What is this about Minneapolis "defunding" its PD?

Page 9 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

zzyzxroad

Diamond Member
Jan 29, 2017
3,264
2,287
136
I like Trevor's interview style and joe certainly has a better understanding of this topic than trump.

 

woolfe9998

Lifer
Apr 8, 2013
16,242
14,243
136
In the video below, the response to the cops statement regarding police quitting is exactly what i think.

At 14:00 min

Warring: I don't know anything abut this channel and just found it looking for footage of CHAZ. I also have not not even listened to the whole video yet. I'm just lazy, type slow and he stated my thoughts on this topic.

Yeah, I tried watching that and couldn't get past 15 minutes. When he started arguing that removing a domestic abuser from his home and putting him in jail would deprive the wife and children of possibly their sole source of income, he lost me. Is he effing kidding? Maybe this liberal should consider that expanding safety nets, including programs specifically aimed at supporting people in that circumstance, are a better idea than leaving the abuser at home.

The problem with this "defund" movement is that it's long on rhetoric and emotion and short on specific ways to handle certain problems without police. They don't want any police, but they can't get around the fact that you need armed police in some situations.

I agree with the premise that some times unarmed specialists should be doing what we're having the police do. We need to figure out when we need police and when we do not, and put forth a concrete set of proposals. Because this rhetoric is ridiculous, and is toxic in this election season.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: zzyzxroad

zzyzxroad

Diamond Member
Jan 29, 2017
3,264
2,287
136
Yeah, I tried watching that and couldn't get past 15 minutes. When he started arguing that removing a domestic abuser from his home and putting him in jail would deprive the wife and children of possibly their sole source of income, he lost me. Is he effing kidding? Maybe this liberal should consider that expanding safety nets, including programs specifically aimed at supporting people in that circumstance, are a better idea than leaving the abuser at home.

The problem with this "defund" movement is that it's long on rhetoric and emotion and short on specific ways to handle certain problems without police. They don't want any police, but they can't get around the fact that you need armed police in some situations.

I agree with the premise that some times unarmed specialists should be doing what we're having the police do. We need to figure out when we need police and when we do not, and put forth a concrete set of proposals. Because this rhetoric is ridiculous, and is toxic in this election season.
I put the disclaimer in for a reason. The one thing I didnt want to post paragraphs about was summed up by this guy.

The rest I have no opinion on yet and have not come close to finishing the video. I tend to watch a video like this in chunks.

I haven't thought about a system drastically different than the one we have until recently. Should have .... we have locked up way to many people . It's clear we need change but that that looks like I guess is what we all need to figure out.

Business and technology I get. Understanding major social issues is something I strive get beter at.
 
Last edited:

shortylickens

No Lifer
Jul 15, 2003
80,287
17,081
136
Guess that's why he still hasn't linked the story at all. Bad day.....or lazy.

As stupid as you are, you should probably just ask someone to come live in your house and spoon fed you news and creamed corn. Ideally some time before friday. You are too simple to make it on your own.


























I know you are too stupid and lazy to read all of those. Or any of them. But just like a baby needs his bottle even if its empty, I need to placate you lest you cry all day long.
Or you could just grow up and start dealing with life. Unlikely, I know. Republicans can't do it either.
Maybe you should just apply for a staffer position with one of them. You won't have to think so much and you'd get paid to whine.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: pcgeek11

zzyzxroad

Diamond Member
Jan 29, 2017
3,264
2,287
136
As stupid as you are, you should probably just ask someone to come live in your house and spoon fed you news and creamed corn. Ideally some time before friday. You are too simple to make it on your own.


























I know you are too stupid and lazy to read all of those. Or any of them. But just like a baby needs his bottle even if its empty, I need to placate you lest you cry all day long.
Or you could just grow up and start dealing with life. Unlikely, I know. Republicans can't do it either.
Maybe you should just apply for a staffer position with one of them. You won't have to think so much and you'd get paid to whine.
I have reported this post. You seem like you might be legitimately having some issues. Not being a dick but this is a discussion form on a tech site and your anger seems obsessive in my opinion.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: s0me0nesmind1

Meghan54

Lifer
Oct 18, 2009
11,684
5,228
136
As stupid as you are, you should probably just ask someone to come live in your house and spoon fed you news and creamed corn. Ideally some time before friday. You are too simple to make it on your own.


























I know you are too stupid and lazy to read all of those. Or any of them. But just like a baby needs his bottle even if its empty, I need to placate you lest you cry all day long.
Or you could just grow up and start dealing with life. Unlikely, I know. Republicans can't do it either.
Maybe you should just apply for a staffer position with one of them. You won't have to think so much and you'd get paid to whine.


Well, finally, the kid posts links like damned near every adult does when making statements of "fact." Way to grow up....maybe.

But given your insults, I suppose adult maturity is well beyond your mental capacity.

And let me expound further....it's typically common courtesy, something adults tend to use, to link to an article when stating something that happened/etc. It's just an adult thing to do.... It's not spoon feeding, it's just common courtesy and it also happens to buttress your arguments (in this case, there were no arguments to be made since you were simply talking about news. I just cannot fathom why you resisted posting a single damned link to one single outlet providing the news. Guess you're just that way.....)

But in your case, I suppose you're one of those that make claims and then demand everyone else Google around to find what you're talking about. Granted, the stories about the Minneapolis police quitting were out there....in fact, I'd already read about it prior to your post. But that's irrelevant. It's the responsibility of the one making the post to provide a link to what's being posted.

Personally, I do like to see where others get their news. It does make a difference. For instance, in an article I read today referencing Trump's water drinking, the author included this seemingly benign one word description of Twitter---liberal Twitter. Describing Twitter as liberal is just a way to discredit Twitter, or try to influence one's opinion of it. The word liberal was unnecessary unless the author was trying to subtly influence one's opinion of Twitter, esp. given Trump's lashing out at the app for "correcting" one of his tweets.

But.....common courtesy, adult thinking and actions, both seem beyond your comprehension and abilities. Your life really must be rather sad.

Again, tho....thanks for the links.
 
Last edited:

Svnla

Lifer
Nov 10, 2003
17,986
1,388
126
<snip>

But given your insults, I suppose adult maturity is well beyond your mental capacity.

<snip>

But.....common courtesy, adult thinking and actions, both seem beyond your comprehension and abilities. Your life really must be rather sad.

You have the nerve to talk about mental capacity, common courtesy, adult thinking and actions?

Folks,look at this individual's "adult thinking and actions", in his own words.

Glad to see fudge packer's back.

From Google - fudge packer (plural fudge packers) (slang, derogatory) A male homosexual. (slang, derogatory) A person who practices anal sex. Used other than with a figurative or idiomatic meaning: see fudge,‎ packer.

BTW, did you post any link to support your assertion? You were saying something about adult maturity and courtesy? :D


Do as you say and not as you do, eh? Rather sad, no pathetic indeed.
 
Last edited:
Nov 8, 2012
20,842
4,785
146
Yeah, I tried watching that and couldn't get past 15 minutes. When he started arguing that removing a domestic abuser from his home and putting him in jail would deprive the wife and children of possibly their sole source of income, he lost me. Is he effing kidding? Maybe this liberal should consider that expanding safety nets, including programs specifically aimed at supporting people in that circumstance, are a better idea than leaving the abuser at home.

The problem with this "defund" movement is that it's long on rhetoric and emotion and short on specific ways to handle certain problems without police. They don't want any police, but they can't get around the fact that you need armed police in some situations.

I agree with the premise that some times unarmed specialists should be doing what we're having the police do. We need to figure out when we need police and when we do not, and put forth a concrete set of proposals. Because this rhetoric is ridiculous, and is toxic in this election season.

"Take the beatings bitch, the money is more important than a few black eyes and bruises every now and then"

:rolleyes:
 

JEDIYoda

Lifer
Jul 13, 2005
33,986
3,321
126
You have the nerve to talk about mental capacity, common courtesy, adult thinking and actions?

Folks,look at this individual's "adult thinking and actions", in his own words.



From Google - fudge packer (plural fudge packers) (slang, derogatory) A male homosexual. (slang, derogatory) A person who practices anal sex. Used other than with a figurative or idiomatic meaning: see fudge,‎ packer.

BTW, did you post any link to support your assertion? You were saying something about adult maturity and courtesy? :D


Do as you say and not as you do, eh? Rather sad, no pathetic indeed.
Svnla she was talking to Shorty! I don`t think you were invited, were you?
Also for you to be upset about something she said to Shorty goes directly to character......maybe you need to go check the ATOT LOst and Found?
Then again your petty little arguments that you cannot seem to live without goes directly to the fact that it would appear you need attention and once again you are trying to make this about you!! "Attention whore" come to mind.....lets Google that since it seems you have a new found toy --
From Google --
at·ten·tion whore

noun
DEROGATORY•US

  1. a person who behaves in a provocative, outrageous, or reprehensible manner in order to attract attention.
As Paul Harvey was so fond of saying -- Good day!!
 
  • Haha
Reactions: pcgeek11

Svnla

Lifer
Nov 10, 2003
17,986
1,388
126
Svnla she was talking to Shorty! I don`t think you were invited, were you?
Also for you to be upset about something she said to Shorty goes directly to character......maybe you need to go check the ATOT LOst and Found?
Then again your petty little arguments that you cannot seem to live without goes directly to the fact that it would appear you need attention and once again you are trying to make this about you!! "Attention whore" come to mind.....lets Google that since it seems you have a new found toy --
From Google --
at·ten·tion whore

noun
DEROGATORY•US

  1. a person who behaves in a provocative, outrageous, or reprehensible manner in order to attract attention.
As Paul Harvey was so fond of saying -- Good day!!

I was talking about another individual's habitual nasty behavior because that individual was lying and preaching about " common courtesy, adult thinking and actions", and all the bull crap. Were you invited? Nope. Nada. Zip. Did you see what I say? NOOOOO!!!!!!!

So take your post and shove it. You were saying about "attention whore"? Uh huh. Those that live in the glass house shall NOT cast the first stone.

As I said, do as you say and not as you do, eh? Rather sad, no pathetic indeed.

One more thing, still no link and nothing about what you said how parents just want to break into houses to get some foods to feed their hungry children? Nothing still? LOL. Keep trying.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: pcgeek11

Torn Mind

Lifer
Nov 25, 2012
12,078
2,772
136
This is merely placation to deal with one of the world's greatest unfocused collective temper tantrums and red herrings to have ever come out in recent memory. Pour more money into social services, rehabilitation, and other so-called "healing institutions" instead of the punitive institution called the police.

Wouldn't be surprised if countless files and evidence get "accidentally" lost in the process. A front for a cover-up from further investigation.

It's easy to vent. It's easy to take a knee. It's not easy to take over the influence of a local jurisdiction to make it change the laws. It's not easy to understand the source of the problem before fixing, especially when a the victimized collective is so psychologically sensitive to nuanced thought that they do not understand the foundation of what enables police corruption, of which racism is not a necessary component. .

The tree is merely being pruned, not cut down, and the victims don't know how to get them to cut it down.
 

JEDIYoda

Lifer
Jul 13, 2005
33,986
3,321
126
I was talking about another individual about the habitual nasty behavior because that individual was lying and preaching about " common courtesy, adult thinking and actions", and all the bullcrap. Were you invited? Nope. Nada. Zip. Did you see what I say? NOOOOO!!!!!!!

So take your post and shove it. What you were saying about "attention whore"? LOL. See the mirror? Take a close look. Uh huh. Those that live in the glass house shall NOT cast the first stone.

As I said, do as you say and not as you do, eh? Rather sad, no pathetic indeed.

One more thing, still no link and nothing about what you said how parents just want to break into houses to get some foods to feed their hungry children? Nothing still? LOL. Keep trying.
First of all I never said that...I believe it was you being goofy.....
 
Last edited:

zzyzxroad

Diamond Member
Jan 29, 2017
3,264
2,287
136
The problem with this "defund" movement is that it's long on rhetoric and emotion and short on specific ways to handle certain problems without police. They don't want any police, but they can't get around the fact that you need armed police in some situations.
It seems like Bernder (CNN interview that sparked the current media hype) seems to be walked back that language after the Fox and Co. used it out of context. I believe her intent was to signal to her community that we aren't taking about status quo changes and instead we need to rethink our system.

As for not having any armed police, i don't see any people in positions of power saying that. Armed police are needed just way fewer of them. We also need to stop locking up so many people.

A good first step might be to stop putting people behind bars for drug use.
 

woolfe9998

Lifer
Apr 8, 2013
16,242
14,243
136
It seems like Bernder (CNN interview that sparked the current media hype) seems to be walked back that language after the Fox and Co. used it out of context. I believe her intent was to signal to her community that we aren't taking about status quo changes and instead we need to rethink our system.

As for not having any armed police, i don't see any people in positions of power saying that. Armed police are needed just way fewer of them. We also need to stop locking up so many people.

A good first step might be to stop putting people behind bars for drug use.

The problem is the way they framed it to the public. None the people who advocate "defunding" are willing to say, "I realize we still need armed police in some situations" because they think that is going to piss off certain protesters. Well, they need to come out and say that, because the way they framed it has confused people who are concerned about scenarios like when someone breaks into their house.

And it doesn't help matters that when she was asked on CNN, she responded that the expectation of protective service was a function of "white privilege" instead of just saying, of course you are going to have that emergency response under the new system. That was not reassuring.

My argument all through this thread is not that what they will actually do is necessarily unreasonable, it's that their messaging is influenced by wanting to appease a fringe who at the moment have convinced themselves that a country without police is better than one with police. And consequently, they are saying things which alienate the majority of people who recognize the need for some police. And that this can and will be used by Trump and the GOP as a cudgel against democrats this election season.
 

zzyzxroad

Diamond Member
Jan 29, 2017
3,264
2,287
136
The problem is the way they framed it to the public. None the people who advocate "defunding" are willing to say, "I realize we still need armed police in some situations" because they think that is going to piss off certain protesters. Well, they need to come out and say that, because the way they framed it has confused people who are concerned about scenarios like when someone breaks into their house.

And it doesn't help matters that when she was asked on CNN, she responded that the expectation of protective service was a function of "white privilege" instead of just saying, of course you are going to have that emergency response under the new system. That was not reassuring.

My argument all through this thread is not that what they will actually do is necessarily unreasonable, it's that their messaging is influenced by wanting to appease a fringe who at the moment have convinced themselves that a country without police is better than one with police. And consequently, they are saying things which alienate the majority of people who recognize the need for some police. And that this can and will be used by Trump and the GOP as a cudgel against democrats this election season.

I would have to look back but i believe I agreed with you. If not, I agree with you. What she was even weaponized against her and she seems to have realized that. The people opposing her actual message are experts in misinformation. She seems young, extremely neive and just got a taught a tough life lesson.


Thought on my proposed first step?
 

Svnla

Lifer
Nov 10, 2003
17,986
1,388
126
Defunding the police? Police-free zones? Autonomous zones? Then who will solve this case and others like it?

https://www.yahoo.com/news/black-lives-matter-protestor-florida-151025418.html

She is dead. Police found one suspect. Look like the police is needed, eh?

 

shortylickens

No Lifer
Jul 15, 2003
80,287
17,081
136
Police dont solve society's problems. They clean up the mess afterwards. I do agree thats very important, but I think we need more effort and time put into dealing with the causes of crime, lack of education and lack of employment.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ch33zw1z

skyking

Lifer
Nov 21, 2001
22,764
5,925
146
The police do not operate in a vacuum. They are part of a larger "justice system" that warehouses more people of color, and indeed more people period than anywhere else in the world.
Our culture is obsessed with blame and punishment. It has not proven to be a deterrent.
While it sounds nice and edgy and progressive to defund and rebuild the police, it ignores the larger picture.
We fail at taking care of our own. Nobody wants to foot the bill up front.
 

KMFJD

Lifer
Aug 11, 2005
32,618
52,010
136



this is a great thread on LA's PD Money sink, showing the budget increases between 2013 and today, some things that will make you raise an eyebrow or two
EbKcLUaU4AA5e79.jpg

EbKcKveUwAAiBTd


and people were saying we need to pay them more so we get good ones that will not abuse us? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
 

zzyzxroad

Diamond Member
Jan 29, 2017
3,264
2,287
136



this is a great thread on LA's PD Money sink, showing the budget increases between 2013 and today, some things that will make you raise an eyebrow or two
EbKcLUaU4AA5e79.jpg

EbKcKveUwAAiBTd


and people were saying we need to pay them more so we get good ones that will not abuse us? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
And they intentionally understaff to pay massive amounts of over time. Probably not a great idea to over work someone in a stressful job on a department with a very troubled history. At least they are dressed nice, have top notch weapons and a nice ride.
 

shortylickens

No Lifer
Jul 15, 2003
80,287
17,081
136
This guy makes some bold statements. I dont agree with most of them, but he is raising the level of debate.





Repealing Useless and Abusive Laws Might Do More Good Than “Defunding” the Police
by James Bovard

“Defund the Police” is the latest rallying cry for protestors in many cities across the nation. Many activists, enraged by the brutal killing of George Floyd by Minneapolis police, are calling for completely disbanding the police, while others are seeking reductions in police budgets and more government spending elsewhere. However, few activists appear to be calling for a fundamental decrease in the political power that is the root cause of police abuses.

Many “Defund the Police” activists favor ending the war on drugs. That would be a huge leap forward toward making police less intrusive and oppressive. But even if police were no longer making a million plus drug arrests each year, they would still be making more than 9 million other arrests. Few protestors appear to favor the sweeping repeals that could take tens of millions of Americans out of the legal crosshairs.

How many of the “Defund the Police” protestors would support repealing mandatory seatbelt laws as a step toward reducing police power? In 2001, the Supreme Court ruled that police can justifiably arrest anyone believed to have “committed even a very minor criminal offense.” That case involved Gail Atwater, a Texas mother who was driving slowly near her home but, because her children were not wearing seatbelts, was taken away by an abusive cop whose shouting left her children “terrified and hysterical.” A majority of Supreme Court justices recognized that “Atwater’s claim to live free of pointless indignity and confinement clearly outweighs anything the City can raise against it specific to her case”—but upheld the arrest anyhow. Justice Sandra Day O’Connor warned that “such unbounded discretion carries with it grave potential for abuse.”

Unfortunately, there are endless pretexts for people to be arrested nowadays, because federal, state, and local politicians and officials have criminalized daily life with hundreds of thousands of edicts. As Gerard Arenberg, executive director of the National Association of Chiefs of Police, told me in the 1996, “We have so damn many laws, you can’t drive the streets without breaking the law. I could write you a hundred tickets depending on what you said to me when I stopped you.”

What about repealing state laws that make parents criminals if they smoke a cigarette while driving little Bastian or Alison to soccer practice? What about repealing the federal law that compelled states to criminalize anyone drinking one beer in their car—or, better yet, repealing the federal law that compelled states to raise the age for drinking alcohol to twenty-one? Or would today’s enraged reformers prefer to take the risk of cops beating the hell out of any twenty-year-old caught with a Bud Light?

Would feminist zealots calling to “Defund the Police” be willing to tolerate the legalization of sex work? That would mean they could no longer howl about vast “human trafficking” conspiracies exploiting young girls every time an undercover cop is illicitly groped by a 58-year-old Chinese woman in a massage parlor.

Some Black Lives Matters activists are calling for a ban on “stop and frisk” warrantless searches for drugs, guns, or other prohibited items. But some “Defund the Police” activists also favor government prohibitions of private firearms. It is as if they were seeking to formally enact the old slogan: “When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.”

Much of the media coverage is whooping up the recent wave of protests, perhaps hoping to stir public rage to support sweeping new government edicts. According to Washington Post assistant editor Robert Gebelhoff, “It would be a mistake to try to resolve the problems with police behavior without also acknowledging and addressing America’s epidemic of gun violence. Police reform and gun reform go hand in hand. Reducing the easy availability of guns would not eliminate the problems with policing in America nor end unwarranted killings, but it would help.”

After heavily armed government agents forcibly confiscate a couple hundred million privately owned guns, the police won’t worry about any resistance and can behave like perfect gentlemen. Repealing most gun laws would produce a vast increase in self-reliance, especially in urban areas where police dismally fail to protect residents. But few street protestors are making that demand.

Many “Defund the Police” advocates presume that poverty is the cause of crime and that that shifting tax dollars from police budgets to social programs and handouts will automatically reduce violence. The Great Society programs launched by President Lyndon Johnson vastly increased handouts on a similar assumption. Instead, violent crime skyrocketed, especially in inner cities where dependence on government aid was highest. “The increase in arrests for violent crimes among blacks during the 1965–70 period was seven times that of whites,” as Charles Murray noted in his 1984 book Losing Ground.

Many advocates of defunding the police believe that a universal basic income, along with free housing and other services, would practically end urban strife. The history of Section 8 housing subsidies provides a stunning rebuke to such naïve assumptions. Concentrations of Section 8 recipients routinely spur crime waves that ravage both the peace and property values of their neighbors. A 2009 study published in the Homicide Studies academic journal found that in Louisville, Memphis, and other cities violent crime skyrocketed in neighborhoods where Section 8 recipients resettled after leaving public housing.

“Defund the Police” demands are already being translated by politicians into a justification for additional spending for social services or the usual sops. In Montgomery County, Maryland, police chiefs issued a statement announcing that they were “outraged” over George Floyd’s killing and then pledged to “improve training in cultural competency for our officers.” Elsewhere, politicians and police chiefs are talking about relying more on mental health workers to handle volatile situations. Radio host Austin Petersen predicted that the George Floyd protest “reforms” would result in “more social programs meant to give jobs to liberal white women.” Author and filmmaker Peter Quinones deftly captured the likely reality with a meme where Minneapolis police were renamed the Tactical Social Workers and still looking hungry to kick ass.

Politicians are claiming to have seen the light thanks to the Floyd protests. Floyd was killed, because politicians at many state and local levels have dismally failed to constrain the lethal power of police. There was nothing to stop politicians from banning the vast majority of no-knock raids, or torpedoing the perverse “qualified immunity” doctrine concocted by the Supreme Court, or repealing the even more perverse “Law Enforcement Officers’ Bill of Rights” that can convey a license to kill. One of the most powerful members of the House of Representatives, Eliot Engel (D-NY), embodied the political reality when he was caught on a hot mike: “If I didn’t have a primary, I wouldn’t care” about denouncing the George Floyd killing. It is unclear how much longer other politicians will pretend to give a damn.

Police have too much power, because politicians have too much power. There is little chance that the George Floyd protests and riots will reverse the criminalization of daily life. How many “Defund the Police” activists are also calling for a radical rollback of politicians’ prerogatives to punish almost any activity they disapprove? There will be some reforms and plenty of promises, but as long as cops have pretexts to harass and assail millions of peaceful Americans every day, the outrages will not end. Until protestors realize that the problem is Leviathan, not the local police chief, oppression will continue.

Author: James Bovard
James Bovard is the author of ten books, including 2012’s Public Policy Hooligan, and 2006’s Attention Deficit Democracy. He has written for the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Playboy, Washington Post, and many other publications.
 
Nov 8, 2012
20,842
4,785
146
This guy makes some bold statements. I dont agree with most of them, but he is raising the level of debate.




There is a lot of truth in that shit.

The fact that cops can pull you over for something as stupid as not signaling - or even not signaling well enough ahead of time (and other stupid shit) means that cops get to choose if they want to pursue you or not.

Thus they just follow you around until you inevitably do something that allows them the opportunity.

So retract those laws so they aren't able to pull you over for stupid shit.


Even stuff like a broken tail-light. I understand if BOTH tail lights are out and you can't see when someone hites the brake... But just one? Is that really worth stopping?
 

JEDIYoda

Lifer
Jul 13, 2005
33,986
3,321
126
There is a lot of truth in that shit.

The fact that cops can pull you over for something as stupid as not signaling - or even not signaling well enough ahead of time (and other stupid shit) means that cops get to choose if they want to pursue you or not.

Thus they just follow you around until you inevitably do something that allows them the opportunity.

So retract those laws so they aren't able to pull you over for stupid shit.


Even stuff like a broken tail-light. I understand if BOTH tail lights are out and you can't see when someone hites the brake... But just one? Is that really worth stopping?
YES!! If the driver is black. The driver may have a gun or an ounce of weed.....