What is this about Minneapolis "defunding" its PD?

[MagnusTheBrewer]

I think all politicians should be required to communicate in writing in excess of 140 characters and then, read it out loud for the cameras. It would save us from Trump who can neither read or, stay on topic that long.

 

[JockoJohnson]

A huge shift in attitude from “law enforcement” to public safety. An example I would imagine would be a focus on harm reduction and treatment for drug offenders as opposed to focusing on locking people up.

That's the justice system. Are they going to defund and dismantle that? The police are there to enforce the laws....they don't get to decide if drug addicts get treatment or jail.

 

[JEDIYoda]

That's the justice system. Are they going to defund and dismantle that? The police are there to enforce the laws....they don't get to decide if drug addicts get treatment or jail.

That is the Justice system and unless you believe it needs to be changed you are part of the problem!

 

[JockoJohnson]

That is the Justice system and unless you believe it needs to be changed you are part of the problem!

Yes, I do believe the laws should be changed. Not just change how the police handle matters but the laws that they enforce need to be modified for modern times.

 

[zzyzxroad]

Yes, I do believe the laws should be changed. Not just change how the police handle matters but the laws that they enforce need to be modified for modern times.

Yeah both need to change for sure. The whole system needs an overhaul.

 

[Bitek]

This is a perfect example of where the protest movement needs some leadership and a cohesive message. “Defund” is a poor use of words. Its an easy term for police unions and Trump to politicize. The goal should be to “demilitarize”, because its much harder to defend police militarization.

My thoughts too. Horrendous, self defeating messaging, just when they were getting strong public support, yet demilitarization is more technically accurate to their goals and politically palpable.

 

[Moonbeam]

What did I say? Well gee, CNN has finally figured it out.

Is 'Defund the Police' a massive political mistake?

On Friday, DC Mayor Muriel Bowser had a massive mural reading "Black Lives Matter" in block yellow lettering painted on 16th Street near the White House. The next day, activists painted another message -- in that exact same yellow lettering -- on the same street. It read: "Defund the Police."

www.cnn.com

These selfish pols are trying to gain local political advantage while sacrificing the national outlook for democrats.



And you can see Trump already trying to tie this to Biden who, AFAIK, hasn't spoken up on it yet. I think he needs to do so right now. He needs to say he supports reform of law enforcement, not getting rid of it.

Take a look at this. I don't know if it represents good analysis or is designed to provide cover for the very kind of criticism you leveled..

 

[zzyzxroad]

You, me and fskimospy are rational enough to understand that what they're saying is not as extreme as what they seem to be implying. Many people are not.

The larger issue is this: the left's identity politics often do not play to its favor in national electoral politics. Remember when I said one thing I liked about Sanders was that he tended to de-emphasize identity politics in favor of a more class based approach? This sort of thing is exactly why.

Class based means you are supporting the 99% against dominance by the 1%. Race based mean you are supporting certain minority groups over the rest of us. The left's version means that even poor whites are "privileged" even if their lives suck, yet we need their votes.

I don't think this one thing is going to sink Biden, but if the dialogue is going to be all about race between now and November and Biden is forced into this dialogue, I fear the end result.

Looks like he isn't going to push the refund message. Interview coming tomorrow so we will see what he thinks.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Has that ever happened to you or anyone you know?

If an axe-wielding psycho was actually trying to break into your house, do you think the police would actually be able to help you?

12 bore.

 

[kage69]

While not a fan of the defunding idea, I also don't get the incredulous fury to it being brought up.

Why would that be a no go when all these right wing asshats have no problem defunding education, healthcare, Dept of Labor, the EPA, Planned Parenthood, etc? They want to cherrypick what constitutes harm just like they want to cherrypick everything else in their corrupt self-centered lives.

No progress will be made here or anywhere else until Team Treason is thrown out of state and Federal offices nationwide.

 

[kage69]

12 bore.

Agree on scattergun diplomacy, but I still think even with armed people that having a motivated dog or three present really solves problems before they get out of hand. Even mentally unstable people don't want to mess with protective dogs.

Protip: if confronting trespassers throw them a Nazgul impression "Feeeeeeast on his fleessssssh..."

 

[nickqt]

While not a fan of the defunding idea, I also don't get the incredulous fury to it being brought up.

Why would that be a no go when all these right wing asshats have no problem defunding education, healthcare, Dept of Labor, the EPA, Planned Parenthood, etc? They want to cherrypick what constitutes harm just like they want to cherrypick everything else in their corrupt self-centered lives.

No progress will be made here or anywhere else until Team Treason is thrown out of state and Federal offices nationwide.

Why aren't you a fan of defunding? You still want police officers to be the primary responders to a broken down car or a loose dog?

It isn't about abolishing the police. It's using an armed police officer for situations that require an armed person to respond.

Spend all of that money addressing societal issues and hiring an actual trained professional for issues instead of just throwing armed police officers at it.

Right now, we just throw armed police at almost all of our problems, and hope they don't accidentally...or intentionally...murder someone who didn't need murdering.

 

[zzyzxroad]

Why aren't you a fan of defunding? You still want police officers to be the primary responders to a broken down car or a loose dog?

It isn't about abolishing the police. It's using an armed police officer for situations that require an armed person to respond.

Spend all of that money addressing societal issues and hiring an actual trained professional for issues instead of just throwing armed police officers at it.

Right now, we just throw armed police at almost all of our problems, and hope they don't accidentally...or intentionally...murder someone who didn't need murdering.

Very well put. Now that i think about it, most situation don't warrant having an armed response. Untimely as a society we need to figure out which do and which don't. We can then train and higher the right people to provide the right response. This seems very logical.

 

[nickqt]

Very well put. Now that i think about it, most situation don't warrant having an armed response. Untimely as a society we need to figure out which do and which don't. We can then train and higher the right people to provide the right response. This seems very logical.

Doesn't seem so radical and scary when context is put to the phrase.

Libruuls are pretty terrible at coming up with terms and phrases to describe and contextualize their ideas/policies. They like to pump out pamphlets and power points for ideas/policies...which makes it easier for right-wing authoritarians to demonize them out of context.

What right-wing authoritarians do is throw shit against an idea as early as possible and then point out their own shit as the actual idea. It's a lot easier to destroy an idea with a few words than it is to defend it with a 20 minute long lecture. It's essentially the Republican playbook for any idea that doesn't involve tax cuts for the richest people in the solar system.

 

[zzyzxroad]

Doesn't seem so radical and scary when context is put to the phrase.

Libruuls are pretty terrible at coming up with terms and phrases to describe and contextualize their ideas/policies. They like to pump out pamphlets and power points for ideas/policies...which makes it easier for right-wing authoritarians to demonize them out of context.

What right-wing authoritarians do is throw shit against an idea as early as possible and then point out their own shit as the actual idea. It's a lot easier to destroy an idea with a few words than it is to defend it with a 20 minute long lecture. It's essentially the Republican playbook for any idea that doesn't involve tax cuts for the richest people in the solar system.

For sure. The best thing the conservatives do is pump out propagand. They are a well oiled machine in that department. Second best thing is unbalancing budgets.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Agree on scattergun diplomacy, but I still think even with armed people that having a motivated dog or three present really solves problems before they get out of hand. Even mentally unstable people don't want to mess with protective dogs.

Protip: if confronting trespassers throw them a Nazgul impression "Feeeeeeast on his fleessssssh..."

I have three alert pooches and I know we've been scoped out at 4 AM a few times. I think the response was nope nope nope. I've asked others here about personal defense and it appears that most have no idea of what to do. When seconds count police aren't a factor.

 

[kage69]

Why aren't you a fan of defunding? You still want police officers to be the primary responders to a broken down car or a loose dog?

It isn't about abolishing the police. It's using an armed police officer for situations that require an armed person to respond.

Spend all of that money addressing societal issues and hiring an actual trained professional for issues instead of just throwing armed police officers at it.

Right now, we just throw armed police at almost all of our problems, and hope they don't accidentally...or intentionally...murder someone who didn't need murdering.

Because I'm more in favor of some serious reorganization and reform. Let's straighten out some priorities and responsibilities, run off a shitload of bad cops while making it impossible for them to be rehired elsewhere, and hold off on the defunding talk until every single PD has body cameras. I'm tired of hearing them say they can't be afforded.

 

[Atreus21]

Every profession has racists in it. But the typical demographic of the police officer is 1) conservative and 2) male. What do we know about conservative males in general in relation to racism, sexism, homophobia, etc? Well, they voted for Trump, didn't they? This bigotry comes from parents, peers, etc. Honestly, I don't really know what to do about that.

Prejudice baby. It's freaking awesome.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

Public Service Announcement:

If you intend to re-allocate partial funds from the police department to other means of solving problems (e.g. Instead of cops arresting and booking someone that is high instead taking them to a drug-treatment place) DONT fucking call it "defunding the police"

Defunding means taking every penny of the program. So unless you use pre-text word such as "Partial defunding", it means just that... completely defunding the police and expecting laws to be enforced by no one.

The definition of defund is:

to withdraw financial support from, especially as an instrument of legislative control

to deplete the financial resources of

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

Public Service Announcement:

If you intend to re-allocate partial funds from the police department to other means of solving problems (e.g. Instead of cops arresting and booking someone that is high instead taking them to a drug-treatment place) DONT fucking call it "defunding the police"

Defunding means taking every penny of the program. So unless you use pre-text word such as "Partial defunding", it means just that... completely defunding the police and expecting laws to be enforced by no one.

The definition of defund is:

I expect you to follow up every call by conservatives to 'defund' social programs with the same gusto.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

I expect you to follow up every call by conservatives to 'defund' social programs with the same gusto.

When conservatives say they wanted to "defund planned parenthood" I'm pretty sure they intended to want to withdraw any government funding whatsoever. So in that context, the word seems correctly used there - though I don't agree with actually doing that.

But yeah, sure, I'd call out anyone to clarify.

 

[zzyzxroad]

Public Service Announcement:

If you intend to re-allocate partial funds from the police department to other means of solving problems (e.g. Instead of cops arresting and booking someone that is high instead taking them to a drug-treatment place) DONT fucking call it "defunding the police"

Defunding means taking every penny of the program. So unless you use pre-text word such as "Partial defunding", it means just that... completely defunding the police and expecting laws to be enforced by no one.

The definition of defund is:

Let's start with a very basic question. Do you think our justice system is in need of major reform? Can you see we have a problem? Please dont respond to this with a lengthy reply. I'm simply interested to find out if you think we have major issues with our entire justice system in the United States of America.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

Let's start with a very basic question. Do you think our justice system is in need of major reform? Can you see we have a problem? Please dont respond to this with a lengthy reply. I'm simply interested to find out if you think we have major issues with our entire justice system in the United States of America.

Yes. I see major problems. I'm not going to proclaim like I know the answers - My main message was simple though: STOP using the word "Defund". You sincerely need mental help if you can't understand why that is a stupid idea.

 

[local]

Why aren't you a fan of defunding? You still want police officers to be the primary responders to a broken down car or a loose dog?

It isn't about abolishing the police. It's using an armed police officer for situations that require an armed person to respond.

Spend all of that money addressing societal issues and hiring an actual trained professional for issues instead of just throwing armed police officers at it.

Right now, we just throw armed police at almost all of our problems, and hope they don't accidentally...or intentionally...murder someone who didn't need murdering.

Very well put. Now that i think about it, most situation don't warrant having an armed response. Untimely as a society we need to figure out which do and which don't. We can then train and higher the right people to provide the right response. This seems very logical.

While I agree there are issues and places that specialized responses can be created I don't think it is feasible on a larger scale when we are already short resources and having specialized responses will cost more just from a loss of efficiency.

In short I think most people are pretty ok with the police blocking traffic while they change a tire without waiting for some specialized department to show up. And I know I was ok with the police responding to loose dogs that ended up with three people attacked and three dead dogs in the span of five minutes three houses down from me.

Those are the kind of positive interactions with police that need to happen, well the dog thing wasn't so great but the attacked people were super happy to see the police arrive. Positive interactions humanize civilians to the police and lets us know the police are there to help us not just to write tickets and kill us.

The police are used for these things because they are already out there and can respond the quickest. You cannot create a dozen new agencies with that kind of coverage with a feasible cost. But there are other options like reapplying some of that "we need a tank" budget and hiring some officers that are more dedicated to non-violent calls with proper training could be done relatively easily.

 

[woolfe9998]

Prejudice baby. It's freaking awesome.

No, not really. Being prejudice means prejudging the individual based on characteristics seen as a common among the group to which the individual belongs. I don't assume the individual black man is a criminal, or even likely to be one, because black men commit a disproportionate amount of crime.

Similarly, I do not assume an individual conservative is a racist just because conservatives on the mean tend to be more racist than others. I personally know conservative individuals IRL who are definitely not racist, so I know better.

Critically, all of these population wide issues have an origin story. Black men may on the whole be more prone to crime because of poverty, racial discrimination, or even because some in the black community glorify street violence through gangsta rap.

Conservatives being racist, or for that matter, anyone being racist, also has an origin story. As I said in another thread, we are taught these things, often by parents and peers. These ideas are viral. We aren't born with them. We may be born with a broad instinct toward tribalism, but defining one's "tribe" along racial lines is more of a social construct.