The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
CNN on Minneapolis, Crime, and the "Defund the Police" Movement
An interesting article posted today, "Once nicknamed 'Murderapolis,' the city that became the center of the 'Defund the Police' movement is grappling with heightened violent crime." A brief excerpt, though there's much more there:
[T]he very community most directly impacted by crime and policing in the city — the north side — was among the least supportive of the "defund" idea.
"I think what's at issue is the White progressives' belief that they're helping us," said Lisa Clemons, a former Minneapolis police officer, who is Black and runs a gun-violence organization called A Mother's Love in north Minneapolis. "Oftentimes they are hurting us."
Clemons said people in north Minneapolis don't want to get rid of cops – "they just want respectful cops."
Minneapolis voters not only resoundingly rejected what was seen as the "defund" initiative, they also voted to strengthen the office of the mayor and reelected Frey, who'd become a local avatar for moderate Democrats put off by the party's most liberal wing.
The Minneapolis area with the largest Black population — Ward 5 on the north side — also proved a strong base of support for Frey in his reelection, according to a CNN analysis of voter data.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
It's my major beef with BLM, how they hijacked the burgeoning police misconduct reform movement to enrich themselves by pretending it was all about race. They've set back police reform and race relations by decades and got themselves a nice portfolio of real estate. Whether they thought they were real Marxists or just latched on to a trendy woke tag doesn't matter.
They do it every time bad police behavior becomes widely noticed. The police reform movement has the public’s attention and the moral high ground and a chance to achieve something and then BLM pisses it away with violence and greed.
BLM hijacked the reform movement started by BLM and made BLACK Lives Matter about race? You know what really made it all about race? When you all came out with All Lives Matter, and instead of it being a police reform movement in solidarity with BLM, it was a pro-police anti-BLM slogan. You wouldn't even take the side of white people who were victims of police violence and make it a genuine movement across racial lines, you stood up for the police. Because black people. They NEVER had the support of right-wing-distrust-state-authority-arm-yourselves-against-tyranny crowd.
Bzzzzt!
The police reform movement has been around longer than BLM, and was gradually gaining a bit of traction, with laws taming qualified immunity, civil asset forfeiture, choke holds, and other abuses. Study after study has shown that while blacks get arrested more than whites, police abuse was pretty evenly spread over all those arrested. Baby steps are still progress.
Then BLM came along after George Floyd and said it was racist cops at fault rather than just abusive cops and an abusive system. All those riots burning down black businesses were not abusive cops, they were Burn Loot Murder living up to their name, collecting millions in donations which they used to buy fancy houses all over the country, not to help restore the communities they had torched.
BLM did nothing good and everything bad. They caused more damage than abusive cops.
[Citation, as they say, needed.]
Well, Wikipedia has a small article with a few links on the topic. First hit from an internet search engine!
Maybe you prefer something more substantial. Would the Department of Justice Office of Community Oriented Police Services, founded in 1994 as part of a police reform movement, count for you?
Or maybe you just wrote poorly, and meant to suggest that there was no support for reform. In which case, a quick look at the polls would help. As an example: In the 2000s, asset forfeiture had close to 60% support. In 2016, it had about 25% support, and several states had reformed their laws. The ACLU has an entire series of articles about "their successes".
'I was going to support police reform but then some black protestors got baton-charged so I'm forced to support the police instead.'
Strawman down! Strawman down! Request immediate backup!
That didn't answer Nige's charge at all. The question is why BLM's arrival caused that existing police reform movement to evaporate. It seems like y'all were like, hold up! This is gonna help black people too? Well we can't have that.
Reform the police became defund the police. And the BLM protests almost immediately turned from non-violent to destroying inner cities.
Who do you expect to support that?
Yeah, because reforming the police would never mean slashing their astronomical budgets, and protesting the police was never going to be physically resisted by the police.
'The police reform movement is a bit vague.' Black Lives Matter came along when a bunch of people got sick of black people being britalised and murdered by cops. You got mad because blcak people made it about black people. You literally can't abide black people thinking they;re so special as to single themselves out as worthy of justice.
I don't know why a group who worships at the altar of the idea that they can shoot anyone who tyrranises them gets mad over some rioting caused by police violence. Oh yeah, it's because it's black people objecting to the police violence.
Black Lives Matter came along when a bunch of people got sick of black people being britalised and murdered by cops.
No, BLM came along when the left (especially the news media) peddled...hard...the "Hands up, don't shoot!" narrative, even after it was exposed as manufactured bullshit (as was the claim that black Americans are "disproportionately" the targets of use of deadly force by police when their increased likelihood of being involved in violent crime is taken into account).
"I don’t know why a group who worships at the altar of the idea that they can shoot anyone who tyrranises them gets mad over some rioting caused by police violence. Oh yeah, it’s because it’s black people objecting to the police violence."
I don't object to them rioting. I object to them attacking innocent people and destroying their livelihoods. You want to protest and riot because of cops? Fine. Burn down police stations and other government property. Attack cops and politicians. Riots that destroy the neighborhoods of the people that are the victims of the police just means they get victimized again.
I don’t know why a group who worships at the altar of the idea that they can shoot anyone who tyrranises them gets mad over some rioting caused by police violence.
Right, because supporting the right to defend yourself against an attacker implies support for employing force against those who have done nothing to you.
You're one of the dumbest SOBs on the planet.
That all depends on the meaning of the word “you.”
Taking one example, libertarians didn’t need to wait for a bunch of rioters and race profiteers to teach them that police abuse needs to be opposed, and opposed vigorously
https://reason.com/2020/06/08/where-are-libertarians-on-police-reform-right-where-weve-always-been/
You just needed a bunch of black people to actually get out onto the streets and get hammered by the cops to be a step too far for gun-loving freedom sorts.
I am not "gun-loving." I am freedom-loving. Criminals (of all colors) infringe on my freedom. I want the police to crack down on them. Your argument that, because I like freedom, I should oppose police and support criminals / violent rioters is -- like just about everything else you say -- idiotic.
There was growing support for police reforms but every discussion I had around that time came down to the people on the left telling me that the problem was racism and if we didn't have a "solution" addressing racism then they weren't interested. Police violence against the people they encounter is not just because racist cops. It is because cops are thugs with guns and badges who circle the wagons every time it looks like one of them is going to be held criminally liable for anything. Yes, even the so-called "good cops". If they were good cops they wouldn't protect the bad ones.
As a society we could have had meaningful police reform but BLM and their ilk had to make racism the issue instead of murderous cops with no way to stop them within the system. After a long deluge of being told that it was my fault because I'm white and therefore a racist I just gave up. I doubt if I'm the only one that felt that way.
Again, I'm not saying that racism isn't an issue with police violence but it isn't THE issue. The real issue is that cops aren't held to an appropriate standard for anything. I see them talking on cell phones while driving, parking in handicap spots to conduct personal business, conducting personal business on public time (hell, I sold a car to a CHP officer while he was on duty and in uniform), and countless other little things that shouldn't be allowed. When any group isn't held to at least a minimum standard for the small stuff they lose respect for the rules about the big stuff.
That just makes you a coward.
Cause, meet effect.
Conservatives, sensing decreasing appetite for Republican candidates as elections approach, are engaged in a coordinated effort to scare voters with respect to crime and race, and often misleadingly.
Prof. Volokh is just doing his part here. Jeffrey Bossert Clark, John Eastman, the Mississippi welfare crime gang ('steal from the poor to benefit rich Republicans'), the fraud claims against the Trump Organization and several Trumps, a hurricane or two, Georgia election misconduct that has precipitated replacement of equipment after an elected officials lies and misconduct were revealed by recordings -- none of those developments is as "interesting" to Prof. Volokh as a story about . . . race and crime!
What should we expect with respect to the next installment from the Volokh Conspiracy's continuing campaign coverage? An immigrant charged with murder? Black-on-white crime? A gay headless body in a trans topless bar?
Yes, those black voters whose neighborhoods were burned down or tormented by violent crime are sure racist.
Well according to the Democrats they are too stupid to have ID to vote much less any agency so it’s the Republicans who are scaring the dumb Blacks into voting the wrong way with lies. Their lived experience doesn’t match what they see with their eyes because they’re just dumb animals being influenced by evil Republicans.
Sincerely,
Rev. Kirkland
Sarcastr0
Nige
And every Democrat everywhere
Republican racists are among my favorite culture war casualties.
And, apparently, the core target audience of a white, male, movement conservative blog.
Parallel society Rev.
I don’t share a culture with you child groomers and Moloch worshippers.
You get to whimper about modern America as much as you like, but you will continue to toe the line established by your betters.
Until replacement.
'Moloch worshippers.'
Bow down to the golden toilet.
According to you there's a desperate need for voting ID, but you never actually provide proof there's a problem, so why are small government conservatives demanding the government enact a solution for something that isn't a problem?
I noticed this, too. Eugene is always very defensive whenever he's accused of pushing a narrative, and when it comes to timely subjects outside his core areas of "expertise," he's fond of saying - I don't know anything about that! But here he is dropping a bizarrely-framed CNN post and just so happens to choose a particularly juicy excerpt from it.
Does he know anything about criminal justice policy? Minneapolis? The "defund the police" movement? Nope!
Maybe he has a covert command of issues regarding race, crime, and policing. He has used the 'I am not familiar enough with the subject matter to make my commentary worthwhile' assertion when attempting to explain his failure to address obvious subjects, so it is reasonable to infer that he is more familiar with the issues raised by CNN (and, of course, Republican Party strategists). Perhaps he publishes regularly on race, crime, and policing under a pseudonym?
Politicians lie and distract and mislead. Shocker!
Black people and their problems are not the Democrats' clients the past 20 years or so. They are its product.
This product is sold to middle and upper middle class white women. Hence the discrepancy. This sounds great...to people living well away from the situation. Defund! No stop and frisk! I don't like stop and frisk, and am against it for constitutional reasons. But I know people who live in these areas often are in favor of it.
But I know what is best for them!
I don't know what the solutions are. I don't pretend to know what the solutions are. I like experiments in government to see what works.
How's this one doing?
Well if you consider the voting loyalty of the blacks to the Democrats, I’m quite sure the Democrat elites consider the policies a success.
Voting loyalty of black people to Democrats can usually be understood after listening to people on the right talk about black people for anything up to a minute.
Haha yeah, when we say things like "of course blacks aren't too stupid to get ID to vote" it really pisses them off because they agree with Democrat politicians and know they are too stupid to get an ID to vote!
Always a winning strategy, calling black people stupid.
Obviously some are too dense to realize they are being insulted by Democrats, suggesting they can't get an ID without someone holding their hand.
So are you just suggesting there's no such thing, or just volunteering as an example?
Black communities in NYC also pushed back strongly against the "defund" movement, and for similar reasons - they wanted more policing, but more respectful policing.
Conservatives are fond of making this point, but they rarely seem to care about the follow-up. "See? Even Black people don't want to defund the police!" And then they go back to shoveling money at unaccountable police forces with hardly any gesture towards necessary reforms. It's like you all tune out after you hear what you want to hear.
The CNN story bizarrely seems to be trying to blame the defund "movement" for increasing crime rates, despite the fact that the story itself describes how the defund "movement" didn't even get off the ground in Minneapolis. So what's the deal? Same old police, but worsening crime rates? Well, if you ask the cops - and those are the only ones CNN bothered to ask - it's all about "morale," which is what they say in NYC, too. There's a wave of retirements, they say, by police officers who are just sick and tired of being called out for abusing their authority, engaging in corruption, escalating situations to the point where lethal force becomes necessary, etc.
Here in NYC, we even elected a cop to be mayor, and we still have a police department that does just whatever it wants, on crime. Crime rates tick upward while arrest data shows an increased emphasis on... quality of life violations? We're busting turnstile jumpers while violent crime edges upward. Cause the highest per-capita police force in the U.S. is spread thin, y'see, due to our not being sufficiently deferential to police supremacy a couple years ago.
It's all a crock. The CNN story gets one thing right: Good policing requires building relationships with members of communities and rebuilding trust with police forces. That's how you clear cases and catch good-for-nothings before they go from petty crimes to more serious ones. But the police aren't interested in that. They think that they can just order us to "respect" them, and if we don't - then they bitch and moan about their "morale," those pathetic snowflakes. And so they sit on their asses, rack up the overtime, and engage in low-effort "enforcement" activity to keep themselves busy.
Funny you pick on conservatives who want to fund police without reform, as if to distract from lefties who want both fewer police and no reform.
"The lefties" have never been for "fewer police and no reform." "Defund the police" was a slogan attached (by the right) to a lot of differing approaches to criminal justice reform.
The only thing that really most of those approaches could be said to share was an emphasis on moving away from sending the police to each an every disturbance - sending, for example, people with an expertise in dealing with people having a mental health episode or engaged in a domestic dispute. The approach that many mayors committed to reform have proposed, and are trying, is to add staff to work alongside the police in those cases.
The motivation behind "abolishing" police departments comes less from wanting to have "fewer police" than it does from understanding that bad practices are engrained in police forces with a vested interest in changing nothing. It was an option proposed, in other words, because police forces often seem beyond hope (as the NYPD can often seem to be). But even there, no one proposing that radical step really envisions a future with "fewer police and no reform." They envision, rather, a future of various different groups of police-like public employees working together on public safety.
Defund the police came from lefties burning down cities and not wanting to be stopped by police. It had nothing to do with conservatives.
Dude explained stuff, and you just came back with your partisan narrative and zero engagement,
You reject his reality and replace your own is just really a lame way to be,
It's the fascist playbook. They never have to own the irresponsible and unspeakably violent implications of their actual views, because anyone who would disagree with their fascist impulses is forced to engage first on the facts. Every debate gets bogged down first in endless debates over just what is true. We never get around to, "So... we can't hope to control crime without authorizing the police to use force liberally and unaccountably?"
"Defund the police" was on placards and in speeches. It was not a slogan invented by the opposition.
The claim that it was a slogan attached "to a lot of differing approaches" also lacks credibility. It was an extremist position advanced by advocates on the left that sucked the air out of the debate for everyone and ruined the small progress we had actually been making toward reform.
Yes, we need police reform. And yes, this attempt to achieve it by revolution (as opposed to incrementalism) failed spectacularly.
Fewer police would be a reform, if there is going to be no actual reform, as it is, they're turning into one big heavily armed gang.
"Conservatives are fond of making this point, but they rarely seem to care about the follow-up."
It's hard to do follow up when the vast majority of the problem is in large Democratically run cities, most in Blue States.
The problem is not limited to only the stories that Fox News will show you. Crime is up in red states, as well - including both rural areas and cities.
Conservatives are fond of making this point, but they rarely seem to care about the follow-up. “See? Even Black people don’t want to defund the police!” And then they go back to shoveling money at unaccountable police forces with hardly any gesture towards necessary reforms.
Given that the police forces where the abuses occur are overwhelmingly in Democrat/liberal-controlled jurisdictions the argument that it's conservatives that are shoveling money at them and failing to pursue reforms is mind-numbingly stupid.
“Defund the police” has become the clarion call of some but not among the vast majority of Americans, especially, African Americans. Two polls taken in late June and early July, 2020 found strong support for law enforcement with 73% opposing abolition of police in one poll[i]. Meanwhile, Gallup found that 81 percent of African Americans support either the same amount or an increased police presence in their communities.[ii] Defunding the police is clearly not a solution to problems faced by law enforcement, many of which are the result of poor government policy which is then thrust on law enforcement to handle. Better ideas and better solutions need to be discussed and vetted for implementation rather than just imposing an unpopular solution which clearly lacks public support despite what a loud minority would have us believe.
There are solutions which can begin to correct the problems facing law enforcement. Some of the solutions may in fact incorporate a few of the ideas proposed by advocates which change responsibility for certain activities away from a law enforcement responsibility to that of non-law enforcement agencies.
Reform #1 The Drug War
The War on Drugs might be the worst public policy implemented since 1970 for several reasons. Confining those to current events and specifically to racial discord is difficult because of the pervasiveness the drug war has on every aspect of criminal justice. For that reason, I will attempt to confine this discussion to the impact of policing the drug war and its disparate impact on minorities by quoting an aide to President Nixon, John Ehrlichman.
“The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people. You understand what I'm saying? We knew we couldn't make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did.”[iii]
As Abolitionist Lysander Spooner wrote, “It is a maxim of the law that there can be no crime without a criminal intent; that is, without the intent to invade the person or property of another.”[iv] To make vices crimes and with the racial intent of the law, the result has been devastating on the African American community. For example, In 2014, African Americans constituted 2.3 million, or 34%, of the total 6.8 million correctional population.[v] Worse, Black males ages 18 to 19 were 12.7 times as likely to be imprisoned as white males of the same ages, the highest black-to-white racial disparity of any age group in 2018.[vi] When African Americans see these type of disparities, is it any wonder why they demand reform?
Unless police are willing to stop prosecuting the war on drug, effectively creating a de facto treatment of drugs like that of Portugal’s de jure decriminalization of drugs, perhaps the next best approach is something called Law Enforcement Assisted Diversion (LEAD) a program which enables officers to divert individuals who commit crimes due to drug addiction to specially trained case managers. These case managers coordinate addiction and mental health treatment, shelter, housing, health care, counseling, bureaucracy, and employment. Evaluations have shown that LEAD reduces recidivism, felony crime, homelessness, and unemployment, while improving citizen perceptions of the police.[vii]
Mental health diversion programs like Miami-Dade’s Criminal Mental Health Project (CMHP) dispatch specially trained officers to emergency calls that may involve mentall illness. These officers bring in offenders for mental health evaluation, safely diverting many from jail to support services that include medication, counseling, housing, and help navigating government bureaucracy. CMHP has been shown to significantly reduce recidivism, incarceration, and criminal justice spending.[viii]
Reform # 2 Sever the relationship between crime labs and law enforcement
Within the current legal system, it is often difficult to challenge the analysis of a police crime lab, even for the defense. Although the word “forensic” derives from the Latin word for the forum, where citizens congregated to dispute public questions, modern forensic science is anything but public or adequately open to dispute. The forensics lab holds an effective monopoly on the analysis of the evidence presented to it. The lab’s scientist is free to infer from the evidence without being second-guessed. The forensic worker, therefore, has power.
While the vast majority of forensic scientists wield this power fairly and competently, a few do not. The proper function of forensic science is to extract the truth. According, however, to a study in 2001:
“As it is practiced today, forensic science does not extract the truth reliably. Forensic science expert evidence that is erroneous (that is, honest mistakes) and fraudulent (deliberate misrepresentation) has been one of the major causes, and perhaps the leading cause, of erroneous convictions of innocent persons.”[ix]
In the wake of DNA exonerations, an extensive literature has developed on the limited reliability of forensic testimony. The institutional structure of forensic work is an important source of error, insufficiency, and occasionally, malfeasance. Our adversarial criminal courts organize disputes between the prosecution and the defense. But the current institutional structure of forensic science places the results of forensic scientists largely beyond dispute.
In its report to Congress the National Academy of Sciences explains: “Forensic scientists who sit administratively in law enforcement agencies or prosecutors’ offices, or who are hired by those units, are subject to a general risk of bias.” That is why it is time to change the relationship between crime labs and law enforcement.
Forensic labs are often organized within police departments and are thus dependent on the departments for their budgets. This institutional relationship creates a pro-prosecution bias, as the managers of forensics units answer to law enforcement agencies. For example, David Williams, an investigator in the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s (FBI) Explosives Unit, was found to have “tailored” his testimony “to the most incriminating result” in two trials, namely, the prosecutions for the World Trade Center bombing of 1993 and the Oklahoma City bombing of 1995. In the Oklahoma case, “Williams repeatedly reached conclusions that incriminated the defendants without a scientific basis and that were not explained in the body of the report.”[x]
“Scientific…assessment conducted in forensic investigations should be independent of law enforcement efforts either to prosecute criminal suspects or even to determine whether a criminal act has indeed been committed. Administratively, this means that forensic scientists should function independently of law enforcement administrators. The best science is conducted in a scientific setting as opposed to a law enforcement setting. Because forensic scientists often are driven in their work by a need to answer a particular question related to the issues of a particular case, they sometimes face pressure to sacrifice appropriate methodology for the sake of expediency.”[xi]
Removing forensic service providers from administrative oversight by law enforcement (to include prosecutor’s offices) addresses the “fox guarding the hen house” issue. Those responsible for acting on the jurisdiction’s or defendant’s behalf in court are not in charge of the neutral arbiter of facts that support or refute criminal allegations. The implication is not that all law enforcement oversight of laboratory functions is biased but that—purely based on mandated responsibilities—the potential for that particular brand of bias is greater than if the laboratories were independent. Other types of bias may occur but, as an independent agency, the laboratory can at least act on them without collateral repercussions and resistance due to professional cultural differences.
Reform # 3 Demilitarize the Police
This subject matter is discussed in greater depth in an essay about the MNPD, here: https://libertyseekingrebel.blogspot.com/2020/06/police-militarization-from-nashville.html
Reform # 4 Warrant service
Forced entry and no-knock warrants are almost exclusively executed in furtherance of the War on Drugs and represent one more reason why the War on Drugs is such a dangerously bad policy. The killing of Breonna Taylor in Louisville, KY was a result of a no-knock warrant.[xii] A truly meaningful reform would bar any forced entry into a private residence unless the police have reason to suspect someone inside presents an imminent threat to others, such as an active shooter, a kidnapping or a robbery in progress.
Reform # 5 Public Sector Employee Unions
In the current climate, it is easy to attack police unions for their protection of bad officers. But the truth is, as a city government, Metro cannot treat one collective bargaining unit different from others. In other words, if the FOP is to be excluded from certain aspects of negotiations, then the MNEA and SEIU must be treated in the same manner. Any Council member who fails to recognize the necessity for equal treatment of all these groups is setting the city up for civil liability.
With that in mind, research on the subject is helpful. A 2019 study from the researchers at the University of Chicago analyzed violent police incidents following a 2003 Florida Supreme Court decision that granted sheriffs' deputies the right to organize. This sophisticated analysis compares agencies with newly granted collective-bargaining rights with other police agencies that already had such rights. "(T)he right to bargain collectively led to about a 40-percent increase in violent incidents," the report concludes.[xiii]
This type of data cannot be ignored and must be addressed by limiting the areas in which the police collective bargaining unit can negotiate with the city. Police unions have made it impossible for police chiefs to reform their departments, get rid of the small number of thugs within their midst, root out police corruption and privatize services.
Conclusion
These five recommendations are not comprehensive but would go a long way toward reconciling the legitimate goals of law enforcement with the citizens it must protect. Other changes which might also be considered, if legal, would be to forbid civil asset forfeiture without a criminal charge related specifically to the property being seized and abolishing bonds for non-violent misdemeanors or at the very least, require the use of a misdemeanor citations for all non-violent misdemeanors.
I've got another suggestion, anytime an officer fires his weapon on duty he his reassigned to other duty where he isn't allowed to carry a weapon as an officer. Not a punishment, not a demotion, just a reassignment.
The purpose is to make sure the officer knows how deadly serious a decision to fire his gun is. Since we already know the vast majority of officers never fire their guns in their career, it shouldn't have a big effect. And it will probably cut down on PTSD disabilities too. It shouldn't deter officers from using their weapons when lives are clearly endangered, but it should stop a lot of shootings that circumstances do not warrant immediate use of deadly force.
So you're going to assign the entire department to desk duty. Right.
Ultimately, that's what happens: X number of armed (preventative) responses required per year with Y percent requiring the shooting of the offender. The cops who never fired their gun are forced into positions they have to, and *poof*, they're benched. At some point, within a year or so, dispatch won't have the officers needed for effective responses.
Reaching back 2 generations to 1970, Michael D wants Reform #1 The Drug War.
Now do fentanyl.
Bulk precursors from China, final processing in Mexico, and carried across our mostly-open border. CDC estimates more than 108,000 deaths per year; 5 times all gun homicides.
The WoD is a failure and has led to awful policies and procedures. But ending all of it would be as bad or worse.
Nobody would want to cut police coverage, if there was some way to guarantee respectful, non-brutal cops. Unfortunately, those thug cops are backed by their powerful union, DAs (who depend on good relations with police), right-wingers, the portion of the public whose understanding is derived from "reality" TV shows, and politicians who are afraid of the political power of the police union.
I'm sure Minneapolis would be happy with cop funding, if misbehaving cops were swiftly and surely held responsible, fired, charged with any behaviour that may have been a crime, and vigorously prosecuted. Unfortunately, that's not going to happen.
Nobody would want to cut police coverage, if there was some way to guarantee respectful, non-brutal cops.
Given that there is no way to "guarantee" any such thing (at least in the real world) can we count you in the group that WOULD want to cut police coverage?
Unfortunately, those thug cops are backed by their powerful union, DAs (who depend on good relations with police), right-wingers
As I already pointed out earlier, the police departments those "thug cops" are in are overwhelmingly in "progressive" Democrat-controlled jurisdictions...so explain to us exactly how it is that it's the "right-wingers" who are the problem there?
Maybe a more interesting subject is in Tim Walz gubernatorial re-election campaign he tried to blame a state judge for continued payments to a fraudulent children's lunch program that got 230 MILLION dollars of pandemic money, much of it after the State Department of Education determined the program had significant problems.
Walz tried to claim that a State Judge had ordered the continued payments, a claim first made in the Star Democrat.
Here is the judge called the Governer a liar in a statement posted on the official state coursts website.
https://www.mncourts.gov/About-The-Courts/NewsAndAnnouncements/ItemDetail.aspx?id=2153
Statement in full, emphasis in original:
"Due to inaccurate statements by the Governor, the Commissioner of Education, and the media regarding the investigation of Feeding Our Future (FOF) and resulting federal indictments, Ramsey County District Court Judge John H. Guthmann has authorized the issuance of this news release.
Since the investigation of Feeding Our Future (FOF) by law enforcement became public in January 2022, numerous media outlets have reported on the investigation and the events leading to federal criminal indictments. Many of the reports commented on the civil lawsuit filed in Ramsey County District Court by FOF against the MN Department of Education in November 2020. The original lawsuit was based solely on claims that the Department of Education violated federal regulations and laws prohibiting race discrimination, by failing to act on FOF’s applications for new food-distribution sites as part of its administration of the federal Child and Adult Care Food Program. Judge Guthmann was initially assigned to the case. The lawsuit included a motion by FOF for an order to require the Department of Education to act on pending site applications. Before the court could rule, the parties reached an agreement in which the Department of Education agreed to handle these federally regulated site applications “reasonably promptly.” A consent order approving the settlement was issued on December 22, 2020.
The Department of Education suspended payments to FOF based on a “serious deficiencies” letter it issued to FOF on March 30, 2021. As a result, FOF filed a motion asking Judge Guthmann to order the Department of Education to resume payments and to pay sanctions. Judge Guthmann never ordered the Department of Education to resume payments to FOF in April 2021, or at any other time.
Thereafter, the Department of Education voluntarily resumed making payments to FOF. The Department of Education was not ordered by the court to do so. After the Department resumed voluntary payments, counsel for the Department of Education wrote the court asking that FOF’s motion for sanctions based on non-payment be denied as moot because the Department voluntarily resumed payments. In a later court filing related to FOF’s separate motion for sanctions based on the failure to approve or deny 144 applications for new food delivery sites, the Department of Education advised the court that FOF’s serious deficiencies were resolved as of June 4, 2021. Of the 144 applications, 143 were denied, resulting in FOF’s separate administrative appeal.
On February 26, 2022, the Star Tribune reported on a federal investigation of FOF. The article included the following false statement: “In April 2021, Ramsey County District Judge John Guthmann told the department it didn’t have the authority to stop payments and ordered the department to resume payments.” Since February, that Star Tribune quote has been repeated or paraphrased on many occasions by many other media outlets. The same media sources reported that, in her April 4, 2022, testimony to the Minnesota Senate, the Commissioner of the Education stated that the MN Department of Education tried to stop payments to FOF, only to be ordered by Judge Guthmann to resume payments. That is false. Then, when federal indictments were announced this week, many new reports were published. On September 22, 2022, Governor Tim Walz told the media that the Minnesota Department of Education attempted to end payments to FOF because of possible fraud, but that Judge Guthmann ordered payments to continue in April 2021. That is also false.
As the public court record and Judge Guthmann’s orders make plain, Judge Guthmann never issued an order requiring the MN Department of Education to resume food reimbursement payments to FOF. The Department of Education voluntarily resumed payments and informed the court that FOF resolved the “serious deficiencies” that prompted it to suspend payments temporarily. All of the MN Department of Education food reimbursement payments to FOF were made voluntarily, without any court order."
I've never heard of a state judge calling a governor a liar in the middle of an election campaign. Now the governor might try to defend himself by claiming he was repeating an assertion published in the local press but then that would mean he had no idea that a state agency had serious concerns about a quarter of a billion dollar program being administered by the state and kept paying the money individually.
Its also worth noting that one of the individuals indicted is a close associate of Rep. Ilan Omar.
Maybe the government should stop handing out money? Just a thought...
I would be interested in any proof anyone has to offer that:
1. "Defund the police," was ever widely advocated as anything except a means to use a fraction of the police budget to fund alternative law enforcement responses which some thought would work better, and;
2. That the notion of, "Defund the police," is in any way still a current item on any notable Democratic Party agenda, or on any other left-wing agenda.
What you can count on is hearing continuously about, "Defund the police," from right wing sources, probably for years. I think the right wing may be all that is keeping it alive.
Who sound like that dumbass Press Secretary walking back of Sponge Brain Shits-His-Pants comments.
Like his most recent “I was 30, she was 12” comment.
1. Evergreen: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/12/opinion/sunday/floyd-abolish-defund-police.html (“Yes, We Mean Literally Abolish the Police: Because reform won’t happen.”) It would take quite a long time to count all the web sites that reposted or [edited to add: approvingly] linked to that column.
2. At this point, that is a dumb request, because — as CNN points out — even most Democrats have realized their earlier hot takes on this topic were stupid. It’s not like this was 50+ years ago; it was two years ago. Or last year.
Michael P — I framed the requests for evidence carefully; you have nothing responsive. Do you at least concede that the folks most likely to utter the phrase, "Defund the police," have long-since become right wingers looking to pin that advocacy on the left, regardless of evidence?
“Right-wingers” or anyone is well within their rights to hang the “Defund the Police” movement on the Democrat party and the left. It was a stupid, knee-jerk, and pandering idea that any politician should have disregarded.
The results of Minneapolis’ budget cut resulted in a 40% loss of police personnel. Like most Marxist ideas, it works if you disregard people. The unintended consequences –a gracious term– means less police when the people most effected wanted, and voted a year later, for more police.
There’s no ‘lack of evidence’ for anyone willing to impartially look at the Defund movement; a policy almost exclusively in Democrat-dominated jurisdictions. That it backfired is no surprise, and the fault is left-wing politicos pandering to extremist (grifting) groups. Wear it well.
Here you go Stephen:
"Seattle police chief says 50% budget cut is 'not realistic or rational'
At least seven of nine Seattle city council members said they support cutting the police department budget by 50%."
https://www.king5.com/article/news/local/spd-chief-says-50-budget-cut-is-not-realistic-or-rational/281-abab7cff-6575-4780-ad8b-d8422e2f3706
Carmen Best, the first Seattle Black Female Police Chief was hounded out of office by Seattle leftists showing up to demonstrate at her home in another county, for trying to stand up to the defunding hysteria.
It got so bad that for at least a period of time Seattle Police quit investigating sexual assaults.
https://www.king5.com/article/news/politics/seattle-jenny-durkan-city-council-veto-police-funding/281-6a9e77dc-00d8-4d2f-be53-f27f197ca56b
Two groups of people support the "defund the police" movement: 1) criminals; and 2) effete, affluent progressives who, despite their claims to care for minorities and the poor, always back policies that wreak destruction upon them, but whose own position in society allows themselves to largely avoid the destructive consequences of their policies.
The destruction of civil rights and letting blacks have food stamps too.
Weird how poor white folks never get destroyed by the same policies.
The problem is GUNS though and specifically ASSAULT WEAPONS!!!!!
Let the lefties live with the consequences of their political stances. Ship them all the immigrants, let them ban guns, and watch them empty out the jails. Red States should be allowed to ban democrats and blue state liberals and deport them as dangers against society,
Is any of this surprising to anyone who knows any actual black people?
It's possible to want decent and non-criminal treatment from police and be against killers, robbers, etc....both at the same time!
This works with any race, by the way.
Exactly.
"If police reform is gonna benefit black people, well, nevermind." -- ML, Dimmy, FD Wolf, Kazinski, Pichael, Charlie, Grinberg, WY12, Simon, Asß, Krayt, Toranth, Pete, Rossami, Harvey, Bevis
What a bunch of cowardly fuckers. How can you be that contemptuous and fearful of black people.
Congratulations! You discovered that practically nobody actually supports defunding the police.
Which I suspect you already knew. So is this just clickbait?
"Defund the police" was such a widely advocated talking point from the radical left, it elicited excited thoughts from every last typically apolitical knuckle dragger and layman.
Yet the liberals here are trying to memory hole it and convince you it was never a thing. Because it's unpopular. That's a pathetic joke, of course. It was a huge thing.
The media and their radical left allies are able to force meme whatever idiotic thing they want; it doesn't matter at all how unpopular it is. That doesn't mean it will happen, and it may even backfire on them.
But at the same time, unpopularity is also not necessarily a bar to enactment. Unpopular things can and do happen, often right under our noses with little public awareness. This is increasingly true as our system's trend toward bureaucratic despotism accelerates and solidifies. Some things that contribute to this:
1. Exigent (and perceived exigent) circumstances are the tyrant's best friend. Special situations like COVID create massive "opportunities" (never let a good crisis go to waste) to do things that would be deeply unpopular very hastily, before all of the relevant information is known by anyone and before any awareness develops.
2. A more divided and balkanized, more ignorant and less educated population (real education/knowledge, as opposed to credentials or indoctrinating institutional exercises). Red team/blue team political enmity helps divide, and is continually exacerbated by increasing nationalization of everything. As does an increasingly "multicultural" population with fewer shared values, beliefs, customs, etc.
Of course, bad ideas can also become popular, which makes it that much easier for them to be enacted.
As to "defund the police" , one of the major aims that certain tyrannical elements are working toward is the nationalization of law enforcement. This is done through myriad ways and degrees, and can be accomplished in fits and starts. Talk of "national standards" is one federal toe dipping in the water, and could be a big step.
Certain tyrannical elements.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Floyd_Justice_in_Policing_Act
No. What you're trying to memory-hole is that even when people were being generally supportive the "defund the police" movement, they were also saying "it doesn't really mean defund, it's just a provocative slogan, what we actually want is reform." Not everyone of course, some extreme libtards took it literally, but the vast majority were using the slogan to press reform.
Turns out the slogan was fatally bad. This is the most frustrating of the left's failure modes. When we do fudge the truth, it's to make ourselves sound insane. "Defund the police" is only exhibit B. Exhibit A is Sanders' and his cohort's "we're not really Socialists, we're Democratic Socialists, which is different." That's shooting yourself in both feet and your weak hand.