Crime Minneapolis City Council Upset with Crime Wave

[Oliver Clothesoff]

Nope. We wouldn’t be here with George Floyd being murdered. FACT.

Read the Coroner's report. He had a LETHAL amount of Fentanyl in his system. No Fentanyl no death.

 

[panamaican]

Defunding the Police was a fucking retarded knee jerk reaction in the first place. There IS no "new system" to ramp up. It was all bullshit just like everything else they do and say. There will never be social workers going out on DV calls. It's just plain never going to happen. They pandered to the mob and now it's come back to bite them in the ass. If the media were halfway honest in this country the Democrat party would be over by now.

I thought they had a plan regarding other resources to deal with non-violent matters.

When you say "it's never going to happen", is that based on something concrete or just your feelings? I'll be upfront, if it's just how you feel...I don't care. If it's based on some particular piece of insight into their local budget and politics, I'd like to read it.

 

[mkess101]

You guys are literally spiking the football like you’ve won something? Lol. The cops are deciding to extort the city council by allowing crime to fester. Fair play to them. But let’s not pretend that this is the inevitable consequence of calling for police accountability & reform. The cops, as per usual, are acting like whiny cunts and using their veto power to save their own jobs without any reforms.

Where the city council fucked up is they should’ve made plans for a transitionary force before dissolving the current one. They idiots for having no strategy to counter what was going to be an obvious move by the cops.

Is there any proof of this? You're making an assertion based on no evidence whatsoever aren't you? Unless you have evidence that I haven't seen. It would seem FAR more likely that those with criminal intent were massively emboldened by the fallout of the George Floyd tragedy, namely the vote to defund the police dept and the political leaders publicly making that dept out to be public enemy number 1 in that city. In addition, there has likely been an influx of troublemakers coming from other places to what they now view as a welcoming place for the criminal element.

Is is very likely that police are pulling less people over, responding more hesitantly to calls, etc.? Absolutely. But while you assert it's only for them to "extort" the city council, I'd say that it's more the fact they are scared shitless of getting in a situation where force might be necessary. And that because of what's happened and the current climate, they'd have to make a split second choice between putting themselves in danger or acting too quickly to use force. A no-win situation given how they are viewed.

Yeah the chain of events started with Chauvin, but the reaction was shortsighted and the results fairly predictable. Just likely not for the reasons you are claiming.

 

[tangata motu'a]

What was the reason to think that crime would go DOWN???

Or did they say it like, “Damn, homey, now crime is REALLY gonna do DOWN... all ova dis bitch!”

I’m at a loss, otherwise.

I don't think anyone thought there would be less real crime. they just want less people ARRESTED for crimes. That and they think cops make shit up

 

[panamaican]

"Courage"....ROFL! You don't need courage to see stupid ideas out to the end, when the highly predictable outcomes are already being realized. It doesn't take courage to be a fucking idiot. That just takes idiocy. Defunding the police is pure idiocy, and the results speak for themselves.

Spoken like someone who has never had to make an unpopular decision for other people before.

 

[Pseudo Sane]

I thought they had a plan regarding other resources to deal with non-violent matters.

When you say "it's never going to happen", is that based on something concrete or just your feelings? I'll be upfront, if it's just how you feel...I don't care. If it's based on some particular piece of insight into their local budget and politics, I'd like to read it.

I'd prefer for a cop to chime in here, but my impression has always been that DV calls are inherently volatile.

Isn't the main issue that you can't know in advance when the situation may become physically dangerous?

I doesn't seem really fair to expect social workers to deal with that level of potential danger.

 

[Oliver Clothesoff]

I'd prefer for a cop to chime in here, but my impression has always been that DV calls are inherently volatile.

Isn't the main issue that you can't know in advance when the situation may become physically dangerous?

I doesn't seem really fair to expect that of social workers.

They are. This is a monumentally stupid idea proposed by BLM followers who hate our system of Govt. Some liberal mayor may try it, but I doubt it because they won't want to deal with the fallout when one of their SW's goes out on a DV call and gets shot in the head and dies. At their core the vast majority of Democrat Politicians are cowards.

 

[mkess101]

This is what was always going to happen. Whenever you shift over from one methodology to another, expectations tied to the old system are going to go unmet.

The question for Minneapolis city council is whether or not they have the courage to see something through to the end because they truly believe it's better in the long run or not. In my personal experience, this is the hardest part of making large scale decisions for groups of people - that initial time period when the old system is winding down but the new system hasn't ramped up yet. Your constituents will pressure you to revert.

Sometimes you have to steel yourself and press on and sometimes you swallow your pride and reverse course. I wonder which direction they'll take.

But the initial complaints from residents, that's not particularly important, it should have been expected & planned for.

Theoretically maybe. From a practical standpoint, those with the means to do so will simply leave the city. There's another metropolis nearby (St Paul) for those that still want to live in a bigger city. There's a ton of suburbs for those that are okay with that life. But if the "initial" hardships that come with this change last longer than a hot minute, an exodus is likely. If that happens, property values fall. That tax base shrinks and paying for the "new way" becomes harder.

None of this is a certainty either of course, just a possibility. But people want to feel safe, and doubly so for families. If it feels too much like the wild west and you have any sort of means to escape, that's what you'll do. At first it may be pressure from the constituents to revert, but if leadership "steels themselves and presses on" that base of constituents may take their ball and go home (to another zip code, for those who can afford to).

 

[panamaican]

I'd prefer for a cop to chime in here, but my impression has always been that DV calls are inherently volatile.

Isn't the main issue that you can't know in advance when the situation may become physically dangerous?

I doesn't seem really fair to expect social workers to deal with that level of potential danger.

I think that can be addressed with calls from the social workers. When my wife first started doing therapy, a lot of it was intervention therapy meeting troubled families at their homes to help address issues before they became bad enough to warrant police involvement.

A fair number of issues were could be de-escalated with just a mental health professional on the scene. Of course, not everything could. No one should be naive enough to think that we can talk away every problem. But we shouldn't be so uninformed that we think only police style intervention works either. Police aren't trained to handle these situations. When you bring hammer, every problem looks like a nail.

Returning to my wife's experiences - they traveled in 3 person teams. They could always call the cops if things got bad. And she probably spent more time in court than I did, testifying on behalf or against some family member.

I don't have time for the clowns who think that nothing but uniformed police can be used to manage community level crisis. They're either too incapable or too ill-informed to think about how many different types of systems are already being used in small doses in most cities.

 

[HereticBD]

Spoken like someone who has never had to make an unpopular decision for other people before.

This "unpopular decision" is unpopular because it's causing an immediate crime wave with immediate effects, as was predicted. It's unpopular, because it's insane. Should the residents effected give this idea a chance, because maybe, even though it goes against any and all logic, might work out a few years down the road? Should they just take one for the team, and be victimized for this retarded idea to be seen t inevitable end of it being shit canned because it's stupid? Should the city council ignore their concerns, for some hippy dippy bullshit idea that will never, under any circumstance, be sustainable?

 

[Sketch]

This is what was always going to happen. Whenever you shift over from one methodology to another, expectations tied to the old system are going to go unmet.

The question for Minneapolis city council is whether or not they have the courage to see something through to the end because they truly believe it's better in the long run or not. In my personal experience, this is the hardest part of making large scale decisions for groups of people - that initial time period when the old system is winding down but the new system hasn't ramped up yet. Your constituents will pressure you to revert.

Sometimes you have to steel yourself and press on and sometimes you swallow your pride and reverse course. I wonder which direction they'll take.

But the initial complaints from residents, that's not particularly important, it should have been expected & planned for.

I find liberals fascinating, look at this post ^ It's excuse after excuse after excuse despite the fact simple common sense is showing us this is a disastrous stance for normal tax paying law abiding citizens.

 

[TheOldMan]

The fact that this is even being debated is madness.

 

[panamaican]

Theoretically maybe. From a practical standpoint, those with the means to do so will simply leave the city. There's another metropolis nearby (St Paul) for those that still want to live in a bigger city. There's a ton of suburbs for those that are okay with that life. But if the "initial" hardships that come with this change last longer than a hot minute, an exodus is likely. If that happens, property values fall. That tax base shrinks and paying for the "new way" becomes harder.

None of this is a certainty either of course, just a possibility. But people want to feel safe, and doubly so for families. If it feels too much like the wild west and you have any sort of means to escape, that's what you'll do. At first it may be pressure from the constituents to revert, but if leadership "steels themselves and presses on" that base of constituents may take their ball and go home (to another zip code, for those who can afford to).

See my post above this one.

As for the constituents, people are remarkably adaptable. The type to transition over to a new system isn't decades or even years. Most people can adapt in months.

As for moving, don't conflate 2 separate populations. The population group that can easily pick up and move is unlikely to be the population group where heavy police presence is an expectation. Anyone with a house knows you don't just pick up and move 2 hours away without significant expense, both monetarily and in terms of time. Given how long it takes people to adapt to a new normal, I don't think people moving out the city is an issue. There will always be some but that's with everything.

 

[Oliver Clothesoff]

I find liberals fascinating, look at this post ^ It's excuse after excuse after excuse despite the fact simple common sense is showing us this is a disastrous stance for normal tax paying law abiding citizens.

It's almost like they want to lose. I don't fucking get it, but hey have at it fellas. Having the media in their pockets has given them a false sense of reality just like it did in 2016.

 

[HereticBD]

I'd prefer for a cop to chime in here, but my impression has always been that DV calls are inherently volatile.

Isn't the main issue that you can't know in advance when the situation may become physically dangerous?

I doesn't seem really fair to expect social workers to deal with that level of potential danger.

Of course. And when a few get maimed and killed on these calls, guess what happens? The police will be required to be present on these calls.

 

[panamaican]

I find liberals fascinating, look at this post ^ It's excuse after excuse after excuse despite the fact simple common sense is showing us this is a disastrous stance for normal tax paying law abiding citizens.

It's disastrous? It's almost like you didn't read what was written or couldn't understand it. I'll try one more time:

When you change from an old system to a new system you are going to have a period where the expectations of the old system go unmet. Understand? That means that whatever the old system was addressing is going to go unaddressed. This doesn't get resolved until the new system reaches a level of competence that can take time to accomplish.

The bane of good decision-making is people who only think in terms of the short term. They don't make smart long term decisions because they can't face the stress of short term change. I don't care if you're shifting resources from the police to community interventions or transitioning from one software company to a new one, change brings strife. It's inevitable and that's why you don't undo long term plans based on predictable short term reactions.

 

[ocfightfan]

Clearly these people shouldn't be in charge of anything even as important as a lemonade stand. The criminals aren't just going to behave themselves because you take away the police.

 

[Finding Deebo]

Of course. And when a few get maimed and killed on these calls, guess what happens? The police will be required to be present on these calls.

The more things change, the more they stay the same...

 

[ocfightfan]

It's disastrous? It's almost like you didn't read what was written or couldn't understand it. I'll try one more time:

When you change from an old system to a new system you are going to have a period where the expectations of the old system go unmet. Understand? That means that whatever the old system was addressing is going to go unaddressed. This doesn't get resolved until the new system reaches a level of competence that can take time to accomplish.

The bane of good decision-making is people who only think in terms of the short term. They don't make smart long term decisions because they can't face the stress of short term change. I don't care if you're shifting resources from the police to community interventions or transitioning from one software company to a new one, change brings strife. It's inevitable and that's why you don't undo long term plans based on predictable short term reactions.

That is some nice rhetoric, but other than demonizing the police and vowing to get rid of them, what system has been implemented? Please give me details.

 

[nostradumbass]

I never predicted any such thing. Is it possible for you to write a post without blatantly lying?

Anyway, chalk this up to dumbass Derek Chauvin and the rest of the Minneapolis Keystone Police Dept for executing a man live in social media. Those morons started the chain of events that brought us here.