General Politics Discussion VII [ARCHIVED] • Page 1008

Will be interested to see what model MPLS uses in replacing their PD, that link says “community led public safety” but in practice does that mean establishing an entirely new public safety dept comprised of majority unarmed officers? Cause I’ve seen suggestions that they follow the Camden NJ model, but apparently they dissolved the city’s PD and replaced it with a County PD that’s “double the size” in addition to an overhaul of tactics/training which has led to a sharp decline in violent crime and use of force complaints (95%!) which is obviously amazing but an increase in non emergency stops/arrests which is not amazing

 

a surprise to be sure

 

key words: “announce intent”

I really hope this happens but there will be obstacles and it won’t happen over night

 

your police department is laid out in your Charter so as long as nothing they propose to replace it with conflicts with that, they'll be fine. So long as whatever they come up with can still be filed under that chapter, otherwise that's gonna require a charter amendment which requires an election

 

Hate to be a bummer, but:

What are the odds the Minnesota Legislature passes a bill that bans the abolition/dedunding of local law enforcement agencies?

 

So the idea that, depending on the nature of the crisis, you don't need to call the same person is absolutely true. There are many things the police do that either someone else can do, or we don't actually need anyone to do.

But violent crime is still a thing. How do you respond to crisises caused by the occurrence of violent crime? Wouldn't that unit really just be the police by another name?

 

Yes that unit might perform similar functions that police do now idealistically, but they would be completely different and rebuilt from the ground up. for instance address completely the reason why Dylan roof and ...any black person committing a violent crime are responded to and treated differently.

also I think you need to distinguish what you mean by violent crimes. I think you’re talking about violent crimes happening that need a response WHILE it’s happening.
But the majority of violent crimes do not get broken up by the police in real time. They are investigated afterwards because they can’t typically be predicted.
But also the idea is that when you address the systemic needs of people, violent crime will diminish. Like yeah serial killers will still exist which is violent but that’s not the same thing as a swat team responding to an active shooter situation. Sadly that is a huge problem in this country so there would of course need to be some kind of “real time” response in that situation. But again, responses rebuilt from the ground up. And again, the hope being we can restructure all of society in a way that supports those people before those crimes happen. Maybe that’s idealistic but ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

I think my biggest worry is domestic violence calls. Gonna need a social worker and a therapist but also probably some muscle in case the (usually) dude is a psycho

 

I mean literally anything is better than what they currently do for domestic violence calls soo

 

Baby Semi-Smart Trump

 

I think this is definitely a bit idealistic. We'll still need a real time response. We'll still need people on patrol as a deterrent.

Dismantle the current system and rebuild it from the ground up for sure. Radically change how much money were throwing into law enforcement. But at the end of the day, we still need to do law enforcement that upholds the laws of the nation. Simply relying on the community to handle things is double edged sword and still leaves an open question of what happens when the community fails to uphold the laws. So I think we need to reform and replace are the right steps, not just remove.

 

I literally agreed that we would need real time response for some things, and stated that their response would be rebuiilt from the ground up.

disagree that people on patrol are needed as deterrent.
You’re very much misunderstanding what people/we are saying. No one disagrees that law enforcement of some type would be necessary. We just think a) what we think of as ‘criminal’ at all needs a drastic rehaul and b) it would look completely different than it does now and serve the people and not the elite/exist to guard property with disregard to human lives

like idk if you’re purposely missing the point here or what. It’s been explicitly stated by everyone advocating that we would need people to enforce certain laws. It’s HOW they enforce them that we are changing.

 

Why would the community fail to uphold laws unless those laws were detrimental to the community? Also, violence and the threat of violence is a horrible way to enforce rules. We have learned this in every area of life and rule enforcement except policing the state’s rules. If you need a violent force to “uphold the laws” there is something wrong with your laws, or as it currently stands, there is something wrong with the society those laws are protecting.
That’s not to say some forceful response or unit isn’t necessary for certain situations but in general it’s not needed to enforce laws.

 

he was born in 1984

 

why did you post a picture of yourself eating a shoe

 

Even when I start to tell myself “well maybe fewer cops should be allowed to have guns, then less people would die” I think about how George Floyd was murdered by a cop who forced his knee into his neck in broad daylight while being filmed

fuck police

 

I’ve seen this Trump commercial like 9 times today fucking hell