Is the "Defund the police"-argument anti-police or not?

'Defund the police' is a slogan, not a fully articulated policy position. Different people and groups will use and interpret it in different ways, and will do so inconsistently with each other. That will be the case until some cohesive group takes up the banner of that slogan and articulates it in a generally accepted way.

Grass-roots movements often start from vague rallying cries that later evolve into clear positions, but that evolution has not yet occurred in this case.

The general observation that lies behind this particular rallying cry is that — nationwide, and on all levels of government, and through various means — police forces have managed to secure significant funding that has allowed them to:

• Acquire military grade hardware and tactical gear for domestic deployment
• Increase both the prevalence and sophistication of surveillance over citizens
• Expand prison and jail capacity so that more people can be incarcerated
• Insulate themselves against lawsuits and civil controls, through legal actions and political influence

This has had some significant consequences. On one hand, police (obviously) use the equipment and impunities they have, meaning that their treatment of citizens — from criminals to peaceful protesters to mere bystanders — has become increasingly aggressive, intimidating, and physically dangerous. No-knock warrants, indiscriminate use of chemical agents, life-threatening restraint techniques, and overwhelming (and overwhelmingly expensive) shows of force have led to an oppressive atmosphere that in many cases makes police seem like an occupying military force meant to suppress citizens, not a public service meant to aid citizens. On the other hand, this shift of funding towards police has had a significant impact on other governmental functions and social services. Mental health treatment, drug treatment, social services, and other public welfare activities that might ultimately reduce the incidence of crime have seen their budgets slashed as police and sheriff's offices have become increasingly better funded. This has led (as some have pointed out) to a situation where police are obliged to take over tasks that other agencies would be far better suited for, because police have the funding those other agencies lack. One needs only look at cases like the notorious Rampart scandal to get a feel for the problem, where police corruption and abuse ultimately generated an increase in police budgets and a greater drain on public treasuries as lawsuits against the city were settled.

The essential idea behind the slogan 'Defund the Police', thus, is that citizens should take back money that police are (currently) using to create overwhelming physical dominance — something most citizens do not want in their relationship to police — and reallocate that funding to social and civic agencies, institutions, infrastructures, and policies that are more productive for the general citizenry. Cutting police budgets would simultaneously mean that police have less capacity for outright violent suppression, and that other activities would gain access to funding currently denied them. There is great disagreement on how far this should be pursued: more radical elements hold that police should be cut back to bare minimum or abolished entirely, while moderates merely look for a more balanced distribution of public funding that provides for both a reasonable police force and reasonable civic services. Shifting certain activities away from police to other agencies is one tactic among many for addressing this issue, but is by no means central to the ides. But as I said, this particular rallying cry is still evolving into a final form, so we'll have to wait and see what (if anything) it amounts to.