Abolish the police?

Costa Rican Gopher

Mind of a Scientist
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
22,003
Reaction score
1,028
Points
113
Members of the Mpls City Council want to abolish the police department & the idea seems to be gaining popularity nation wide with Democrats. Do you support this idea?
 

LakevilleBro

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 3, 2020
Messages
545
Reaction score
388
Points
63
Dumbest idea I have ever heard. Can you imagine running for office and your campaign goals are:
take away your guns, and abolish the police?
 

Spoofin

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 11, 2013
Messages
15,616
Reaction score
1,433
Points
113
Sure - MPLS did just fine without police present last weekend ?
 

Panthadad2

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 20, 2015
Messages
2,561
Reaction score
683
Points
113
If the goal is to empty the urban areas, that sounds like a great idea.

Seriously though, I can't believe the pols who favor this actually believe eliminating police from urban areas is an option. Maybe they mean abolishing large city-wide police forces as we know it...in favor of some other community-based public safety group.
 

BarnBurner

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 12, 2010
Messages
10,787
Reaction score
523
Points
113
Go ahead. Give it a whirl.

just don’t complain when the inevitable happens.
Jeremiah Ellison
 

Costa Rican Gopher

Mind of a Scientist
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
22,003
Reaction score
1,028
Points
113
I know what right leaning posters are going to think, but I'm curious to hear what left leaning posters think. Jake for example, lives near the scene of the riots in South Mpls & often scoffs at the idesa that the Democrats have become radical in their ideology. Does he & other D's like him, support abolishing the MPD?
 

Costa Rican Gopher

Mind of a Scientist
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
22,003
Reaction score
1,028
Points
113
If the goal is to empty the urban areas, that sounds like a great idea.

Seriously though, I can't believe the pols who favor this actually believe eliminating police from urban areas is an option. Maybe they mean abolishing large city-wide police forces as we know it...in favor of some other community-based public safety group.
There's talk of handing over policing to BLM and other politically aligned groups (i.e. Antifa).
 

LongLiveMilesTarver

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 19, 2012
Messages
1,076
Reaction score
190
Points
63
This would be a hilarious experiment to watch play out... if only I didn't live here.
 

BarnBurner

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 12, 2010
Messages
10,787
Reaction score
523
Points
113
I know what right leaning posters are going to think, but I'm curious to hear what left leaning posters think. Jake for example, lives near the scene of the riots in South Mpls & often scoffs at the idesa that the Democrats have become radical in their ideology. Does he & other D's like him, support abolishing the MPD?
Lefties will bend and twist to support the flavor of the day. The minute shit goes south it will be Trump’s fault.
 

MplsGopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 4, 2017
Messages
13,641
Reaction score
1,820
Points
113
If the goal is to empty the urban areas, that sounds like a great idea.

Seriously though, I can't believe the pols who favor this actually believe eliminating police from urban areas is an option. Maybe they mean abolishing large city-wide police forces as we know it...in favor of some other community-based public safety group.
No one is advocating for lawlessness and anarchy. Of course they aren’t.

One idea I like is that police should be doing far fewer things than they do now. Do we need multiple officers, with guns, to be called because someone passed a counterfeit bill? And so on. I don’t know exactly how it works, but I know we need to start over from scratch and try a new system.
 

GO4INLALALAND

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 31, 2008
Messages
2,198
Reaction score
51
Points
48
No one is advocating for lawlessness and anarchy. Of course they aren’t.

One idea I like is that police should be doing far fewer things than they do now. Do we need multiple officers, with guns, to be called because someone passed a counterfeit bill? And so on. I don’t know exactly how it works, but I know we need to start over from scratch and try a new system.

No. Large urban cities need to stop electing Democrats to city offices. Minneapolis is just one of many Democrat failures. These riots are all the Democrats doing.
 
Last edited:

GoGophersUMN

Active member
Joined
Dec 16, 2016
Messages
808
Reaction score
83
Points
28
In an ideal world I could see the benefit of most police not having guns on them at all times and either having them in their car for situations where they were needed or having a second tier of police that responds to calls where a gun may be needed. Most people don't carry guns in public and don't have issues.

The riots in the past week and a half show why police need guns. If there are people who hate police and want to kill them, police need guns to defend themselves.

Seems like the proposal is to replace police with a new group that serves a similar purpose but doesn't carry guns. If people trust the new group and don't view them negatively, I guess that could work. I don't see any way that would happen because people are always going to take issue with someone telling them what to do. Eventually people will start disliking the new group, they will become frequent victims of violent crimes, they'll start carrying guns, and we'll end up in the same situation with a different name.

Even that seems optimistic. I doubt people would even give the new group the chance. People would find issues with them on day 1 - race, where they live, former experience in law enforcement, gender, etc. If it actually happened, I bet the new group would be mostly male, have a lot of people from outside of Minneapolis, and have a lot of former Minneapolis police officers. The media would criticize the group before they started and point out that they're just police by a different name,

I wish the politicians would openly discuss the biggest issue with police - the unions. Bob Kroll is being made out to be the bad guy here but in any other union, most liberals would be happy he's sticking up for the members, even if they probably did something wrong. There will never be real change if unions are more powerful than police departments and the departments fear the unions. Even if Minneapolis does replace the police with a new group and it goes well, they're going to unionize, gain power, and eventually get to carry guns.
 

Panthadad2

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 20, 2015
Messages
2,561
Reaction score
683
Points
113
There's talk of handing over policing to BLM and other politically aligned groups (i.e. Antifa).
I hope not. Not the new brownshirts please...

I was thinking along the lines of ward-level hiring and managing of a law enforcement team that lives in the area. One that would be responsive to the needs in the community, because they are the community. It would be less efficient than a city-wide force of cops that don't live in the city, and training and management could be inconsistent, but there are tradeoffs. Local law enforcement might even be more susceptible to corruption or intimidation, but again, tradeoffs.

That model works in towns and burbs across America. I like to believe that could work in a more urban neighborhood too.
 

Costa Rican Gopher

Mind of a Scientist
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
22,003
Reaction score
1,028
Points
113
Even that seems optimistic. I doubt people would even give the new group the chance. People would find issues with them on day 1 - race, where they live, former experience in law enforcement, gender, etc. If it actually happened, I bet the new group would be mostly male, have a lot of people from outside of Minneapolis, and have a lot of former Minneapolis police officers. The media would criticize the group before they started and point out that they're just police by a different name,
Good post overall. I disagree with the highlighted. I think the idea is more along the lines of an Antifa style group patrolling So Mpls, keeping us safe from "Nazis" & Boogaloos, BLM patrolling No Mpls on the look out for "racism" & maybe a Sharia law, no-go zone in Cedar-Riverside that we'd never interact with at all.
 

Costa Rican Gopher

Mind of a Scientist
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
22,003
Reaction score
1,028
Points
113
I hope not. Not the new brownshirts please...

I was thinking along the lines of ward-level hiring and managing of a law enforcement team that lives in the area. One that would be responsive to the needs in the community, because they are the community. It would be less efficient than a city-wide force of cops that don't live in the city, and training and management could be inconsistent, but there are tradeoffs. Local law enforcement might even be more susceptible to corruption or intimidation, but again, tradeoffs.

That model works in towns and burbs across America. I like to believe that could work in a more urban neighborhood too.
Right, Antifa & BLM.
 

Angry

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 8, 2012
Messages
1,382
Reaction score
71
Points
48
As long as there’s a grid that they cannot escape. Let the hunger games begin.
 

Livingat45north

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 27, 2013
Messages
2,507
Reaction score
722
Points
113
Dumbest idea I have ever heard. Can you imagine running for office and your campaign goals are:
take away your guns, and abolish the police?
You forgot some of the other key points that are happening now in California and New York, such as it's not a crime if you steal less than $1000 worth of goods, if you are arrested there is no bail, we'll just let you go and hope that you show up for the trial, and of course following federal laws is completely optional, and if we think there's a dangerous flu going around, we'll just let you out of prison. Add those to the two you listed of "take away your guns and abolish the police" and you've got the beginnings of some real interesting times. Anyone ever seen the movie "Escape from New York"? Can't say I've watched it, but it may be the next hit reality TV show.
 

MplsGopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 4, 2017
Messages
13,641
Reaction score
1,820
Points
113
What does stealing something worth less than $1000 ultimately amount to or accomplish, in either life (the thief or the victim)?

That's not going to last you long, as a thief. And the items can just be replaced, perhaps paid for by a 3rd party fund/risk pool, established for such small/petty claims, acknowledging that those are always going to exist in society, and just paying for it to be replaced. This bypasses blame and clogging up the criminal justice system, which seems to be the better outcome (potentially much better than having a police kill someone). Not much different in spirit than no-fault auto insurance laws.

The true answer there is a root cause analysis of why the theft happened in the first place. What has gone wrong in the person's life to make them resort to a life of thievery. Mental disease? Unfair lack of opportunity? Etc. Addressing those actual problems, rather than just attempting to remediate the negative outcomes.
 

LakevilleBro

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 3, 2020
Messages
545
Reaction score
388
Points
63
You forgot some of the other key points that are happening now in California and New York, such as it's not a crime if you steal less than $1000 worth of goods, if you are arrested there is no bail, we'll just let you go and hope that you show up for the trial, and of course following federal laws is completely optional, and if we think there's a dangerous flu going around, we'll just let you out of prison. Add those to the two you listed of "take away your guns and abolish the police" and you've got the beginnings of some real interesting times. Anyone ever seen the movie "Escape from New York"? Can't say I've watched it, but it may be the next hit reality TV show.
I have watched Escape from New York many times. It is pretty good, and who can forget Adrianne Barbeau?
 

justthefacts

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 20, 2010
Messages
10,020
Reaction score
1,051
Points
113
1) If you actually read about it, even people who favor this view it as a long process in which police funds are gradually reduced and invested in measures to prevent crime. It's never suggested as an overnight thing.

2) Isn't the reason we all have guns is to protect ourselves from crime?
 

howeda7

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
43,437
Reaction score
2,456
Points
113
Of course you can't "abolish" the police. Reform is needed. Better training. Better hiring. Easier firing of bad cops. More accountability. 100% use of body cameras. Etc.
 

LakevilleBro

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 3, 2020
Messages
545
Reaction score
388
Points
63
What does stealing something worth less than $1000 ultimately amount to or accomplish, in either life (the thief or the victim)?

That's not going to last you long, as a thief. And the items can just be replaced, perhaps paid for by a 3rd party fund/risk pool, established for such small/petty claims, acknowledging that those are always going to exist in society, and just paying for it to be replaced. This bypasses blame and clogging up the criminal justice system, which seems to be the better outcome (potentially much better than having a police kill someone). Not much different in spirit than no-fault auto insurance laws.

The true answer there is a root cause analysis of why the theft happened in the first place. What has gone wrong in the person's life to make them resort to a life of thievery. Mental disease? Unfair lack of opportunity? Etc. Addressing those actual problems, rather than just attempting to remediate the negative outcomes.
So are saying that anyone can come to your house and steal items that are less than $1,000? Can the thieves come back daily and take more items from you? Can multiple people steal items from you and you will be OK with that?
 

MplsGopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 4, 2017
Messages
13,641
Reaction score
1,820
Points
113
So are saying that anyone can come to your house and steal items that are less than $1,000? Can the thieves come back daily and take more items from you? Can multiple people steal items from you and you will be OK with that?
Right ... but what if an asteroid just happens to land on my lawn, and start my lawn on fire? And then what if a truck carrying a circus elephant just happens to be driving by, sees the fire, and crashes, then allowing the elephant to escape and destroy my flower bed?

The law should not be designed to appease concerns from edge cases.

I've lived in this S Mpls house for several years, and nary had any such thefts. It's just not something you have to worry about.

Did you move to Iowa ... sorry, Lakeville ... because you were worried about theft?
 
Top Bottom