What is this about Minneapolis "defunding" its PD?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,675
136
Loads of evidence to suggest Hennepin County is also racist.
I have no idea. I just know what happened in Camden, how they managed their situation. There are certain legal hurdles to be met to abrogate the contract with the police union. Whatever they do, Minneapolis has to do it by the numbers. They also need to provide police protection of some sort throughout the process.
 

woolfe9998

Lifer
Apr 8, 2013
14,969
11,597
136
Defund the police, and then what?

Everybody gets along happily and nobody commits crime?

Good luck with that.

When they say "defund". Does that mean nothing to replace them? The idea that you get better policing by spending less money is kinda crazy to me. Would you defund hospitals and expect healthcare to improve?

I would think the problem isn’t spending, it’s education and proper training.
They are intentionally using words like "defund" and making various statements which could easily be interpreted as an intention to get rid of law enforcement entirely not because that is what they're going to do, but because that is what they think people angry at the police right now want to hear. In other words, they are purposefully giving a false impression of their intentions in order to score political points.

Who the F knows what they're actually going to do. They probably mean "reform" but that word has been used before and people have decided that the GF case means "reform" doesn't work.

These CNN headlines will play great with the Fox News crowd. It makes them and the democrats they are quoting sound like morons. Yet what they are actually doing is playing to an angry base right now rather than proposing to do actual stupid things. So it's like how repugs sound like morons when playing to their own angry base.
 
Last edited:

woolfe9998

Lifer
Apr 8, 2013
14,969
11,597
136
OK OK, Relax. woolfe isn't an idiot. What question do you think springs to mind when you hear "defund and dismantle the police department"? I think he started the post to discuss what I personally assume would be most people's reactions to it. I think the human brain is wired to scan for danger which is why I said 'Squirt Guns'.
Give the man a cigar. I was never concerned that they were getting rid of all police. I was concerned that they seem to be intentionally implying that this is what they're going to do, while at the same time not giving the barest hint as to what they actually mean to do.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JockoJohnson

HomerJS

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
31,108
19,334
136
The fact MPD put out a statement early on George Floyd was killed because he resisted indicates it needs to be pulled up by it's roots.

Let's see how that shakes out.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
76,977
33,611
136
As others mentioned I imagine they are talking about going the Camden route of disbanding the current police department and recreating it, having all the old cops apply for their jobs again, and reforming the rules they work under.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
69,459
5,028
126
Give the man a cigar. I was never concerned that they were getting rid of all police. I was concerned that they seem to be intentionally implying that this is what they're going to do, while at the same time not giving the barest hint as to what they actually mean to do.
My sense of it is that what you have refereed to here as intentional is a response designed to speek to the newly emerging strength and demands for reform brought about by many thousands marching in the streets. Those concerns are so strong and the potential for disaster great enough they outweigh the typical needs to support the police politically so that people feel safe. I think we have realized we have overcompensated out of a fear of crime and now have to reverse course. The first step on that rebound is to make that intention clear. And I don't think any one person knows how that will look accounting for the lack of specifics. It is going to be a daunting challenge, in my opinion. Getting rid of Donald Trump and the Republican party would be a good first step, in my opinion. Their whole shtick is to keep people in a state of terror so they welcome a police state.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,872
4,216
126
this is big. and gives me hope
The thing is that what happens between no police and...???
The old west might be a better solution where people took care of themselves and others. An armed society is a polite society? Will the National Guard be called in to be the police or what?

Hell disband the police today for all I care but there seems to be a lack of appreciation for potential adverse consequences as well as the positives.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Thunder 57

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,872
4,216
126
My sense of it is that what you have refereed to here as intentional is a response designed to speek to the newly emerging strength and demands for reform brought about by many thousands marching in the streets. Those concerns are so strong and the potential for disaster great enough they outweigh the typical needs to support the police politically so that people feel safe. I think we have realized we have overcompensated out of a fear of crime and now have to reverse course. The first step on that rebound is to make that intention clear. And I don't think any one person knows how that will look accounting for the lack of specifics. It is going to be a daunting challenge, in my opinion. Getting rid of Donald Trump and the Republican party would be a good first step, in my opinion. Their whole shtick is to keep people in a state of terror so they welcome a police state.
So this is not making a change but to seem to be doing so? I wouldn't be surprised if that's the case.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
76,977
33,611
136
The thing is that what happens between no police and...???
The old west might be a better solution where people took care of themselves and others. An armed society is a polite society? Will the National Guard be called in to be the police or what?

Hell disband the police today for all I care but there seems to be a lack of appreciation for potential adverse consequences as well as the positives.
I think there is a lot of confusion here - disbanding the police does not mean no police. It means disbanding the organization and creating a new police force in its place as Camden did when it disbanded its police force.

I’m not sure why people are so freaked out about this idea when we already have at least one example of it working super well.
 

Fenixgoon

Lifer
Jun 30, 2003
29,789
6,694
136
The thing is that what happens between no police and...???
The old west might be a better solution where people took care of themselves and others. An armed society is a polite society? Will the National Guard be called in to be the police or what?

Hell disband the police today for all I care but there seems to be a lack of appreciation for potential adverse consequences as well as the positives.
The idea isn't 0 police. It's "only use the police when a force response is necessary" and make them a much more limited department.

The remainder of the budget can be used for social workers, mental healthcare providers, and community investment.
 

sportage

Lifer
Feb 1, 2008
10,759
2,529
136
OK OK... I know that a lot people are freaking out about this defunding talk, but I think the wrong term is being used with that talk. The intent is in fact to construct an entirely new policing force from the bottom up. Defunding is a misguided term and thus assumed to mean no more police and no more funding for police. No.... that is not what is intended. What is intended AND needed is a police force not of some gestapo tactical force as we have now. Truth is and the facts are, the police have become their own little terrorist group. They act as if they were some separate and unaccountable branch of people control. Remember what is stamped on the side of those cop cars? TO PROTECT AND TO SERVE. That said it all, that the police force was created only to help society and do nothing but that. Not to take matters into their own hands and not to be the judge and jury during interaction with the public.

To defund the police is to rebuild the police from scratch. And that has now become necessary. To start with the original intent for that policing force to police and only to police. What the police have become goes far beyond that originally intended, and this derailment of original intent goes back many many decades. Take the gay community for example. Throughout history the police have taken it upon themselves to harass and hound the gay community. And for no other reason but to display their force of power fueled by hate and bigotry. There was no reason for police to harass, hound, and brutally terrorize gay men and women. And as with the black community, eventually the gays had just about enough of that unjust harassment and bigotry, so one day the gay community rose up and fought back in what became known as THE STONEWALL RIOTS.

For a long long time now the issue is and the problem has been, where does "TO PROTECT AND TO SERVE" end and out right terrorism by police begin? Where and when did the police force gain such power where they could beat, kill, harass, and terrorize the citizenry at their own discretion? And to believe they themselves could have no accountability?

This "DEFUNDING" idea is simply and long needed re-boot on what the police have become vs what the police need to be. We have seen this police terrorism played out over and over. I could name so many examples. The beating of Rodney King with police laughing and referring to it as "Gorillas in the Mist". Or, the young man who escaped Jeffrey Dahmer only to be returned back to Jeffrey Dahmer by the police with those same police officers later laughed and joking over the couple having been gay. And that young man that police returned back to Jeffrey Dahmer was later murdered by Jeffrey Dahmer. So many examples of police not doing their job and instead allowing personal bigotry to rule their actions. THIS perversion of law enforcement is what must stop. And this is what defunding the current policing system is all about. To rid society of the terrorism that so many police have engaged in, and replace those bad cops with an entirely different policing system from the ground up. Actually, with the policing system as originally intended before it all got so out of control.
YES.... we do need to defund the current failed system and then begin to re-build from scratch.
AND..... it will happen.
 
Last edited:
Feb 4, 2009
32,559
13,287
136
The idea isn't 0 police. It's "only use the police when a force response is necessary" and make them a much more limited department.

The remainder of the budget can be used for social workers, mental healthcare providers, and community investment.
yeah and I am speculating with this. What I heard last night the Police really hate responding to:
Wellness checks
Mental health type stuff
Troubled kids
Troubled kids in school
And two other things I forgot

They are all not typical crime type stuff that require softer skills that someone who is a cop likely doesn’t have and likely doesn’t have the desire to develop.
Sounds like delegating these duties off to some other branch or office is a win for all.
 

woolfe9998

Lifer
Apr 8, 2013
14,969
11,597
136
My sense of it is that what you have refereed to here as intentional is a response designed to speek to the newly emerging strength and demands for reform brought about by many thousands marching in the streets. Those concerns are so strong and the potential for disaster great enough they outweigh the typical needs to support the police politically so that people feel safe. I think we have realized we have overcompensated out of a fear of crime and now have to reverse course. The first step on that rebound is to make that intention clear. And I don't think any one person knows how that will look accounting for the lack of specifics. It is going to be a daunting challenge, in my opinion. Getting rid of Donald Trump and the Republican party would be a good first step, in my opinion. Their whole shtick is to keep people in a state of terror so they welcome a police state.
I agree with the substance of your point. I'm concerned about the soundbite that these rhetorical statements, which on the surface sound extreme and ridiculous, can have on the election. Getting rid of Trump and the GOP is a first step to anything else we want, yes, but it's also the only step to us not becoming a police state.

I know you think "democracy is dead" in America, but we are not yet in a literal authoritarian police state. If Trump is re-elected, we will be.

Anyone who thinks I'm overstating that case needs to ask themselves this: what exactly is going to stop Trump from going full dictator in the second term? Congress? Nope. The courts? No. The executive branch? Not a chance. The military? Maybe, but I'm not going to gamble on that because the military is too politically conservative and I'm afraid enough of them would go along.

Trump has weakened our checks and balances by testing their limits, thumbing his nose at them at every turn, and has proven the weakness of those institutions against a POTUS determined to buck them. Right now the only thing constraining Trump is his desire to be re-elected. That goes away after he wins.

For people who think it just can't happen here, think again.
 

woolfe9998

Lifer
Apr 8, 2013
14,969
11,597
136
As others mentioned I imagine they are talking about going the Camden route of disbanding the current police department and recreating it, having all the old cops apply for their jobs again, and reforming the rules they work under.
We shouldn't have to "imagine" anything. You don't make statements about dismantling the police department and say not word one about how you intend to replace it. Or else you're leaving your citizens quite confused as to your intentions, and opening yourself up to willful misinterpretation from political enemies.
 

woolfe9998

Lifer
Apr 8, 2013
14,969
11,597
136
Camden, NJ was successful in defunding and rebuilding their police department. At the time CPD had a horrible reputation.
Sure, but I bet they didn't say, at the outset, "we are going to dismantle our police department" without saying anything about replacing it. They probably gave a thumbnail sketch as to their intentions right off.
 
  • Like
Reactions: HomerJS

Homerboy

Lifer
Mar 1, 2000
30,414
4,418
126
After reading responses in here, I see a lot of people watched John Oliver last night (and that's a great thing). It was probably his best episode to-date (and that's saying something) He basically hit every point and topic within the greater BLM topic with accuracy and precision. He was clearly emotional through the whole thing - he got hot and he got sad. It was a great great episode with LOTS of take-away talking points that should be listened to and dug into deeper.
 
  • Like
Reactions: soundforbjt
Feb 4, 2009
32,559
13,287
136
Sure, but I bet they didn't say, at the outset, "we are going to dismantle our police department" without saying anything about replacing it. They probably gave a thumbnail sketch as to their intentions right off.
They did see the quote from the city council.
Admittedly it is short on details and I really don’t like the defund word being used because it implies something more radical.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
76,977
33,611
136
We shouldn't have to "imagine" anything. You don't make statements about dismantling the police department and say not word one about how you intend to replace it. Or else you're leaving your citizens quite confused as to your intentions, and opening yourself up to willful misinterpretation from political enemies.
Yeah I agree it’s bad messaging policy on their part but I think despite that we can make reasonable assumptions as to what if anything it means.
 

woolfe9998

Lifer
Apr 8, 2013
14,969
11,597
136
I think there is a lot of confusion here - disbanding the police does not mean no police. It means disbanding the organization and creating a new police force in its place as Camden did when it disbanded its police force.

I’m not sure why people are so freaked out about this idea when we already have at least one example of it working super well.
At least admit that "there is a lot of confusion" because of the way these councilmen have chosen to frame their statements to the media. Saying things like "The idea of having no police department is certainly not in the short term" is a statement which needs clarification. Preferably now.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JockoJohnson

VRAMdemon

Diamond Member
Aug 16, 2012
5,798
6,320
136
We shouldn't have to "imagine" anything. You don't make statements about dismantling the police department and say not word one about how you intend to replace it. Or else you're leaving your citizens quite confused as to your intentions, and opening yourself up to willful misinterpretation from political enemies.
Yeah...And nobody's "freaking out" about anything. I've heard defund, dismantle, abolish, reform. It's all about as clear as mud.

"Abolishing" the police is a right wing wet dream. Privatization of public services, vigilantism, and unregulated militias are all worse options than the shitty system we have now. We know how to fix this. Fire every cop if you have to, but use the existing institutions as a framework for building something better. We didn’t throw out the US Constitution in 1865 because it allowed slavery; we fixed it. There will always be “police”. The question is, do you want them to be public servants or vigilantes and private contractors?

"Defund the Police", which certainly sounds like it means "abolish" the police. It doesn't help that such slogans are often explicitly contrasted with "Reform the Police" (as in, "We don't need just 'reform', we need to ____!").

Some seem to have a more nuanced view --"defund" meaning "transfer various functions now handled by the police to other agencies of the government and take money from the police and give it to those other agencies". I personally think "Defund the Police" is not a great slogan, because it IS subject to misinterpretation including potentially willful misinterpretation, but in a political fight, I don't think it's a good idea to use slogans that are so easy for the Other Side to misrepresent. Something like "Demilitarize the Police" would be a better "bumper-sticker" sort of political slogan.
 
  • Like
Reactions: woolfe9998

woolfe9998

Lifer
Apr 8, 2013
14,969
11,597
136
Yeah I agree it’s bad messaging policy on their part but I think despite that we can make reasonable assumptions as to what if anything it means.
WE can, sure. Because we're well educated and can google for parallels like Camden. I'm not so sure about your average Joe.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ch33zw1z

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
31,406
5,138
126
Fox News is going ham on "police free cities" right now.
Their response? States should step in and seize control when the cities decide they are "not protecting people".

This is a dog whistle for "Democrats endorse rioting and looting".
If you don't want your cities, your businesses, your homes to burn, vote Republican!
 

woolfe9998

Lifer
Apr 8, 2013
14,969
11,597
136
Dems in Congress propose sweeping police reform legislation.


And they talk about the specifics of many things it will include. Imagine that! They didn't just say "we're going to dismantle our police and, er..."

It will never pass unless the GOP is removed, but it's a good place to start the conversation.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ch33zw1z

ASK THE COMMUNITY