/municipalities/states aren't paying for the maintanence and upkeep of actual tanks. These steps should help curtail or better address situations and will ultimately mean less tax dollars going to police.
TL;dr: Instead of "defund the police" think "restructure the police."
2. Don't talk to the police - the fifth amendment offers us the right to remain silent and not be compelled to be a witness against ourselves. Put differently, we have a constitutional right not to have to admit we may have committed a crime. In my experience, it's always best to exercise this right when in doubt because there's a human factor/element to law enforcement. I'll give an anecdotal example as to how this can go wrong. I was hired in the moment to represent a person being accused of, essentially, child molest. He was going to be arrested and law enforcement wanted to talk to the person. The person also wanted to give their story. The interviewing detective was a law enforcement officer I had very positive prior experiences with and respected - and therefore, especially with me present and the interview being recorded, it would be straightforward and professional. So client did the interview. Client denied all wrongdoing and essentially profferred a sensible account of sitting on a couch with the child victim playing a game. At some point the detective said, "well, if [the child] was sitting next to you, obviously your legs were touching?" Person naturally replied in the affirmative. Fast forward then to the probable cause statement provided by the otherwise good/responsible officer that read, "[defendant] admitted in an interview to touching the child." This incident illustrates perfectly how even the most benign, innocent statement is subject to hyperbolic or mischaracterized gloss by law enforcement. As such, if one is under suspicion, he really is best served not talking to the police. This, of course, if a far cry from not calling the police if you are a witness to or a victim of a crime. Further, if somebody committed a crime, it's very likely a charge can be brought and a conviction be attained without a coerced or misrepresented confession and, therefore, it is in the public good that defendants not engage in custodial interrogation with law enforcement.
Tl;dr: "Call the police if you witness a crime, you are trying to prevent a crime, or somebody is hurt. If the police think you may have committed a crime though you should exercisie your consitutional right to not be subjected to their questioning."
*I'll concede that they are bad names for a labeling/marketing perspective and can be confusing or misleading at first glance.
