Law Minneapolis to vote on disbanding police department in favor of department of safety.

[luckyshot]

The assumption, whether right or wrong, is that libertarians are a bit more sensible and self sufficient than the people who burn chunks of their cities whenever they they get the chance. They also wouldn’t vote for such a policy change and then allow that same government to dictate what the alternatives would be. So it’s a bit different.

Ah, libertarianism for "us" and authoritarian statism for "them."

Seems about right.

 

[BIKES!]

Leftists want violent criminals to victimize innocent people. They hope that it will make it easier to convince decent hard working people to surrender their rights and freedom and allow a communist dictatorship to run everything.

The left is a cancer. In CA, they encourage mass theft under $1K to the point where businesses are closing down shop in droves.

https://abc7news.com/target-hours-san-francisco-walgreens-closing-sf-crime-near-me/10854900/
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/walgreens-store-closures-san-francisco-shoplifting
https://www.sfchronicle.com/local-p...ntrol-Organized-crime-drives-S-F-16175755.php

 

[Hatorade]

The woke left reminds me of those emotionally fucked up kids that got bullied their entire childhood. You know, those kids that had no comprehension of how the mind of a shitty/violent person works. They were the types that would try to reason with bullies and just get taken advantage of OVER AND OVER AND OVER.

It's funny watching that mindset get involved in government. They have no fucking clue how to control bad people. It's almost as if they hate on people that hate bad people more than the actual bad people because they see the bad people as victims like themselves. It's funny to watch. It always reminds me of one of those videos where some animal crazy stupid hippy lady gets fucked up by a wild animal.

 

[JSN]

The woke left reminds me of those emotionally fucked up kids that got bullied their entire childhood. You know, those kids that had no comprehension of how the mind of a shitty/violent person works. They were the types that would try to reason with bullies and just get taken advantage of OVER AND OVER AND OVER.

It's funny watching that mindset get involved in government. They have no fucking clue how to control bad people. It's almost as if they hate on people that hate bad people more than the actual bad people because they see the bad people as victims like themselves. It's funny to watch. It always reminds me of one of those videos where some animal crazy stupid hippy lady gets fucked up by a wild animal.

Honestly I don’t think that’s how some types work at all. I believe that yeah many were bullied by sportos or whatever, but they’re more the types of dramaf@gs and nerds who are just as quick to bully one of their peers if they confused Paul Thomas Anderson with Wes Anderson.

It’s historically female behavior where you bully people by destroying their reputation instead of flushing their head down a toilet.

I guarantee you that back in the 1600’s, whenever some woman was being burned at the stake for being a witch, in a large % of the time there was some ugly bitch jealous of the “witch’s” looks or some bitch ass dude who failed at wooing her.

 

[SKYNET]

so replace a trained police force with a public safety department?


Heads up Minnesota and any of you snot nosed Millenials or gen zombie zoomer fucks that agree with that nonsense. The boomers already smoked a shit ton of weed and drugs and made a satirical futuristic movie about people so fucking stupid, it couldn't ever become a reality.


Here's a sneak peak into what satire we were laughing at almost 30 years ago.


Good luck with all that idiocracy Minnesota and remember, Florida is no longer accepting reservations. We are full

 

[panamaican]

So instead of a "Police" Department, it will be a Department of "Public Safety" that employees, but isn't exclusively, police officers.

Still a department, still has police officers.

Is the disagreement against the idea of including other types of people in the same department as police?

 

[KAZSoliloquy]

Good luck with all that idiocracy Minnesota and remember, Florida is no longer accepting reservations. We are full

don’t be so sure, a few hundred spots opening everyday <Lmaoo>

https://www.miamiherald.com/news/coronavirus/article254382593.html

 

[shankmcgank]

how many hostage situations/acts of terror/bank robberies are happening in minneapolis? <Lmaoo>

Might not have been Minneapolis, but let's nor pretend it doesn't happen in Minnesota.

"
May 7, 2021 — Police in Minnesota say a man accused of holding five employees hostage at a bank has been captured after an hourslong standoff."

https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/minnesota-police-scene-bank-robbery-hostages-77543336



The state had 53 bank robberies in 2019. That's over 1 per week.

https://www.fbi.gov/file-repository/bank-crime-statistics-2019.pdf/view

 

[nhbbear]

So instead of a "Police" Department, it will be a Department of "Public Safety" that employees, but isn't exclusively, police officers.

Still a department, still has police officers.

Is the disagreement against the idea of including other types of people in the same department as police?

The wording states “including police officers if necessary” but does not guarantee that there will be adequate police. Honestly, at this point, I hope it passes and fails fucking miserably and this city becomes a shithole and an example to other cities. I am telling you if it passes, a lot of officers will leave

 

[SKYNET]

don’t be so sure, a few hundred spots opening everyday <Lmaoo>

https://www.miamiherald.com/news/coronavirus/article254382593.html

Oh I'm not worried since the Miami Herald online propaganda reports are as close as most of the freaks that live in those areas will ever get to any sort of residence in my state

 

[panamaican]

The wording states “including police officers if necessary” but does not guarantee that there will be adequate police. Honestly, at this point, I hope it passes and fails fucking miserably and this city becomes a shithole and an example to other cities. I am telling you if it passes, a lot of officers will leave

Police if necessary, which means it will include police as needed. They are including police, just not for things where they won't be needed.

You can keep hoping it fails but that's just being bitter. Denver and a few other cities have implemented variants of this, they have seen enough success to warrant continuing it.

There's a case study on Eugene, Oregon's program CAHOOT. Here's a relevant quote:

Of the estimated 24,000 calls CAHOOTS responded to in 2019, only 311 required police backup, and in Eugene, CAHOOTS teams resolved almost 20 percent of all calls coming through the city’s public safety communications center.

 

[nhbbear]

Police if necessary, which means it will include police as needed. They are including police, just not for things where they won't be needed.

You can keep hoping it fails but that's just being bitter. Denver and a few other cities have implemented variants of this, they have seen enough success to warrant continuing it.

There's a case study on Eugene, Oregon's program CAHOOT. Here's a relevant quote:

My issue is that the language does not guarantee a police department or state how this department will be run or by whom. It is very vague because they honestly have no idea what it will look like. I am all in favor of cahoot and other programs but in addition to police, not taking resources and officers and replace the officers with such programs. There will be no minimum of swine officers and they WILL CUT THE DEPARTMENT which is dangerous amidst a serious crime spike that likely will be permanent. No amount of ex gang members will prevent the bloodbath going on right now in many of these cities.

 

[panamaican]

My issue is that the language does not guarantee a police department or state how this department will be run or by whom. It is very vague because they honestly have no idea what it will look like. I am all in favor of cahoot and other programs but in addition to police, not taking resources and officers and replace the officers with such programs. There will be no minimum of swine officers and they WILL CUT THE DEPARTMENT which is dangerous amidst a serious crime spike that likely will be permanent. No amount of ex gang members will prevent the bloodbath going on right now in many of these cities.

The language guarantees "as necessary". Of course "as necessary" is inexact - that's the point of "as necessary". To provide what's needed in accordance with need, not just an absolute figure where resources could be allocated more efficiently.

You're wrong if you think they have no idea what it will look like. It's already being done in multiple cities. But no matter how many times I point out that it's being done effectively in other cities, some people will immediately claim that it can't be done. The reason isn't because it can't be done, the evidence is there that they're wrong. The reason is less logical than that. They simply cannot fathom that some other type of individual is capable of addressing an issue at a similar level as them.

For parallel's sake -- I'm a real estate attorney. But there are real estate agents. I'm sure that when states started letting non-lawyers represent people in the buying and selling of houses a bunch of lawyers started raising hell about how no non-attorney could possibly work in this area and we'd be inundated with screwed up house sales. Didn't happen. When doctors offices and hospitals started using physician's assistants, doctors everywhere complained about how much the standard of care would drop off. Again...didn't happen.

Specialists work in every field for a reason because, no matter the opinion of the generalist on their own abilities, generalist by their very nature aren't good at everything. Sending the right tool for the job is better than sending the same tool regardless of efficiency.

I won't bother arguing with you about the crime spike. I think it's silly to take a crime spike that occurs on the back of a major pandemic that resulted in the shuttering of thousands of jobs in the short term and then extrapolate that into a future where said pandemic has been brought under control.

 

[Confucamus]

Police if necessary, which means it will include police as needed. They are including police, just not for things where they won't be needed.

You can keep hoping it fails but that's just being bitter. Denver and a few other cities have implemented variants of this, they have seen enough success to warrant continuing it.

There's a case study on Eugene, Oregon's program CAHOOT. Here's a relevant quote:

Who gets to decide when police will and won't be necessary? Hoping that this fails wouldn't be bitterness at all. It's dangerous and stems from the "Defund the Police" movement, no matter how you slice it. If they want to add social workers and departments, then fine. Even if they want them to work alongside police. But relegating cops to an "if necessary" role? These are police officers. Society as we know it doesn't work without law enforcement and anybody who thinks defunding the police or cutting back their numbers won't effect any other part of society is just dreaming.

 

[west42]

Lol, in the same paragraph, you swung from "no one expect anyone to invest in any neighborhood" to "we need financial help".

Where the hell do you think the government gets its money? They either take it from people who earn it, or they just print more and devalue everyone's money. If nobody has any incentive to invest in poor neighborhoods, the money and jobs just stay in the neighborhoods where people actually respect property laws, and poor people are stuck wrangling shoplifters for minimum wage in a store that probably won't be there in a couple years.

Unfortunately, you did admit that you're poor, and you probably wouldn't be if you'd apply your efforts to working and earning money instead of wasting your energy scheming for a way to get something for nothing where someone else picks up the tab.

 

[Oeshon]

Who gets to decide when police will and won't be necessary? Hoping that this fails wouldn't be bitterness at all. It's dangerous and stems from the "Defund the Police" movement, no matter how you slice it. If they want to add social workers and departments, then fine. Even if they want them to work alongside police. But relegating cops to an "if necessary" role? These are police officers. Society as we know it doesn't work without law enforcement and anybody who thinks defunding the police or cutting back their numbers won't effect any other part of society is just dreaming.

its purely done as part of the communist agenda in the west. they know removing local police forces won't work. thats the goal. then they can bring in a federal police force.

the future is bleak sherbros.

 

[tenniswhiz]

I hope it is like Camden where they used dissolving the police force to retire a bunch of corrupt officers and change policies to put in more foot patrols, cutting down violent crime there.

People with agendas manipulated things to underreport violent crime.
Camden is hopeless.

 

[nhbbear]

The language guarantees "as necessary". Of course "as necessary" is inexact - that's the point of "as necessary". To provide what's needed in accordance with need, not just an absolute figure where resources could be allocated more efficiently.

You're wrong if you think they have no idea what it will look like. It's already being done in multiple cities. But no matter how many times I point out that it's being done effectively in other cities, some people will immediately claim that it can't be done. The reason isn't because it can't be done, the evidence is there that they're wrong. The reason is less logical than that. They simply cannot fathom that some other type of individual is capable of addressing an issue at a similar level as them.

For parallel's sake -- I'm a real estate attorney. But there are real estate agents. I'm sure that when states started letting non-lawyers represent people in the buying and selling of houses a bunch of lawyers started raising hell about how no non-attorney could possibly work in this area and we'd be inundated with screwed up house sales. Didn't happen. When doctors offices and hospitals started using physician's assistants, doctors everywhere complained about how much the standard of care would drop off. Again...didn't happen.

Specialists work in every field for a reason because, no matter the opinion of the generalist on their own abilities, generalist by their very nature aren't good at everything. Sending the right tool for the job is better than sending the same tool regardless of efficiency.

I won't bother arguing with you about the crime spike. I think it's silly to take a crime spike that occurs on the back of a major pandemic that resulted in the shuttering of thousands of jobs in the short term and then extrapolate that into a future where said pandemic has been brought under control.

As I stated many times before, most police officers would welcome the presence of social workers and mental health professionals to take some of the load in regard to those calls. I briefly worked on social work last year as a youth crisis response team specialist. I liked filling the gap where as a police officer, I would shake my head when we got a call for 12 yr old Johnny screaming at mom saying this isn’t a police matter. I know the officers were glad when I told them, but the calls were nearly non existent because of the pandemic, the pay was shit and I spent all my time in conferences and classes that bashed on police the whole time. But I and the officers recognized that it was beneficial to have such a service. It is the same thing with mental illness and homeless calls. But to take resources away from police and decide that a shift may have 30 officers instead of fifty so they can fund those services will not be the solution to violent crime. The arguments have been “well, that frees up officers to handle emergency calls” but with less officers, the ones that remain run their absolute asses off and still have a backlog of calls. The next thing they do is to stop having officers take theft calls under a certain amount and theft is basically decriminalized. And then officers quit responding to other types of calls and society gets worse, not better. Ignoring those issues does not make them go away-it makes the hood people lose faith and leave while the shitbags grow emboldened and soon the area is lost.

 

[panamaican]

Who gets to decide when police will and won't be necessary? Hoping that this fails wouldn't be bitterness at all. It's dangerous and stems from the "Defund the Police" movement, no matter how you slice it. If they want to add social workers and departments, then fine. Even if they want them to work alongside police. But relegating cops to an "if necessary" role? These are police officers. Society as we know it doesn't work without law enforcement and anybody who thinks defunding the police or cutting back their numbers won't effect any other part of society is just dreaming.

Yeah, there's definitely a touch of bitterness involved.

I keep saying it over and over again -- it is already working effectively in multiple cities. We're past the point where someone can honestly argue "They have no idea if this can be done and it's going to get people killed." They know how it works because it's working in the real world. Those cities that are doing it are not getting people killed. Continuing to call it "dangerous" or something similar requires an active disregard for existing successes. And the only reason I can think of why someone would disregard existing neutral outcomes to argue for a hypothetically more negative outcome is because they're hurt or angry that the idea itself has any support at all. They perceive it as a slight to themselves or to the policing profession. They're entitled to their perception but that doesn't make the existing applications any less real and effective.

 

[panamaican]

As I stated many times before, most police officers would welcome the presence of social workers and mental health professionals to take some of the load in regard to those calls. I briefly worked on social work last year as a youth crisis response team specialist. I liked filling the gap where as a police officer, I would shake my head when we got a call for 12 yr old Johnny screaming at mom saying this isn’t a police matter. I know the officers were glad when I told them, but the calls were nearly non existent because of the pandemic, the pay was shit and I spent all my time in conferences and classes that bashed on police the whole time. But I and the officers recognized that it was beneficial to have such a service. It is the same thing with mental illness and homeless calls. But to take resources away from police and decide that a shift may have 30 officers instead of fifty so they can fund those services will not be the solution to violent crime. The arguments have been “well, that frees up officers to handle emergency calls” but with less officers, the ones that remain run their absolute asses off and still have a backlog of calls. The next thing they do is to stop having officers take theft calls under a certain amount and theft is basically decriminalized. And then officers quit responding to other types of calls and society gets worse, not better. Ignoring those issues does not make them go away-it makes the hood people lose faith and leave while the shitbags grow emboldened and soon the area is lost.

No one is taking resources away from police and if that's how you're viewing the situation, it explains quite a lot.

When you send a police officer to a mental health call - it costs money. Even though the police officer isn't better equipped to handle the call than a social worker. Re-allocating the money from the police officer to the social worker is intelligent and a good use of funds.

To make another analogy. You're building a house and allocate money for a contractor to do the job. Midway through, you realize that an electrician is needed. So you tell the contractor "I'm going to hire an electrician to do the wiring. You don't have to do it." Then the contractor starts complaining that you're taking money away from him. The contractor is wrong. First, he's not entitled to the money. Second, hiring an electrician to wire the house doesn't hurt the contractor. He's still getting paid for the job he is doing. That job just doesn't include wiring the house anymore.

This is the same thing. If you're not sending cops to mental health calls and other social work level events then you don't need to pay the police to work those calls. It makes no sense to hire and train social workers or mental health response teams for a job and then keep allocating funds to the police for the same task.

It won't have any effect on police who on street patrols or on detectives. And sure it might result in fewer police overall. But if police aren't going to youth crisis calls and similar types of calls, you need fewer police anyway. Now it's starting to sound like an argument that the police should get the money, even if the police aren't going to be doing that specific job anymore. Does that really make sense? "Yes, these other types of response units are effective and useful but we should still pay the police to do that job even though we've turned the job over to these other units."