This is by far the best explanation and debate I've heard about the subject, and I learned a lot by listening to it. It includes a very charitable, but extremely interesting and intelligent liberal interpretation of what the term 'could' mean - and it also includes a completely valid conservative critique of her argument.
My initial reaction was posted on here in a different thread. I basically just took the term literally to mean abolishment of police, and to me that just represents chaos and anarchy in the stupidest possible way. And that's about the extent of the thought I put into it. After listening to the video, I've definitely got a more nuanced understanding of multiple different potential meanings for the term - and those meanings will vary considerably depending on who you're talking to.
Group #1) Some people seem to be literally arguing for the abolishment of the police. It's never clearly defined what will replace them beyond some kind of community activism. Personally, I think these people are insane.
Group #2) These people acknowledge that Group #1 exists, but have calculated that it may be politically advantageous to have a group of radicals pushing the Overton window left on the issue of police reform, even if they don't want to actually abolish the police. With radicals calling for something so unpalatable and crazy, the idea of considerably reforming police budgets, training, access to military gear, body camera mandates, and civilian oversight committees seems sensible and moderate (which it already was). Group #2 sees this as a unique, rare opportunity in history to enact moderate reforms to police departments where before it's almost impossible politically and cannot even be discussed. Group #2 honestly has a point, even if you find it unpalatable.
Group #3) Wants to do what the term actually means, they want to cut back on funding the police, but not abolish them. This is the most intelligent, the most nuanced, and the most charitable way to interpret the term "defund police." What they argue is that since the 1980s, funding for police has dramatically increased at the same time funding for social welfare programs has dramatically decreased or remained stagnant. This is a nuanced argument, in that it actually implies that police may be overworked and unfairly burdened by being the only government intervention left for all of society's problems. Society has not invested in universal healthcare, universal post-high school education funding. Society has not tackled homelessness seriously or invested in substantial intervention for drug addict treatment. Society has not decriminalized marijuana. Society has not reduced income inequality, to help the working poor achieve a living wage, or something closer to a living wage - and the more people can invest into a stable life and a future, the less likely they will be to turn to crime. Society has neglected and defunded almost all investment in mental health treatment, and mental health facilities.
At the same time that all of these societal pressures have pushed people further to the brink in many ways, society has consistently increased funding in law enforcement as the catch-all solution to all of these complex issues. Group #3 is arguing that we are spending too much on law enforcement, and we are neglecting to invest in society in meaningful ways that will also lead to less crime. Group #3 also argues that statistically, most police officers spend the vast majority of their time on incredibly minor enforcement issues such as speeding tickets and minor fines, with one felony arrest per cop per year on average according to this video at least (I don't have any citations for you). Group #3 can also be in Group #2 at the same time, and want to adjust funding and training for large scale social issues, but also sees this as the best opportunity to do it. They believe the term "defund police" is politically inflammatory and easy to misinterpret (it is both of those things), but that it may be useful in being bold enough to shock people and grab their attention.
Group #4) One of many valid conservative rebuttals in the video is that Group #1 does literally mean it, and there are insane SJWs that will creep further and further into insane and unjust policies. This is undoubtedly true. They also correctly point out that pushing the Overton window may be possible, but it also may not due to the low polling and low popularity for the term "defund police" by normal, sane people who find the term laughable almost immediately. It's still up in the air if after laughing it off though, are moderates more open to moderate reform instead of radical reform? Maybe, maybe not.
----------------------
So I'm probably a mix of Group #2, 3, and 4. I do think there should be systemic reforms of police culture, training, and funding. I think if the trend continues where we ignore investing in our own citizens' well-being and instead just pump more money into law enforcement to clean up the mess, we'll turn into China. Soon police will have facial recognition scanning, and your self-driving car can be pulled over remotely by computer, and your rights and freedom will continually erode and disappear. I think we have to invest in people, and a healthier country and populace naturally leads to less crime.
On the way to reforming police culture though, intelligent conservative criticism has to be a mainstay. I certainly wouldn't want to see the kind of bullshit you see in San Francisco with needles and shit everywhere, homeless people and petty criminals ignored. I do think we can find a middle ground where we invest in people and not jump off the deep end into SJW crazy town. So that's why I supported Sanders in the primary obviously, and think healthcare, increased wages, and access to college is the best way to start. The investment we need for society will not be funded by taking it from law enforcement entirely, as their budget would just be a tiny fraction of what's really needed. You'd have to defund the police, defund the military by an insane amount like 50% at least, defund foreign wars and international bases that are not needed today, and defund excessive top bracket tax cuts.
So yeah, the term is stupid, but it can start a really interesting conversation if you look deeper.
