"Defund the police" doesn't mean "tax break for citizens". It means reallocating those funds, which emphasizes training.

There's very little oversight of how the police spend their money, which leads to instances like Snoqualmie purchasing a mine-resistant armored vehicle instead of investing in training.

As a way of communicating "spend more money training police", "defund the police" utterly fails. And the really extreme advocates really do mean "defund the police" as in no policing or police force at all.

Now that you understand what it means, you can change your advocacy for it, right?

Stop playing word games. I'll continue to advocate for specific police reforms that are plainly described and that I have some hope of understanding what is being proposed.

I won't advocate via the mantra of "defund the police" because, as I pointed out, no one agrees on what that means. This distortion of language makes it very difficult to have rational discussion. Witness all the problems caused by not understanding that "protesting" and "rioting" are actually different activities and that "mostly peaceful" is not a valid synonym for "frequently violent".

The vocabulary of critical social justice theory is another minefield of words used in novel ways. Lots of people don't understand this (including myself until I started researching this recently) so you get very divisive interactions going on because people are talking past each other.

Madness.