Posts: 921
Threads: 269
Joined: May 2013
Reputation:
511
Just curious who thinks disbanding police departments in major US cities is going to be a good thing? I can see major over hauls, but didnt we see two weeks ago what can/will happen when people know there is not active law enforcement? Is Minneapolis going to rely on just the Hennepin Co. sheriffs dept for protection and crime response? I just dont see this being a good thing for a city even in light of recent events.
Why isn't Chuck Foreman in the Hall of Fame?
it will be just like somolia. those cities will be controlled by gangs and drug lords
Its a dumb thing, a knee jerk reaction. Evaluate the police force on a per member basis with due diligence? Yes, definitely. Just defund the police department en masse? Idiocy. The same people screaming for this are the first ones to complain when their homes get robbed and nobody comes.
If the liberals aren't careful, they are going to scare voters into another 4 years of Trump. Changes should come, but if they are too radical and too swift, you'll have a conservative revolution just in time for Election Day. And for all the bluster and anger from kids under 25, they still won't vote...at least not in the numbers needed. They are too lazy and a good chunk of these 'protestors' are rich white kids looking for Instagram material. No skin in the game other than manufactured righteous indignation.
https://www.axios.com/2020-election-yout...9d3f0.html
Conservatives are turning this into another strawman argument, finding every dingbat statement and associate it with the movement. What I understood and took it to mean was the reorganization of police forces in to peace keeping organizations designed around community needs, not urban warfare specialists for every situation. Keeping a record of bad "officers" who shouldn't be in the profession isn't such a reach. Being able to get more than Police, Fire or EMT when calling 911, majority of them being combat trained. In the work place it's called "lean" and "continuous improvement". I sure as hell won't support putting police in dangerous situation's, but every situation shouldn't be treated as dangerous.
Last week, Minneapolis officials confirmed they were considering a fairly rare course of action: disbanding the city police department.
It's not the first locale to break up a department, but no cities as populous have ever attempted it. Minneapolis City Council members haven't specified what or who will replace it if the department disbands.Camden, New Jersey, may be the closest thing to a case study they can get. The city, home to a population about 17% of Minneapolis' size, dissolved its police department in 2012 and replaced it with an entirely new one after corruption rendered the existing agency unfixable.
Before its police reforms, Camden was routinely named one of the most violent cities in the US. Now, seven years after the old department was booted (though around 100 officers were rehired), the city's crime has dropped by close to half. Officers host outdoor parties for residents and knock on doors to introduce themselves. It's a radically different Camden than it was even a decade ago. Here's how they did it.
https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/09/us/disband-police-camden-new-jersey-trnd/index.html
Quote: @BigAl99 said:
Conservatives are turning this into another strawman argument, finding every dingbat statement and associate it with the movement. What I understood and took it to mean was the reorganization of police forces in to peace keeping organizations designed around community needs, not urban warfare specialists for every situation. Keeping a record of bad "officers" who shouldn't be in the profession isn't such a reach. Being able to get more than Police, Fire or EMT when calling 911, majority of them being combat trained. In the work place it's called "lean" and "continuous improvement". I sure as hell won't support putting police in dangerous situation's, but every situation shouldn't be treated as dangerous.
When they first announced it they said nothing about reorganizing or other, it was about getting rid of MPD. That's why a lot of people started speaking out against the idea and it was a day or so later that they started talking about replacement law enforcement. And quit trying to make everything political, this idea was being opposed by plenty of dems including the Minneapolis mayor and IIRC the minnesota governor. The story is being changed after the lunacy of the initial announcement was made apparent to those that were proposing it.
Of course a makeover would be warranted, and likely beneficial, but that's wasnt the original story.
Quote: @JimmyinSD said:
@ BigAl99 said:
Conservatives are turning this into another strawman argument, finding every dingbat statement and associate it with the movement. What I understood and took it to mean was the reorganization of police forces in to peace keeping organizations designed around community needs, not urban warfare specialists for every situation. Keeping a record of bad "officers" who shouldn't be in the profession isn't such a reach. Being able to get more than Police, Fire or EMT when calling 911, majority of them being combat trained. In the work place it's called "lean" and "continuous improvement". I sure as hell won't support putting police in dangerous situation's, but every situation shouldn't be treated as dangerous.
When they first announced it they said nothing about reorganizing or other, it was about getting rid of MPD. That's why a lot of people started speaking out against the idea and it was a day or so later that they started talking about replacement law enforcement. And quit trying to make everything political, this idea was being opposed by plenty of dems including the Minneapolis mayor and IIRC the minnesota governor. The story is being changed after the lunacy of the initial announcement was made apparent to those that were proposing it.
Of course a makeover would be warranted, and likely beneficial, but that's wasnt the original story.
Look back how many times are you the one to say, "lets wait and see" get more information, George Floyd, pandemic.... Then jump on the first opportunity to attack or promote something, hydroxychloroquine, Antifa .... Wonder if your bias does show up in your moderation of the board, let's wait and see huh.
Quote: @BigAl99 said:
@ JimmyinSD said:
@ BigAl99 said:
Conservatives are turning this into another strawman argument, finding every dingbat statement and associate it with the movement. What I understood and took it to mean was the reorganization of police forces in to peace keeping organizations designed around community needs, not urban warfare specialists for every situation. Keeping a record of bad "officers" who shouldn't be in the profession isn't such a reach. Being able to get more than Police, Fire or EMT when calling 911, majority of them being combat trained. In the work place it's called "lean" and "continuous improvement". I sure as hell won't support putting police in dangerous situation's, but every situation shouldn't be treated as dangerous.
When they first announced it they said nothing about reorganizing or other, it was about getting rid of MPD. That's why a lot of people started speaking out against the idea and it was a day or so later that they started talking about replacement law enforcement. And quit trying to make everything political, this idea was being opposed by plenty of dems including the Minneapolis mayor and IIRC the minnesota governor. The story is being changed after the lunacy of the initial announcement was made apparent to those that were proposing it.
Of course a makeover would be warranted, and likely beneficial, but that's wasnt the original story.
Look back how many times are you the one to say, "lets wait and see" get more information, George Floyd, pandemic.... Then jump on the first opportunity to attack or promote something, hydroxychloroquine, Antifa .... Wonder if your bias does show up in your moderation of the board, let's wait and see huh.
Yeah let's.
This topic is also in the Floyd thread...
The Mpls City Council can vote all they want, it would have to eventually go to a vote of the citizens and it wont happen - a complete disband that is. We MN's have our liberal, nordic streak - but we aint bat shit crazy (most of the time).
Lets take this time to evaluate whats right and really wrong with the way we try and secure communities and fix it. If this doesnt happen? Dont expect things to change and that would be a travesty/tragedy.
The language used this week regarding defund was unfortunate and a political softball for the right. Thank goodness the POTUS lost interest and decided to throw a (still hospitalized) 75 year old in Buffalo, NY under the bus instead to get the country united and back on track.
Google Cory Booker and Defund Police. His response was heart-felt and articulated beautifully.
Quote: @BigAl99 said:
Conservatives are turning this into another strawman argument, finding every dingbat statement and associate it with the movement. What I understood and took it to mean was the reorganization of police forces in to peace keeping organizations designed around community needs, not urban warfare specialists for every situation. Keeping a record of bad "officers" who shouldn't be in the profession isn't such a reach. Being able to get more than Police, Fire or EMT when calling 911, majority of them being combat trained. In the work place it's called "lean" and "continuous improvement". I sure as hell won't support putting police in dangerous situation's, but every situation shouldn't be treated as dangerous.
Disagree. My EMT buddies have told me about the times theyve had guns and knives pulled on them while doing a call. Every situation where you as a cop are pulled into should be considered dangerous. 99% of the cops out there are decent humans. its figuring out who the scumbags are and getting rid of them.
|
