Is Minneapolis going to be the experiment for a policeless major city? (crimes, house)

[bmw335xi]

Are local news covering the details? Are people allowed to police themselves and encouraged to buy firearms? Abolishing the police is the right wing conspiracy theories Fox News talks about... but I can't believe it's actually happening... just WOW.

[BlakeJones]

Originally Posted by Glenfield

Same type of folks who voted for Bill de Blasio and the crew you have in NYC.

In our case nobody voted for them. Turnout was so low the current crop of imbeciles basically won by default

[Glenfield]

Originally Posted by wheelsup

Camden did the exact opposite of "defunding". They doubled the amount of cops in the city. It was a way to be able to afford the price tag of DOUBLING their needed head count. What they did was not what citizens are calling for when they say they want to "defund" the police.

To even try and make the same connection is beyond nonsensical. I mean, I can't even.

What the city council pledged to do was disband the police department. No specifics of their plan were presented because there aren’t any. What’s more the city charter contains certain provisions regarding policing and can only be amended by a vote of the people.

To pretend at this stage that your particular interpretation of the ultimate outcome of today’s non-binding pledge is somehow the only correct one is presumptuous, foolish, and beyond nonsensical. All speculation is on nearly equal footing at this point, with an obvious advantage to those who can provide a local perspective.

[wheelsup]

Originally Posted by Glenfield

What the city council pledged to do was disband the police department. No specifics of their plan were presented because there aren’t any. What’s more the city charter contains certain provisions regarding policing and can only be amended by a vote of the people.

To pretend at this stage that your particular interpretation of the ultimate outcome of today’s non-binding pledge is somehow the only correct one is presumptuous, foolish, and beyond nonsensical. All speculation is on nearly equal footing at this point, with an obvious advantage to those who can provide a local perspective.

So your example of defunding the police was, in all actuality, the only way the city was able to get the needed headcount and double the size of the police force.

So you believe that is what the city intends to do? If not then why even offer up Camden as an example? It was completely disingenuous.

[flyingsaucermom]

Originally Posted by Glenfield

What the city council pledged to do was disband the police department. No specifics of their plan were presented because there aren’t any. What’s more the city charter contains certain provisions regarding policing and can only be amended by a vote of the people.

To pretend at this stage that your particular interpretation of the ultimate outcome of today’s non-binding pledge is somehow the only correct one is presumptuous, foolish, and beyond nonsensical. All speculation is on nearly equal footing at this point, with an obvious advantage to those who can provide a local perspective.

Local perspective would be my sister a huge, bleeding heart liberal, who finds the idea terrifying.. and empty like Bernie Sander's promises (I swear she supported him at one point, but she says she was always "with Her"). In any case, she believes that this is an attempt to oust the police union chief, who is in her words "a raciest P of S that has always been controversial". So dismantle and build up again thereby forcing a new union president.

[Isaysos]

Originally Posted by flyingsaucermom

Local perspective would be my sister a huge, bleeding heart liberal, who finds the idea terrifying.. and empty like Bernie Sander's promises (I swear she supported him at one point, but she says she was always "with Her"). In any case, she believes that this is an attempt to oust the police union chief, who is in her words "a raciest P of S that has always been controversial". So dismantle and build up again thereby forcing a new union president.

I think your sisters hunch is correct. Their has been a lot of contempt for the union chief from many city and suburban residents alike. It sounds like he makes it difficult to implement any sort of change or discipline in the department. His support at the trump rally last year didn’t help either.

[jmgg]

Originally Posted by thinkalot

I don't know how much tourism and convention business Minneapolis gets but I'm sure it will disappear.

I come up there all the time, get motel rooms, shop, go to Chanhassen DT, boat, see ballgames, visit friends, and SPEND MONEY. Sorry, I think that we'll go elsewhere for a few years to see if this town gets it's head straight or do they let downtown turn into a lawless disgusting mess.

Somebody better get a clue and vote OUT the fools they've allowed to destroy what was once a very wonderful city.

[llowllevellowll]

Originally Posted by Lodestar

This will lead to what I expect to happen - a consolidation of power at the Federal level as we creep our way to total disenfranchisement.

There've been murmurings of this for at least a decade now. National riots will give the idea an extra appeal.


If the rioters didn't like the local police just wait until they meet the National police.

You can't do this to me when I've just had a toke or two, Lodestar. You know what this does to realistic versions of conspiratorial stoners like myself?

[llowllevellowll]

Originally Posted by Lodestar

Think larger - what will happen after the defunding? And after that? And after that?

Whether intentional or not national loosening of the reins, given the flow of predictable human behavior predicts a higher level of authority will eventually claim that "taking care of us all" is necessary.

if you doubt this study the historical flow of democratic societies. People are more predictable than most of us imagine.

The riots will be used as an excuse that there are those among us unable to curb antisocial behavior (which is true) and others susceptible to following the group (which also is true) who naturally have to be controlled because they won't willingly do it themselves. We used to do this naturally in homogenous societies with a number of social values which are now invalid. In very homogenous societies like the small town in which I grew up we had no police at all and any crime which took place was hidden in the home.

Ever wonder why they didn't put an end to the criminal behavior immediately? They could have, you know, and simply with little damage to people. They the have sophisticated psychotronic weaponry available. They've been testing it on the public unbeknownst at least since the Sixties.

We will welcome a centralized police force as a reliable standardization of laws and consequences promising equality in administering the law but we will continue to have even less say in government if it happens. Then it will become truly dangerous for the freedoms of every citizen.

Part of the reason for this is that people still believe that they are getting the party they voted for but that no longer holds true. That went out the window the day that Kennedy was assassinated. Maybe before that.

We aren't served by Democrats or Republicans. We are ruled by Big Business and have been for decades. All the rest is window dressing for the masses, like a ball game, rooting for your team. Most of us play along because it's human nature.

Thinking outside the box might be a good idea right now.

Alright, it's official... I'm on board. Well, plus you and I always agreed on the latter. But the former? I think you're right. I'd have some follow-up but, obviously this is all being recorded in time. I think the scary thing is that when it happens, they will absolutely go retroactive.

[BBMW]

I wonder what this is going to do for local property values?