Crime Soars in Liberal Cities that Voted to Defund the Police









MplsGopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 4, 2017
Messages
31,162
Reaction score
8,067
Points
113
Posting below letter to the STrib from a Mpls Mayoral candidate for it's truth and excellence. Don't know if I'll end up voting for this person, but this letter is an excellent start for me!


Minneapolis voters have a choice this fall. We can maintain the broken status quo of policing, or move forward on the path to a holistic public safety system.

I've listened to Minneapolis residents. I've heard fear from a woman who lives alone and had someone try to break into her home while she was there. She's grateful police showed up quickly.

I've heard anger from a mom whose teenage daughter was catcalled by police.

I've felt the anguish of a community grappling with babies being shot and killed.

Amid the ache for real community safety, I've heard a consistent refrain: "I just want to be able to call for help in an emergency and not fear who shows up."

The status quo is not a path to a safer Minneapolis. We do not have to choose between justice and safety.

When I am elected mayor, I will retain our police force inside the Department of Public Safety that will be created by City Question 2. I will fund police at current staffing levels for at least two years as we invest and build trust in a whole-systems approach to crime prevention and public safety.

Let's look at the facts. City Question 2 does not abolish police or remove the chief of police. Rather, it would allow the mayor and City Council to build a Department of Public Safety that puts police, fire, violence prevention and emergency management under a unified structure dedicated to a safe Minneapolis. The chief of police will continue to serve as head of police, and I would appoint a civilian commission to head the department overall.

As long as I am mayor, police officers will be an integral part of public safety in Minneapolis. Importantly, this amendment will help with two key parts of making policing work better. We can ask officers to do less, enabling them to focus on violent crime. We can also rebuild trust — not through a PR campaign, but through radical transparency and real accountability.

Yet we can't rely on police alone to ensure safety. This charter amendment gives us more tools to make real reform and better integrate public safety approaches, including dramatic increases in crime prevention and violence interruption.


Good public policy takes time. Our process will be data-informed and methodical. I am committed to full transparency and ample input.

City Question 2 also removes the outdated requirement to fund a mandatory minimum of police officers per resident.
This arbitrary requirement was pushed by the Police Federation decades ago to keep officers in jobs — even ones that shouldn't be officers. We as taxpayers keep paying for this police-centric approach, increasingly through multimillion-dollar payouts for excessive use of force.

This current mandate means an outsized portion of the city's budget must be spent on policing alone, which keeps us from investing significantly in strategies that research clearly shows are successful in preventing crime — things like investing in young men, housing access and mental-health support.

Studies show that simply increasing the number of officers doesn't reduce crime. History in our own city shows that even when we have the mandated number of officers per resident, it does not keep crime from rising or automatically provide us with needed safety.

Most large cities, including St. Paul, don't have this funding restriction — and many have lower rates of violent and property crime than Minneapolis.

The deep deficiencies of the police-only approach under Mayor Jacob Frey make the need to pass the charter amendment clear. He has failed to hold the Minneapolis Police Department accountable or demonstrate a path forward. We have a structural problem that requires structural reform. Frey is standing in the way. His claim that he's for reform fails the smell test when he and the special interests that support him are fighting so hard to retain the status quo.

Our city is in crisis. The murder of George Floyd by police catalyzed a global cry for justice. The outburst of gun violence has shocked the conscience of all of us.

We have a responsibility to ourselves and the world to build a public safety system that actually works. I have a vision and plan. See it at kateformpls.org/publicsafety.

This is our call to action. We need a Department of Public Safety, and we need a mayor who will lead.

Together we can build a public safety system — and a city — rooted in justice over fear.

Kate Knuth is a candidate for mayor of Minneapolis. She is a former state representative and small-business owner.
 

MplsGopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 4, 2017
Messages
31,162
Reaction score
8,067
Points
113
Keith Ellison in STrib today:


I've talked to people who are voting both yes and no on the Minneapolis public safety charter amendment. I'm voting yes, because yes represents the hope that we can have better, more humane and more effective public safety in the future. My fear is that a no vote extinguishes hope and leaves us with the status quo.

I know a lot of no voters also really want change. And I know a lot of yes voters want police officers available to keep the city safe and reject the notion of supposedly "defunding" the police. But in the aftermath of Minneapolis' cataclysmic reaction to the torture and murder of George Floyd, the debate has become extremely polarized. What we really need is a communitywide conversation about what public safety means in every neighborhood, about what the amendment does and doesn't do, and our shared hope for a better city, no matter how we vote.

I'm not new to this conversation. As a young lawyer, I represented victims of police abuse and successfully lobbied the City Council to establish civilian review of complaints against officers. As attorney general, I now assist prosecutors across the state in holding violent criminals accountable and won a conviction against Derek Chauvin for the murder of George Floyd.

And a year before George Floyd was murdered, Minnesota Public Safety Commissioner John Harrington and I pulled together a statewide working group of law enforcement, prosecutors, judges, scholars, philanthropy and community — the first of its kind anywhere — on how to reduce deadly force encounters with police. We knew the issue had to be addressed urgently and outside the context of a crisis. That's exactly what we did, and three months before George Floyd was murdered, we released 28 recommendations and 33 actions steps, all of which we came to by consensus.

It wasn't easy. We had hard conversations between people who were just as opposed on some issues as proponents of yes and no on the charter amendment are now. I know those hard conversations can be had and resolved because John Harrington and I led them.

Now more than ever, we need to drive a conversation in Minneapolis about how we can have both safety and human rights, both a feeling of security and a feeling of hope. The vote on the charter amendment gives us that opportunity.

Since I announced I will vote yes, I've talked to many individual no voters: I haven't run into any who don't want reform. I've talked to a lot of yes voters: I haven't heard from any who want to eliminate police entirely. And yet we talk past each other without any real resolution. If we don't get into a higher-quality debate now, we're going to be in a lose/lose situation. If yes wins, some people will be fearful and think about leaving the city. If no wins, some people will think their neighbors don't care about the fact that George Floyd was murdered here.

Part of the problem is that other things you may have heard are not true. It is just not true that the amendment will eliminate the police department, defund the department or fire the chief. Nothing in the actual language says that.

What is true is that the majority of us have the drive to change and the will to hope for a safer and more just city, regardless of how we vote.

My opinion is that while many Minneapolis police officers, including the current chief, have served many people well over the years, good people inside the status quo aren't enough by themselves to make fundamental change: we need a systems change. The charter amendment creates the possibility for the kind of systems change we need by integrating the Police Department into a new Department of Public Safety that includes other safety services like the Fire Department and the Office of Violence Prevention. It frees us up to plan and invest comprehensively for how we define safety today.

The police-only model that we've relied on for decades no longer works for large parts of our city: too many people in communities of color, who want and deserve the same level of safety that exists in other parts of town, are fearful of calling the police when they need protection. That makes everyone less safe in every neighborhood, but it's understandable, given the long history of police killings in Minneapolis of unarmed people, mostly African American — from the elderly couple Lloyd Smalley and Lillian Weiss, killed in a botched drug raid in 1989 with no accountability, to George Floyd in 2020, and too many in between.

Some people are worried the amendment gives the City Council too much control over the police. But the council cannot and will not manage the daily operation of the police department or any department. Under the current charter, however, the council has no power: It can't even pass a policy banning chokeholds. The charter change will allow the council oversight, not management or authority over daily operations. Most importantly,the public will have ample opportunity to weigh in on that issue and otherswhen the council passes ordinances to enact the amendment.

Others are concerned with the amendment language that the new department will employ peace officers "if necessary." Clearly, they are necessary: we still need armed officers to respond appropriately to dangerous situations. The amendment will free them up to focus on that work while mental-health professionals, social workers and violence-reduction specialists respond to calls about nonviolent folks in crisis, panhandlers, the unhoused— and fake $20 bills.

What if that had happened for George Floyd?

To me, a yes vote represents hope in a better, safer future that includes everyone in every neighborhood, with no one left behind — and includes the best police we can imagine. A yes vote also represents us resolving to act. When it comes to too many chronic problems in our society, we don't act: we know what works to build resilience to climate change, bring down the price of prescription drugs, or curb gun violence, for example, but we continually punt. After the murder of George Floyd in our city and the destruction of Lake Street, we in Minneapolis can break that cycle of inaction. Instead of coming up with reasons why the change we say we want isn't practical now, we can rise to meet this historical moment and the needs of the future with a yes vote.

I believe we as a city can get through fear to hope together if we assume the good intentions of folks on the other side of the debate. If wereally talk to each other and commit to reform no matter how we plan to vote, I have faith we will leave the status quo behind and get to a better, safer place. Let's get talking.

Keith Ellison is attorney general of Minnesota.
 




Wally

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 15, 2016
Messages
12,518
Reaction score
5,531
Points
113
mental-health professionals, social workers and violence-reduction specialists respond to calls about nonviolent folks in crisis, panhandlers, the unhoused— and fake $20 bills.
Should be funny. I hope they make them all wear body camera's.

I don't like the cops but they are necessary.
 





MplsGopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 4, 2017
Messages
31,162
Reaction score
8,067
Points
113
How the social workers ect will get treated by these people when they go out on calls.
As opposed to how armed officers get treated?

Mental illness doesn't respect anyone or anything.
 

Wally

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 15, 2016
Messages
12,518
Reaction score
5,531
Points
113
As opposed to how armed officers get treated?

Mental illness doesn't respect anyone or anything.
Exactly, who is going to do it? I think they will have some hiring issues.
 


scools12

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 30, 2009
Messages
6,402
Reaction score
2,261
Points
113
The leftist nut jobs no matter how hard they try will never be able to walk this back.

 
Last edited:

Spoofin

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 11, 2013
Messages
23,228
Reaction score
6,991
Points
113
Nobody meant “defund” when they said “defund the police”
 


Wally

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 15, 2016
Messages
12,518
Reaction score
5,531
Points
113
You mean these guys, who drive around in an unmarked van shooting rubber bullets at people. Then beat the guy surrendering spread eagle on the ground.

High quality ..



Context:

Police in an unmarked van were rolling around Minneapolis shooting at unarmed civilians.

Army Veteran Jaleel Stallings, who has a permit to carry, was shot at unprovoked by rubber bullet from an unmarked police vehicle and returned fire.

He surrendered before being kicked in the head repeatedly on the ground after submitting to police.

Remained calm and collected while returning accurate fire on a moving target. He surrendered in a way where they couldn’t justify shooting him, and then kept his composure while being beaten.

And to top it off has an apparent grin in his mugshot

What's worse, they offered him 13-year prison term plea deal he rejected, but he was found innocent through self defense.

I have no information on any action taken against the MPD or the officers.
 

Spaulding!No!

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 22, 2019
Messages
3,541
Reaction score
1,445
Points
113
A study in reflexivity. Less police now = more police later. “ All cretans are liars.”
 

kg21

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 25, 2021
Messages
2,926
Reaction score
1,292
Points
113
You have to remember though that crime is subjective.

Certain groups who are upset are not really committing crimes.

It's now tough to really keep track of crime in today's woke world.

Are we talking crime or woke crimes?
 

MplsGopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 4, 2017
Messages
31,162
Reaction score
8,067
Points
113
It's really not that difficult, at all.

Armed police officers, should be the same thing as the SWAT team. Very narrow focus (preventing and responding to violence).


You don't see the SWAT team out patrolling the streets. Why not? Exactly every argument that people making in defense of having armed police officers patrolling, can be made for having the SWAT team patrolling.


Most crimes aren't things where the SWAT team needs to be called. Likewise, most crimes aren't things where armed police officers need to be called.
 

forever a gopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
2,038
Reaction score
1,271
Points
113
Per the city, how the question currently stands:

City Question 2​

Department of Public Safety

Shall the Minneapolis City Charter be amended to remove the Police Department and replace it with a Department of Public Safety that employs a comprehensive public health approach to the delivery of functions by the Department of Public Safety, with those specific functions to be determined by the Mayor and City Council by ordinance; which will not be subject to exclusive mayoral power over its establishment, maintenance, and command; and which could include licensed peace officers (police officers), if necessary, to fulfill its responsibilities for public safety, with the general nature of the amendments being briefly indicated in the explanatory note below, which is made a part of this ballot?

This essentially gives the city council way more power over policing. I've stated this before, but I was a fan of Betsy Hodges before she was mayor. She was my city councilperson, and my many interactions with her while I was on my neighborhood board were all extremely positive. As a mayor, however, she turned out to be a bit of a dud. Even if you ignore how he acted during the riots, Frey has also been a bit of a dud. However, the both of them are wholly more capable and reliable to not completely F over the city than the city council has been. People like Lisa Bender are one of the reasons I ultimately left Mpls. Total crackpots that completely ignore their constituents in an effort to get woke points, and leave a trail of destruction in their wake. The idea of giving that assemblage of mouth breathers any more power than they already have would be terrifying to me as a resident.
 

Spaulding!No!

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 22, 2019
Messages
3,541
Reaction score
1,445
Points
113
It appears that some people have 0 interest in the greater good.
 

KillerGopherFan

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 15, 2013
Messages
21,759
Reaction score
3,854
Points
113
Look at this. A full out gang war shooting, including a murder victim and 2 wounded, on video and the Soros funded Chicago prosecutor declines to pursue ANY charges against the gang shooters for lack of evidence, even though it’s entirely recorded on a street video camera.

Yeah, gun laws are the problem. Legal gun owners are the problem. 🙄

 




kg21

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 25, 2021
Messages
2,926
Reaction score
1,292
Points
113




Top Bottom