"Defund the police" doesn't mean taking away all police. It just means reducing funding and reducing responsibilities of the police to avoid them becoming a catch-all for any civil issue.
It seems there's a debate between people who mean "defund" literally, that is, who want to abolish police, and people who are trying to moderate or (depending on your perspective) dilute the idea. The first group seems to have been at it for longer. If so, they must resent their slogan and their idea being coopted in this way.
Private police forces employed by the rich will maintain order on private property. The poor will be less protected.
And the poor are dying from a death of a thousand social services cuts- diminished mental and physical health services, childcare and teen programs, etc. It's not unreasonable to assess whether local spending on police and other services can be re-balanced for better community outcomes.
I think it would go the other way and protections would be granted to these private forces when they are asked to take over public enforcement in public spaces.
They also wouldn't be bound by same standards police have now. DAs wouldn't have access to public information they have now because the information would be private. Nor would private police be forced underlaw to declose facts. That notepad that gets handed in doesn't exist nor does the body camera footage.
Don't say it can't happen because many prisons are private and much worse for the prisioner, the guards, the families. Think slave labor doesn't exist? Try earning 45 cents an hour.. in America in jail.
https://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/29/nyregion/overrun-by-crime...
https://www.citylab.com/equity/2018/01/what-happened-to-crim...
Seems like it was relatively successful without turning into a neoliberal hellscape.
https://whyy.org/articles/complaints-excessive-police-force-...
> With about a month left in 2017, 15 complaints are on the books, roughly half of last year’s total.
> In 2014, the total was 65 – the highest in a state that has its share of crime-ridden cities.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-06-04/how-camde...
> By the department’s account, reports of excessive force complaints in Camden have dropped 95% since 2014.
I can't find many sources about the number of excessive force complaints in Camden after 2014.
Assuming the numbers are accurate, I'd say the lesson is that it isn't a magic bullet. You might end up hiring a bunch of sadistic assholes again anyway. But without a union obstructing everything you do, it does give you a lot of power over regulating conduct and implementing guidelines for how officers apply (or don't apply) force, how they handle potentially dangerous situations, how they handle people in general, whether they prefer de-escalation over seeing citizens purely as dangers to be dealt with. There's actually a chance at accountability without a union obstructing every attempt to improve behaviour. If you have somebody in charge who cares about improving the policing environment (and the appropriate political, judicial and public oversight), these seem to be very good things to me.
edit:
It deleted my last edit. Balls.
https://www.nj.com/camden/2017/08/how_njs_most_dangerous_cit...
when in ideologically-friendly circles, you say "defund the police!" and don't worry about how literally people will take it. they will assume your position is the same as theirs and agree.
when an outsider questions you, you say "oh, of course we don't mean it literally". then you go back to using the unqualified version within your bubble. after a while, who knows what you mean? who cares?