The Minneapolis City Council on Sunday voted to disband its police department and invest in community-based public safety programs following calls from activists to ‘defund the police,’ in the wake of George Floyd’s death at the hands of a Minneapolis police officer.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/andrewsole ... fe946d5274

It sounds like a good move to please to protesters, but I doubt that the city council members really thought about what the consequences will be.
Because without any police force.there will be:

1) No more official law enforcement. The court system will seize to function as nobody will have the lawful authority to arrest suspects. A "“new transformative model for cultivating safety.” will not cut it.
2) Petty misdemeanors and large scale crime will run rampant as once again there is no law enforcement. It can go from simply running a red light to robbing a bank. No police, no consequences for the perpetrators.
3) Ordinary people will either flee or stay. If they stay they will need to arm themselves as once again there is nobody else to call. Perhaps form "armed militias" to patrol the neighborhoods. Is that what the city councilors really want?
4) Housing values will plummet to close to zero as nobody in their right mind wants to move TO Minneapolis, only flee FROM Minneapolis.
5) The financial stability of Minneapolis will be in jeopardy as plummeting homes values will leave the city coffers increasingly empty. Besides, why would the citizens of Minneapolis pay taxes in the first place as there is no way for the city to force the collection thereof?
6) etc.

This should be interesting to watch... from afar.

When have anarchy and vigilantism not worked out for the best?

Good for them. I cannot think of a community that deserves this more than MSP.

Pretty sure they said they will implement community security force after disbanding police? Although that might not have sufficient ability to calm bigger scale crimes

Are they planning on a Public Safety Dept that combines Fire and Police functions?

johns624 wrote:

Are they planning on a Public Safety Dept that combines Fire and Police functions?

There won’t be any “Police” at all.

Incredibly dumb...but can’t understand anyone living in MSP to begin with.

Does anyone really think this will come to pass???

WarRI1 wrote:

Does anyone really think this will come to pass???

Who/want do they need to "pass"?

Dieuwer wrote:

johns624 wrote:

Are they planning on a Public Safety Dept that combines Fire and Police functions?

There won’t be any “Police” at all.

Then what will be there instead?

anrec80 wrote:

Dieuwer wrote:

johns624 wrote:

Are they planning on a Public Safety Dept that combines Fire and Police functions?

There won’t be any “Police” at all.

Then what will be there instead?

I'm guessing a lot of armed security guards for the neighborhoods that can afford them, and for the poorer neighborhoods... nothing.

It seems some people are assuming this will happen at a flip of a switch. It'll be a long process, and this is just the first step.

After seeing the way police around the country treat peaceful protestors, I think any kind of reform that keeps the police would just be a bandaid.

Just inventing the term now...

The Chauvin Award

For when you screw up so bad they have to fire the Whole Fucking Company...

True story

DarkSnowyNight wrote:

Just inventing the term now...

The Chauvin Award

For when you screw up so bad they have to fire the Whole Fucking Company...

True story

yup, they probably end up with a MN NPD, set up with different training and rules. Clean sheet is the only way to do it.

Note that out of the tons of people in the Floyd video, no one thought to call the Police ..... apparently there is zero trust in police.

ltbewr wrote:

The calls of 'disband the police' just may have given Trump and Republicans their re-election as will now get almost all of the White vote. .

Nah, the people falling for the misrepresentation of "defund the police" will vote for Trump anyways, the others know that it doesn´t mean what Trump and Fox say, outside of some finges..

https://edition.cnn.com/2020/06/06/us/w ... index.html

And i don´t think a party supporting machine gunning down peaceful protesters has a rather large PR problem on their hands.

best regards
Thomas

Why do Trump voters "need" a police force anyway?
Your 15 AR-15s with ammo stored in your walls isn't protection enough from "the mob"?

tommy1808 wrote:

DarkSnowyNight wrote:

Just inventing the term now...

The Chauvin Award

For when you screw up so bad they have to fire the Whole Fucking Company...

True story

yup, they probably end up with a MN NPD, set up with different training and rules. Clean sheet is the only way to do it.

Note that out of the tons of people in the Floyd video, no one thought to call the Police ..... apparently there is zero trust in police.

ltbewr wrote:

The calls of 'disband the police' just may have given Trump and Republicans their re-election as will now get almost all of the White vote. .

Nah, the people falling for the misrepresentation of "defund the police" will vote for Trump anyways, the others know that it doesn´t mean what Trump and Fox say, outside of some finges..

https://edition.cnn.com/2020/06/06/us/w ... index.html

And i don´t think a party supporting machine gunning down peaceful protesters has a rather large PR problem on their hands.

best regards
Thomas

Your comment about no one thought to call the police.. what does it mean? At least 4 active duty police were seen in the video.

Your question about "defund the police" seems to show that you are confused. Minneapolis just pledged to eliminate its police department. Could you please explain what you mean by "misrepresentation?"

TSS wrote:

I'm guessing a lot of armed security guards for the neighborhoods that can afford them, and for the poorer neighborhoods... nothing.

Long story short - the state doesn't want to maintain its monopoly of enforcement. Well, welcome to the new world of the Civil War 2.

LCDFlight wrote:

tommy1808 wrote:

DarkSnowyNight wrote:

Just inventing the term now...

The Chauvin Award

For when you screw up so bad they have to fire the Whole Fucking Company...

True story

yup, they probably end up with a MN NPD, set up with different training and rules. Clean sheet is the only way to do it.

Note that out of the tons of people in the Floyd video, no one thought to call the Police ..... apparently there is zero trust in police.

ltbewr wrote:

The calls of 'disband the police' just may have given Trump and Republicans their re-election as will now get almost all of the White vote. .

Nah, the people falling for the misrepresentation of "defund the police" will vote for Trump anyways, the others know that it doesn´t mean what Trump and Fox say, outside of some finges..

https://edition.cnn.com/2020/06/06/us/w ... index.html

And i don´t think a party supporting machine gunning down peaceful protesters has a rather large PR problem on their hands.

best regards
Thomas

Your comment about no one thought to call the police.. what does it mean? At least 4 active duty police were seen in the video.

You mean people impersonating police officers? Since no police officer would act like that, normal reaction would be to call the real cops.

Your question about "defund the police" seems to show that you are confused. Minneapolis just pledged to eliminate its police department. Could you please explain what you mean by "misrepresentation?"

I included a link

Best regards
Thomas

tommy1808 wrote:

LCDFlight wrote:

tommy1808 wrote:

yup, they probably end up with a MN NPD, set up with different training and rules. Clean sheet is the only way to do it.

Note that out of the tons of people in the Floyd video, no one thought to call the Police ..... apparently there is zero trust in police.



Nah, the people falling for the misrepresentation of "defund the police" will vote for Trump anyways, the others know that it doesn´t mean what Trump and Fox say, outside of some finges..

https://edition.cnn.com/2020/06/06/us/w ... index.html

And i don´t think a party supporting machine gunning down peaceful protesters has a rather large PR problem on their hands.

best regards
Thomas

Your comment about no one thought to call the police.. what does it mean? At least 4 active duty police were seen in the video.

You mean people impersonating police officers? Since no police officer would act like that, normal reaction would be to call the real cops.

Your question about "defund the police" seems to show that you are confused. Minneapolis just pledged to eliminate its police department. Could you please explain what you mean by "misrepresentation?"

I included a link

Best regards
Thomas

From Thomas's included link-

"Rather than "strangers armed with guns," the organization says, first responders should be mental health providers, social workers, victim advocates and other community members in less visible roles."

I'm sure all those people would be much more helpful than police in dealing with incidences of active domestic violence, a hostage situation, or chasing down a car that just committed a drive-by shooting. Just join hands, sing a couple of choruses of "Kumbaya", and everything will be hunky-dory.

TSS wrote:

tommy1808 wrote:

LCDFlight wrote:

Your comment about no one thought to call the police.. what does it mean? At least 4 active duty police were seen in the video.

You mean people impersonating police officers? Since no police officer would act like that, normal reaction would be to call the real cops.

Your question about "defund the police" seems to show that you are confused. Minneapolis just pledged to eliminate its police department. Could you please explain what you mean by "misrepresentation?"

I included a link

Best regards
Thomas

From Thomas's included link-

"Rather than "strangers armed with guns," the organization says, first responders should be mental health providers, social workers, victim advocates and other community members in less visible roles."

also from the link:
Some supporters of divestment want to reallocate some, but not all, funds away from police departments to social services. Some want to strip all police funding and dissolve departments.

I'm sure all those people would be much more helpful than police in dealing with incidences of active domestic violence, a hostage situation, or chasing down a car that just committed a drive-by shooting.

since for a fairly large chunk of people the Police is no help whatsoever.

best regards
Thomas

tommy1808 wrote:

TSS wrote:

tommy1808 wrote:

You mean people impersonating police officers? Since no police officer would act like that, normal reaction would be to call the real cops.



I included a link

Best regards
Thomas

From Thomas's included link-

"Rather than "strangers armed with guns," the organization says, first responders should be mental health providers, social workers, victim advocates and other community members in less visible roles."

also from the link:
Some supporters of divestment want to reallocate some, but not all, funds away from police departments to social services. Some want to strip all police funding and dissolve departments.

I'm sure all those people would be much more helpful than police in dealing with incidences of active domestic violence, a hostage situation, or chasing down a car that just committed a drive-by shooting.

since for a fairly large chunk of people the Police is no help whatsoever.

best regards
Thomas

Ok, I live here.
Only the extremists are talking about there being no law enforcement at all. The Minneapolis PD is unfixable thanks to union intransigence but they only way to get rid of the union is to start over with a new organization that is not just an occupying force of outsiders but actually serves the community . The sane people are talking about greatly reducing law enforcement and redirecting those resources into other initiatives that can help prevent crime and resolve issues without needing and armed response.

It will not be the Purge. There will still be law enforcement -- perhaps not from an entity known as the Minneapolis PD - but law enforcement nonetheless.

I have really grown tired of all the fear-mongering surrounding this. Perhaps a rebrand is in order - think #rebootthepolice not #abolishthepolice.

Will MSP be the first city to do this? Has there been a similar city, maybe in Europe to disband the police that MSP can use as a guide? Will be interesting to see how this affects the economy of MSP. Change is needed though as policing has not been a positive force.

Pi7472000 wrote:

Will MSP be the first city to do this? Has there been a similar city, maybe in Europe to disband the police that MSP can use as a guide? Will be interesting to see how this affects the economy of MSP. Change is needed though as policing has not been a positive force.

No city the size of Minneapolis has done this to my knowlege. The city of Camden, NJ disbanded their police force and created a new force.

I don't have the expertise to expand much more on what the new force looks like, or the differences between it and the former force though.

They still have the county sheriffs and State troopers. This will be more of a reorg.

Airontario wrote:

Pi7472000 wrote:

Will MSP be the first city to do this? Has there been a similar city, maybe in Europe to disband the police that MSP can use as a guide? Will be interesting to see how this affects the economy of MSP. Change is needed though as policing has not been a positive force.

No city the size of Minneapolis has done this to my knowlege. The city of Camden, NJ disbanded their police force and created a new force.

Interesting. In the 90s I had a good friend who was born and raised in Camden, NJ, and according to him it was the murder capitol of the US on a per-capita basis at the time.

Airontario wrote:

I don't have the expertise to expand much more on what the new force looks like, or the differences between it and the former force though.

Since that's relatively recent history, it might be worth comparing before and after crime stats to see if there's been a notable difference.

I for one look forward to seeing Mineappolis transform itself into Little Mogadishu.

We had the police go on strike here in 1975 for three days
It was fun sitting in class looking out the window at all the drag races going on. You really had to be careful walking home when crossing the street.

The thieves did not bother robbing stores as much as they stole trucks and hit the warehouses and took truck loads at a time.
Backed pickup trucks through the front windows of liquor stores and loaded up.
It was pretty chaotic even though there were Highway Patrol, Sherriff deputies and some Guard units watching key areas.

Okie

I could understand saying 'hey, this department is too far gone to fix, let us start over from scratch and get it right' (much like knocking down a building and starting from nothing). But they was the article describes their plan, it feels like they don't want to do that.

Instead I worry they will create a system where each community will have its own force that will be as effective at enforcing laws as the local tax base has funds, giving affluent areas a more effective force while the poorest areas will devolve into a wild west where anyone who wants to do something illegal will know they won't be caught or hassled, further driving down the value of that land (because no one wants to live next to a drug house, or on a road used for illegal street racing) and creating the same kind of nasty cycle that systems like 'no child left behind' did where the worse you are off the less help you get meaning you get even less help etc.

I hope that is just me not understanding what they mean to do and that they in fact have a well thought out plan to build a new way to ensure the safety and security of all their citizens going forward.

casinterest wrote:

They still have the county sheriffs and State troopers. This will be more of a reorg.

Given that the problem is systemic that statement doesn't make sense. Its saying, its ok, we have other departments just like this one to cover in the meantime.

But ok, assuming the state and county offices aren't overwhelmed (considering they already have their own duties to see to). Does this mean Minneapolis will be paying for all the OT?

Where do you suppose all of the security personnel will come from to staff whatever new force they come up with? I mean that should be fairly obvious.

Ironically, this term will apply quite well here. Put makeup and a dress on a pig, and it is still a pig.

I should disclose that I have a distant relative who is on the Minneapolis PD. They have disclosed that nobody supported that guy and were dismayed at the lack of discipline he should have received based on his history.

This smells more like an attempt to bust a union up than anything else. I just hope the good men and women who are now facing job losses are retained in whatever does come of this.

trpmb6 wrote:

casinterest wrote:

They still have the county sheriffs and State troopers. This will be more of a reorg.

Given that the problem is systemic that statement doesn't make sense. Its saying, its ok, we have other departments just like this one to cover in the meantime.

But ok, assuming the state and county offices aren't overwhelmed (considering they already have their own duties to see to). Does this mean Minneapolis will be paying for all the OT?

Where do you suppose all of the security personnel will come from to staff whatever new force they come up with? I mean that should be fairly obvious.

Ironically, this term will apply quite well here. Put makeup and a dress on a pig, and it is still a pig.

I should disclose that I have a distant relative who is on the Minneapolis PD. They have disclosed that nobody supported that guy and were dismayed at the lack of discipline he should have received based on his history.

This smells more like an attempt to bust a union up than anything else. I just hope the good men and women who are now facing job losses are retained in whatever does come of this.

I do think it is a Union bust up attempt, and I will not be surprised by multiple lawsuits going forward. However at this point the sentiment is only a pledge.

This isn't going to happen overnight. There will need to be plan. Some of the points made are valid ones though. There are a lot more community oriented solutions that can be put in play.
Your relative will probably have a job for the foreseeable future. .

Pressed for details on what the dismantling might look like, Bender told CNN she was looking to shift police funding toward community-based strategies and that the city council would discuss how to replace the current police department.
"The idea of having no police department is certainly not in the short term," she added.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/07/us/georg ... index.html

What does it actually mean, this emotive sounding 'defund the police'?

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/202 ... es-it-mean

So, spending in the US on policing has gone up by a factor of four in as many decades while crime has reduced.
Even before all this, going back some years, there have been examples of the flooding of military, or surplus military equipment to PD's.
To often absurd levels, such as a PD in a quiet, affluent area suddenly getting armoured vehicles back from Iraq or Afghanistan and painted blue.
Not just Humvees but vehicles mine and RPG protected, were ISIS coming for the suburbs of middle America?

GDB wrote:

What does it actually mean, this emotive sounding 'defund the police'?

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/202 ... es-it-mean

So, spending in the US on policing has gone up by a factor of four in as many decades while crime has reduced.
Even before all this, going back some years, there have been examples of the flooding of military, or surplus military equipment to PD's.
To often absurd levels, such as a PD in a quiet, affluent area suddenly getting armoured vehicles back from Iraq or Afghanistan and painted blue.
Not just Humvees but vehicles mine and RPG protected, were ISIS coming for the suburbs of middle America?

Vaccinations have also gone up while communicable diseases have gone down, maybe we should cut on those too?

GDB wrote:

To often absurd levels, such as a PD in a quiet, affluent area suddenly getting armored vehicles back from Iraq or Afghanistan and painted blue.
Not just Humvees but vehicles mine and RPG protected, were ISIS coming for the suburbs of middle America?

I mean.... our worst domestic terrorists do seem to be affluent white guys from the suburbs right?

And No I'm not sure myself how sarcastic to take that.

Like there are absolutely times I can understand SWAT needed such a thing (West Hollywood shootout anyone?) but I don't think they are needed for 99% of the situations they get used for. In fact I would say most of those times they only inflame a situation that did not warrant that response.

Pyrex wrote:

GDB wrote:

What does it actually mean, this emotive sounding 'defund the police'?

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/202 ... es-it-mean

So, spending in the US on policing has gone up by a factor of four in as many decades while crime has reduced.
Even before all this, going back some years, there have been examples of the flooding of military, or surplus military equipment to PD's.
To often absurd levels, such as a PD in a quiet, affluent area suddenly getting armoured vehicles back from Iraq or Afghanistan and painted blue.
Not just Humvees but vehicles mine and RPG protected, were ISIS coming for the suburbs of middle America?

Vaccinations have also gone up while communicable diseases have gone down, maybe we should cut on those too?

Yes because they are exactly the same, if you regard peaceful demonstrators as akin to a dangerous disease, judging by your posting history, quite possible.
But apologies if the information in the link, the context, was a bit too complicated for you.

If they actually go ahead with this, things aren't going to end well. I wonder if DL will move more flights to DTW, since it will have a safer reputation in the Midwest.

Thank you for MSP for being the incubator for this idea. Let's see what happens when they defund the police, and they have to call for a 25 year old social worker when someone breaks into their house. Meanwhile, we can all blithely virtue signal online, because it's not our neighborhood. Absolutely appalling what happened to George Floyd, but as so often happens, needed reforms morph into nutjob ideas.

Bricktop wrote:

Thank you for MSP for being the incubator for this idea. Let's see what happens when they defund the police, and they have to call for a 25 year old social worker when someone breaks into their house. Meanwhile, we can all blithely virtue signal online, because it's not our neighborhood. Absolutely appalling what happened to George Floyd, but as so often happens, needed reforms morph into nutjob ideas.

And you still don't get the point that this is not going to be an overnight change do you?

casinterest wrote:

Bricktop wrote:

Thank you for MSP for being the incubator for this idea. Let's see what happens when they defund the police, and they have to call for a 25 year old social worker when someone breaks into their house. Meanwhile, we can all blithely virtue signal online, because it's not our neighborhood. Absolutely appalling what happened to George Floyd, but as so often happens, needed reforms morph into nutjob ideas.

And you still don't get the point that this is not going to be an overnight change do you?

And how do you think the implementation is going to go? Hey you cops, you're gonna all lose your jobs in x months, but please hang around and protect us in the meantime. LMAO!

Bricktop wrote:

casinterest wrote:

Bricktop wrote:

Thank you for MSP for being the incubator for this idea. Let's see what happens when they defund the police, and they have to call for a 25 year old social worker when someone breaks into their house. Meanwhile, we can all blithely virtue signal online, because it's not our neighborhood. Absolutely appalling what happened to George Floyd, but as so often happens, needed reforms morph into nutjob ideas.

And you still don't get the point that this is not going to be an overnight change do you?

And how do you think the implementation is going to go? Hey you cops, you're gonna all lose your jobs in x months, but please hang around and protect us in the meantime. LMAO!

You have never heard of a thing such as transfers , resumes, and performance reviews?

Or maybe something like Lobbying to create a reformed police department?

This will be interesting to see. I'm all for a whole-scale top-to-bottom reformation of policing...but I'm a minarchist, not an anarchist so I hope they're able to come up with an affective model to keep people safe while minimizing the size of the boot heel of the state.

On a separate note...anyone else starting to get annoyed at politicians and legislators getting a pass in all of this? I mean the police certainly have their issues, but they are by definition law enforcement and enforce laws Congress and the state governments come up with. In my view, legislators are also culpable for over-policing, over-sentencing, and over-criminalization driving racial disparities. Yes, get rid of chokeholds, qualified immunity, etc. but also end the damn drug war already.

flyguy89 wrote:

<snip>Yes, get rid of chokeholds, <snip>

This is one of the most stunning things to me about the George Floyd travesty, that chokeholds were not banned in MSP. Why are they not banned everywhere, and for many years already especially after Eric Garner FFS. Blowhard politicians from communities where that wasn't already banned should be held to account as well. Seeing all those frauds with their Johnny Come Lately outrage is galling.

Pyrex wrote:

I for one look forward to seeing Mineappolis transform itself into Little Mogadishu.

It already has.


***

The answer isn't in disbanding the police, it's breaking up police labor unions.

THAT has protected more bad cops than any other singular institution or consistent factor. For those who say--and there are a lot of people saying it, esp in the Twitterverse--that there are no such thing as good cops because they don't stop or speak out against the bad cops or maliciously racially motivated ones, that's even MORE reason to disband police labor unions (and all public sector unions, IMO, but that's a rant for a different day). Good cops CAN'T speak out. The system doesn't give them traction, there is reprisal, and certainly the culture makes it difficult. But if we had a true meritocracy among law enforcement agencies, then good cops would be motivated and far more eager to say and do the right thing.

Bodycams have changed things for the good in a very short time. The Prison Reform Act that Trump signed is another step in the right direction. Nothing will change overnight. But this is a start.

https://reason.com/2020/06/03/its-time- ... ce-unions/

As for disbanding police outright and replacing them with whatever leftist gobbledygook, who can least afford private security? Who would bear the largest burden of not having community policing? Yup, you guessed it. City-dwelling minorities, on balance. Great idea, libs. Do deliberate harm to the very people you espouse to care about.

slider wrote:

For those who say--and there are a lot of people saying it, esp in the Twitterverse--that there are no such thing as good cops because they don't stop or speak out against the bad cops or maliciously racially motivated ones, that's even MORE reason to disband police labor unions (and all public sector unions, IMO, but that's a rant for a different day). Good cops CAN'T speak out. The system doesn't give them traction, there is reprisal, and certainly the culture makes it difficult.

BS. If "bad cops" were the tiny minority that they claim that they are, the good cops would be controlling the department and setting standards. Are you saying that 95% of cops are insecure wimps that can't stand up for what they know is right? That a 19:1 ratio. Haven't they ever heard of peer pressure?

johns624 wrote:

slider wrote:

For those who say--and there are a lot of people saying it, esp in the Twitterverse--that there are no such thing as good cops because they don't stop or speak out against the bad cops or maliciously racially motivated ones, that's even MORE reason to disband police labor unions (and all public sector unions, IMO, but that's a rant for a different day). Good cops CAN'T speak out. The system doesn't give them traction, there is reprisal, and certainly the culture makes it difficult.

BS. If "bad cops" were the tiny minority that they claim that they are, the good cops would be controlling the department and setting standards. Are you saying that 95% of cops are insecure wimps that can't stand up for what they know is right? That a 19:1 ratio. Haven't they ever heard of peer pressure?

That's a fair question and I don't have an easy answer...there's an underlying culture in law enforcement, similar to a locker room, where snitches are cast out.

Or maybe it's a simpler reality (although tougher concept to grasp): knowing who 'good' versus 'bad' cops are is tougher than we think. What is a bad cop? One who has intermittently violated civil rights? One who uses excessive force? If so, how many times? One who is on the take? One who lies to citizens to try to pin stuff on them (note: cops ARE legally allowed to lie to you)? Where is the line drawn and how much frequency or magnitude is required to establish what constitutes a "bad cop?"

I think this is why abolishing police unions is so crucial to reforming law enforcement--you can then adopt a full matrix driven performance review system. Nothing can really change of substance until we do this. And key pay and bonuses and incentives to responsible LEO behaviors. THAT reinforces it.

slider wrote:

I think this is why abolishing police unions is so crucial to reforming law enforcement--you can then adopt a full matrix driven performance review system. Nothing can really change of substance until we do this. And key pay and bonuses and incentives to responsible LEO behaviors. THAT reinforces it.

I agree in general with the need to change the police union "culture" (for want of a better word). The total protection they often provide for even bad elements is just not defensible. I get that police do tough jobs and make split second decisions often without as much information as one would prefer. But most police do a good job and the union does serve a purpose, I just think like many unions it has gone beyond what is appropriate and there needs to be change.

This decently covers the problems with police unions and their power to negotiate on discipline:
https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/ ... 168157001/

One thing though regarding the pay for law enforcement.... you made a comment essentially "who could/how can poor communities afford private security?" and I was going to respond that actually I bet a lot of communities, especially poorer ones, would be able to more afford private security because the public police force is very expensive in fact.

However there is one huge caveat that must also be understood: You need to pay your law enforcement enough that it is not worth it overall for them to start taking bribes and being paid by outside undesirable elements. And that means a solid wage along with funding a pension for when they retire. You simply do not what many other countries have, and once you have a corrupt police force, where that is the norm, you are screwed.

Another thing that happens is that if a community does "right size"/reduce its police pay package, what often occurs is the police start to be poached by other communities. And this can be done because they don't have to bear the training costs, just let the other city train the officer, then poach them. So towns end up competing against each other which drive the wages ever higher (similarly I also wholly disagree with communities competing against one another to get business with tax incentives).

While costs vary wildly across the nation and from large cities to small rural communities, an officer can cost around $150,000 per year when you combine all costs involved.
https://ward43.org/wp-content/uploads/2 ... cer_vF.pdf

So while do think that often enough the pay and perks and pensions are excessive in many communities, you need to be smart and careful enough on this. Good police are worth it and very needed, you just can't bankrupt your future.

Tugg

And for people who are intent to drag this into the moronically stupid ("No more cops. That’s what they’re fighting for,” Tucker Carlson), trying to influence the people who steadfastly refuse to think for themselves and instead follow MSM, John Oliver did a decent job of explaining what this is actually about:

“That meant that in many communities, the police were the only ones left to handle almost any issue that people had, which is a real problem … we are asking police to do far too much.”
[...]

“The concept is that the role of the police can then significantly shrink because they are not responding to the homeless, or to mental health calls, or arresting children in schools, or really any other situation where the best solution is not someone showing up with a gun,” Oliver said. “That is the idea behind ‘defund the police,’ if you actually listen to it.”

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/john- ... 2020-06-08

I actually get that, and it is a good idea. I am not advocating shutting down police departments but if they need to do less, respond only to situations that actually call for armed response, then the department will need less funding. It is a natural outcome.

Tugg

slider wrote:

Pyrex wrote:

I for one look forward to seeing Mineappolis transform itself into Little Mogadishu.

It already has.


***

The answer isn't in disbanding the police, it's breaking up police labor unions.

THAT has protected more bad cops than any other singular institution or consistent factor. For those who say--and there are a lot of people saying it, esp in the Twitterverse--that there are no such thing as good cops because they don't stop or speak out against the bad cops or maliciously racially motivated ones, that's even MORE reason to disband police labor unions (and all public sector unions, IMO, but that's a rant for a different day). Good cops CAN'T speak out. The system doesn't give them traction, there is reprisal, and certainly the culture makes it difficult. But if we had a true meritocracy among law enforcement agencies, then good cops would be motivated and far more eager to say and do the right thing.

Bodycams have changed things for the good in a very short time. The Prison Reform Act that Trump signed is another step in the right direction. Nothing will change overnight. But this is a start.

https://reason.com/2020/06/03/its-time- ... ce-unions/

As for disbanding police outright and replacing them with whatever leftist gobbledygook, who can least afford private security? Who would bear the largest burden of not having community policing? Yup, you guessed it. City-dwelling minorities, on balance. Great idea, libs. Do deliberate harm to the very people you espouse to care about.

Its not a bad solution, but it poses some natural complications for those who are generally supportive of Unions. One is that the Police Unions are typically dues paying members of the AFL-CIO, an organization that has been weakened in recent years for various reasons. Secondly, if this leads to a breakup of the police unions, what prevents other actors from employing the same book to break up their own unions? Lastly, this has the potential for the above mentioned reasons to divide organized labor and given the circumstances we are in, this is probably not in anyone's interest save for the wall street folks who would get filthy rich off of labor being divided.

Biden has now opposed the effort to defund police. I think this the wise political position, even though it risks losing part of the progressive base. The last thing Biden wants is for Trump to run an ad tying him to the defund movement. (Trump has hurt himself big time with his handling of this, and Biden is not about to give him an opening here.) The moderates and the never Trumpers who are now supporting Biden will only be more likely to go to him now, and for him to support the defund movement would give these people a reason not to vote Biden that they don't need. This is true in all the swing states out there. The people Biden would lose over this are already in heavily Blue areas that will vote for him anyways (New York, Illinois, California, and Maryland to name a few)

My mom said, why not make the new police (or public safety) force a woman-only organization? Or, pool the gender equity with fire?