To the Editor:

People who I assumed were intelligent are overreacting to the word “defund” as if it means no longer paying for a police department. They imagine that there will be no law enforcement in America and don’t know what is actually being proposed.

The discussion relates to reforms in how the police budget can be more constructively distributed. In densely populated, poverty- stricken communities, the police are often involved in domestic disputes or youth gang activity. The idea is to consider whether some of the funding can be directed toward social services, mental health counseling or community support programs. This way, police can spend time addressing crime-related infractions instead of trying to separate a screaming husband and wife or lecturing the kid that got drunk.

It is reasonable for low-income, stressed communities to want to examine how public funds can best serve their population. As a taxpayer, it isn't disrespect toward the police to express a desire that taxes go toward changes which improve the quality of life in your town or protect your property value. Police also take pride in wanting their communities to be a safe place.

Blue Lives Matter groups act as if there are people who just don’t like the police and want police to be eliminated. That is a twisted exaggeration fabricated by the Trump reelection campaign to create an illusion of one group pitted against another.

That emotional bandwagon is only believed by those who have not made any effort to understand why there is a need to examine the way police can be better trained or put to better use. It’s also a convenient way to demonize the Black Lives Matter groups rather than examine the basis for the protests.

Martha Hodges

Massena