Minneapolis votes down measure replacing police department
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Minneapolis on Tuesday voted down Question 2, a ballot measure that would have overhauled the city’s police department.
The ballot question failed, with 57 percent of Minneapolis voters voting against it, according to The Associated Press.
Question 2 would have dissolved Minneapolis’s current police department by revising the city’s charter to establish a new Department of Public Safety.
The new entity would have employed a “comprehensive public health approach to safety,” replacing the city police chief with a commissioner nominated by the mayor and appointed by the Minneapolis City Council.
Police officers themselves would not be completely done away with, but nonpolice first responders — social workers, therapists and other trained professionals — would be introduced to deal with substance abuse emergencies, mental health crises and other nonviolent situations.
“Public safety is not just policing,” JaNaé Bates, a local minister and communications director for Yes 4 Minneapolis, told The Hill on Tuesday.
“Policing is a part of that infrastructure, but we have asked them to fill so many gaps that they just aren't. ... They're not the trained, qualified group of people that should be doing those things.”
Studies have shown that the vast majority of calls that police officers in the U.S. respond to are nonviolent in nature.
Minneapolis has been at the center of the police reform conversation since May 2020, when George Floyd , a Black man, was murdered by white Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin.
Despite nationwide Black Lives Matter protests following Floyd’s killing, substantive changes to national police policy have been hard to come by, as the reform bill named after Floyd has so far failed to clear the Senate.
At the end of 2020, the Minneapolis City Council voted to reappropriate $8 million from the police department’s budget, repurposing the funds for violence prevention and other social services instead.
Minneapolis wasn’t the only city to do this, though such moves have often been criticized as “defunding the police.”
Bates described opposition to Question 2 as a “powerful and well funded disinformation campaign.”
All of Mpls, a community coalition against Question 2, labels the proposition a “dangerous experiment” on its website.
The idea of removing police officers from nonviolent situations and investing more in violence prevention services is neither novel nor partisan in nature, but Question 2 was fiercely opposed by the Police Officers Federation of Minneapolis as well as Medaria Arradondo, the city's police chief.
Arradondo, who bucked the longstanding culture of police officers not testifying against one another to condemn Chauvin during his trial this spring, spoke out against the proposal on Wednesday, telling reporters at a press conference he didn’t think the restructuring would make Minneapolis safer.
He had previously said any law enforcement leader would find the new structure proposed by Question 2 to be “wholly unbearable.”
Leading Minnesota Democrats also opposed the ballot measure, including Sens. Amy Klobuchar and Tina Smith as well as Gov. Tim Walz .
State Attorney General Keith Ellison (D) and Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.), both progressives, voiced their support of the initiative.
The editorial board of the Star Tribune, the city’s leading paper, also went against Question 2.
Tags
Who is online
86 visitors
This was the one that pitted the woke left against black residents.
Not only did it get voted down, I heard on the radio this morning that those city council members that were supporting police defunding were not re-elected. So you see, Minneapolis isn't a hotbed of radical liberal left most people on the right claimed it to be. It's still liberal, but it's not radical left.
It only took a good dose of violence last summer.
You have no clue what you're talking about. Defund the police never had a hope in hell of passing, ever.
I see.
Defund the police never had a hope in hell of passing, ever.
It was just a gag. Got it!
I'm not saying there aren't Progressives in and around Minneapolis. There most definitely is, but they are a minority. When one looks at the world as it is, and not through an emotional partisan lens one can make more logical conclusions. I am from MN, I spend time in Minneapolis and have family and friends (both liberal and conservative) around the Minneapolis/St Paul area. It may be liberal, but it's not Seattle Progressive.
How did it get on the ballot - you know, that thing with consequences?
Agreed. And what I'm saying is that the people of Minneapolis got a good taste of progressive ideology during the riots, when the "protest" became a priority over public safety,
I'm pretty sure we all know how ballot measures work. Let's make a deal not to insult each other's intelligence, okay?
Minneapolis has had it's share of civil unrest. George Floyd wasn't the first black man unjustly killed by police. And the subsequent civil unrest wasn't the first time neighborhoods burned in Minneapolis. The world continues to spin and politics is just as weird and nuanced as it's ever been.
Okay - then don't tell me you were jus shittin around and defund was on the ballot for funsies.
The circumstances around Floyd's case were unique in that you had a bystander who filmed it and the media grabbed onto it because Floyd was black and Chauvin was white. The death was immediately framed by activists and the media as an example of the pervasive racism in America and specifically in law enforcement. Riots quickly erupted in Mineapolis and elsewhere. It got so bad in Mineapolis that rioters, with a wink from the mayor, even forced police to abandon their 3rd Precinct where Chauvin worked. They burned the Precinct station down along with hundreds of other properties throughout the city at a cost of $350 Million. Police were made to stand down.
There was no excuse for it and there were few held accountable.
There ya go. Most people realize police are needed in their communities.
Your comment is the evidence to show why very very very few communities will ever vote to defund the police.
Most people still believe ( including you apparently ) that "defund the police" means eliminating the police department. This misunderstanding has been encouraged by FoxNews and various other right wing news sources and pundits. The "defund the police" movement actually means that you have police officers deal with criminality, and you also have other specialists to dealing with calls that are not criminal in nature, but police officers have had to deal with out of default.
"Defund the police" just means that actual police officers can stop dealing with calls that have nothing to do with crimes, and provides other professionals to deal with calls in their areas of knowledge (i.e. mental health calls). One example of this, that many police departments have employed, is parking enforcement. Why waste a police officer's time, just driving around handing out parking tickets, when their time could be better served in other areas? So a separate group is formed that does nothing but hand out parking tickets.
“Yes, we mean literally abolish the police”
Can you do anything better than an opinion piece? And a year and a half old opinion piece from a completely different part of the country as well. Has nothing to do with Minneapolis.
Fail in so many ways.....
Defund, dismantle, abolish etc… Doesn’t really matter what I think, or what you think, the voters who count said no way to any version.
The voters there did reject the idiocy that is the "defund the police" movement. Good for them!!
Sure did! According to some it’s because they are so stupid they just don’t understand what’s best for them. SMH
The sheer hubris of declaring voters are too dumb to know what to vote for is something the Democratic Party needs to keep on perpetrating as the truth. Seems like a very successful tactic--"Vote for us because you are too dumb to think for yourselves!"
SMH indeed!
IMO, people are getting sick of that BS.
I have heard that ad nauseum for about 20 years and its bullshit.
But far too many Democrats seemingly are powerless to stop that thinking.
Insulting voters seems weird to me, but I will encourage them to keep running their campaigns exactly as they are now.
God knows Democrats can't run on accomplishments with their majority control of Congress.
Yet the "defund the police" movement is none of those. So it does matter what you think. Too many elections are won or lost based on misinformation and ignorance.
Why do you think it is idiotic? Keeping in mind that we have discussed this before, so I KNOW you are aware of what it really means.
Regardless of what you say, it's going to get spun so the imbeciles that support it appear to look good.
Yeah, an opinion piece from one of the movement's leaders close to the time it was created. It show's what "Defund the police" meant before Democratic strategists got the results of polling the issue and began their Orwellian mission to repackage the movement.
If you can't see it on your own, there is no chance in he'll that I could penetrate your cocoon.
Yeah, no. That's not what it means. That was a moronic alternative for people to avoid having to deal with real police while they break the law.
And what would those be? Are you aware that 911 calls are screened and the operator decides who should respond...EMTs, fire dept or police?
Of course. I mean defund doesn’t really mean defund anymore. Apparently I missed the definition change.
Here I thought defund meant to withdraw funding from. Silly me
So, once again, you have no answer. At least you are consistent in your refusal to stand up for yourself. Buh bye again...
Seriously? You think that the only calls are:
How about simple non-injury traffic accidents? How about complaints about a homeless guy in the area? How about loud noise complaints? How about complaint of someone refusing to wear a mask? Parking complaints? On and on and on.....
Cops have to waste their time handling stuff that others could handle, and be trained to handle better than a street cop.
Non injury traffic accidents means no crime? No running a stop sign or red light, or drunk driving. These are not crimes? Good luck getting your insurance company to cover damages without a police report.
You do understand that the police are also specifically trained to deter crime.
And are best qualified to keep or society safe.
Seriously, that was all you could come up?
Sounds like you just don’t appreciate them.
I do have an answer. Silly to assume I don't.
I do stand up for myself. I see no point in trying to explain things to a brick wall.
Toodles!
The definition changed late Tuesday night early yesterday morning when the whole thing was shut down by the people.
Do you see the term "accident"? Do you truly feel a police officer should be required to spend an hour or 2 making measurements and taking pictures of a simple traffic accident? Especially since they only reason they must be that concise is for insurance companies.
And other than DUI, or injury related accidents, many times the police do not bother with tickets and just leave it up to the court when they must appear.
Again, police officers have better things to do than respond to simple traffic accidents.
2 extreme ends of the spectrum there. Stop trying to make it black or white. If there is a drunk driver, or a traffic violation, there is nothing preventing a traffic investigator (or whatever you want to call them) from calling in a police officer to make the arrest or issue the ticket. Police officer do not need to be the 1st and only ones assigned to a traffic accident.
Now you are being purposely obtuse.
Who said there wouldn't be a report? Why does a police officer have to be the one to make a report instead of a city employee specifically trained in traffic and accident investigations?
Police presence is the only way they can "DETER" crime. The more police on the street NOT DOING MUNDANE TASKS is the best way to DETER CRIME.
Safe from what? Criminals? You are arguing my side.
All I could come up with? That police officers should be free to do their job, and not stuck doing all the other crap they are routinely called out to do? Why are you so against that???
Let's see now.
I want them to be able to do their job, and have someone else do the jobs they are not needed for.
You want them to do whatever you want, whether it is law enforcement or not.
Police doing accident investigation is needed because they have the blue lights needed for effective highway safety around the accident and the training to do it safely
Are you saying that a non-police accident investigator cannot have flashing lights on their car? Is that really your best argument?
In Virginia blue lights are for sworn law officers only.
A non police investigator does not have the authority to handle things that might come up.
So what? There are a lot of other colors you can put on the car.
Like what??? What could come up that they couldn't just get on their radio and request a police officer for? Many states have something like Community Service Officers, that are NOT police officers, to handle traffic investigation.
I don't think Non sworn personal are not allowed access to police records or computer info or allowed to write tickets
as for lights, flashing blues get more attention, other colors are just construction, tow trucks, snow plows and red is for fire and rescue
You think wrong. Records department, dispatchers all have access to police records without being sworn police officers.
Anyone can write a ticket that the chief of police or sheriff designates. Usually this just requires reciting an oath in front of the proper witness, similar to a Notary Public.
Your arguments are getting weaker and weaker, and you are apparently unwilling to research this on your own. As I said, there are already police departments that have hired civilian staff members to do some of the jobs, in order to free up the officers for more important calls.
Every excuse you have claimed as a reason that it can't work, has already been put into place in some locations, showing it can work.
that makes them sworn
when I call for Police I want a real one to show up, that's what I pay taxes for. I don't want a glorified meter maid or social worker
But not a sworn police officer. Geeze, give it up, your argument is so weak now to be laughable.
Tough shit. When you call for help, you get whoever would be best suited to help you.
Which is the police in many cases.
Defund the police was a stupid movement that is now dying out, thank God.
At least enough voters "woke" to the fact that defunding the police results in more crime and decided they want to be able to feel safe in their own homes or businesses.
And paramedics in many cases.
And fire fighters in many cases.
And tow truck drivers in many cases.
And, and, and. Wouldn't you rather have someone that can take the time, and have the training to better help you?
Though, with you Texan1211 I know the answer would be "no". Because you will make up anything to try and win your imaginary argument.
And yet you, like so many other right wing mouthpieces, cannot explain why it is stupid without resorting to your fake definition of what it means.
Now we have a choice, either what you just said is a lie, or you can provide links proving that crime has increased in cities that "defunded the police". You stated it was a fact, now is time ( for once ) to prove one of your "facts".
Thanks for keeping on proving Reagan right.
What a load of crap. You posted a bunch of crap about what "defund the police" means without ever stating the truth about it. I am not about to get dragged down THAT rabbit hole again--especially when most adults KNOW what it means, despite your claims to the contrary.
Violent Crimes Spike in Cities That Defunded Law Enforcement; Burned-Out Police Leaving in Droves - Tennessee Star
These US cities defunded police: 'We're transferring money to the community' | US policing | The Guardian
List of Cities Defunding the Police | Surge in Crime (secureamericanow.org)
https://www.police1.com/chiefs-sheriffs/articles/...
There you go, now you can begin bitching that it isn;t enough, or you don't like the source, or whatever else you can scrape up to not look at the evidence objectively.
which will be real Police for any thing I would call police for,
The people aren't as stupid as Ellison and Omar think they are.
Actually they are stupider. They voted down something they never took the time to read up on.
Wait. Are you saying you actually supported that garbage?
What does "defund the police" mean to you?
How about you answer my question instead of dodging it.
Why do so many Democrats seem to assume that voters, even their own, are too stupid to know what they want?
Just spit balling here. Could it be the fact that the likes of Ellison and Omar are in office?
Perhaps.
Just glad enough people showed some sanity yesterday at the polls.
Because many republicans vote against their own interests. They know what they want, yet vote against it.
I can't answer your question until you define your terminology.
So. No. You won't answer it.
So some Democrats love to claim, without a single shred of credible evidence, of course.
Astute observers know that the Republican didn't win in VA because of Republicans, but because he appealed to the independent voters.
Love when Democratic "analysis" of a defeat goes to blaming voters for not knowing what is good for them. That type of elitist thinking is being resoundingly rejected by thinking people, but some Democrats have their heads so far up their asses they probably won't even realize it until next November when they lose their majority.
See a recurring trend here ......
He said "Wait. Are you saying you actually supported that garbage?"
Garbage seems to be pretty damned good terminology. No further definition needed.
Garbage meaning the defund the police bullshit.
He doesn't want to answer it. Not really surprising.
Tells me that he supports it.
A trend that has become the norm for many.
The fact that you refuse to define your terminology, means that your question is dishonest at its core.
He appears afraid to define it. Why is he so afraid???
What's to define? Don't you understand English?
Defined enough ..............................GARBAGE
So you send a social worker out for a mental case or domestic disturbance instead of a cop. WTF happens if the sumbitch has a gun or a knife? It's fucking garbage.
Some folks just have trouble with real defiitions that don't support the narrative they are pushing so they try to redefine it to suit their needs. However, MY Merriam Webster is pretty clear on the matter:
Define what he believes "defund the police" is.
Is he working off the right wing definition that it would abolish the police departments?
Or is he working off the correct definition of supplementing the police department?
Depending on which media you listen to, you could believe it means one or the other. His question to me on whether I support "defunding the police" entirely rests on which definition he is using. I cannot explain this any simpler. If he still refuses to answer, it will mean that he is trying for a "gotcha" question and to try and trap me by claiming my answer means something else entirely.
One more time. Either fucking definition is garbage no matter how you twist it. Get it yet?
You defined it in 3.1. I answered.
Wow, I do not understand why you are so terrified of such a simple question.
I don't know how you can't digest a simple answer. Either definition is fucking GARBAGE!
IMPASSE
Then provide your own definition. DUH!
It appears like someone took a parsing class and decided to try out his new-found knowledge.
I mean, why answer when you can derail the conversation over the definition of a word, even though probably 98% of the readers here already know it.
Think he got it from watching Billy Bob Clinton trying to define "is"?????
At its most basic, "defund the police" means reallocating money from policing to other agencies funded by local municipalities.
You notice this definition doesn't mention a damn thing you stated in 3.1:
What you are talking about it augmenting the police force with unarmed (possibly) untrained people to handle "non-violent" calls. What your idiotic definition or anybody else fails to talk about is what happens when things turn violent? When that person with mental health issues becomes violent, what's the plan? Call the real police and play a board game while they wait until they show up?
And you do realize parking enforcement isn't necessarily part of the police force right. Where I live, yes, the police issue parking tickets. In the neighboring city, parking enforcement is a separate entity.
You are PARTIALLY correct.
reallocating a portion of the money from policing to other agencies funded by local municipalities
Sending that money to support and handle non-police matters that police traditionally have to handle themselves.
Based on your statement I'm 100% correct.
And why would you opposed to that? Making police officers more efficient by providing other resources to handle calls that are not immediately law enforcement related.
Removing the money from the budgets of the police force will only bring further problems.
And who will make the determination what is immediate law enforcement related? What happens when that "not immediate law enforcement related" call becomes a life and death situation? Under your moronic proposition you are delaying law enforcement reaction time that will allow a situation to go from a peaceful call to a deadly call because they have to wait for an actual law enforcement officer to respond..
Why? You think there is no bloat? You think that reallocating money to handle specific set of jobs for an officer, thus not having to pay an officer to do that job, matters? The job is still getting done, and probably better, since it is being performed by a specialist, instead of a generalist (police officer).
Who the hell do you think? Police chief, sheriff, city counsel, whoever in that jurisdiction makes the policies for that department.
This is not rocket science. Decisions would be made by whoever is currently making those decisions.
What happens when you're getting gas, and someone decides to rob the gas station? YOU CALL THE COPS!
Somebody is watching wayyy too much bad television.
How often does that happen, in reality? How often does a simple traffic accident turn into a life and death shootout? Infrequently, is the answer. And don't you think that the person that responded to the call would know to call for an officer if he thought things might turn violent?
Cutting the money from the police forces results in fewer training opportunities. That goes completely against what the defund idiots are calling for. It also results in a smaller force due to pay problems. Officers will leave the area to find employment in a city that will pay well.
Having a dipshit politician, a desk jockey or Sherriff that more than likely miles away determine what is an "immediate law enforcement related call"?
Situation:
Little Johnny gets into a fight. The guidance counselor (or what ever you want to call them) are sent by a politician with the IQ of a hockey puck. The guidance counselor shows up, can't deescalate the situation and Johnny goes at them with a pipe. Where are the real police? Probably having a coffee on the other side of the district because politician pecker head with zero experience said they aren't needed. Now we have several people needing medical attention and Johnny trashing everything he sees.
Who wins? Nobody
No. Somebody who pays attention to what's going on around the world.
And you don't think that delay could get someone severely hurt or possibly killed?
"When seconds count, police are merely minutes away" and your bullshit theory and proposed "whole new world" way of thinking would increase those minutes. That's why it's a police responsibility. There is no need for a middle man in any case.
Why don't you provide links to some police department budgets so that we can all see that the only place budget cuts can occur is in police training programs. I'll wait for your links.
You really have no clue how police departments work. Do you? That is the most asinine example I have heard.
Please disregard my previous comment above. THIS is the most asinine example.
1 - If Johnny is running around with a pipe, why would they call a counselor?
2 -In your mind they have apparently fired all police dispatchers and assigned that job to some random politician. And from your description of his mental ability, assigned to a non-vaxxer, Trump supporting, politician.
3 - You apparently have little respect for your own educational experiences, since most schools would have seen the problems with Johnny and addressed the issue with counselors well before it gets violent.
They are tied up doing a VIN check for a new car, because some idiot felt that they shouldn't be able to allow non police officers to do that job.
Wow! Nobody wins in your made up, imaginary, situation.
Who's that? Definitely not you.
Why?
You think there would be no bloat in what you propose to replace what you call bloat?
Hope not. That would be very obtuse.
Too bad they lost a lot of good cops in the meantime.
CNN is reporting the mood on AF1 was "grim" last night as election results came in.
Looks like voters have lost confidence in this President and his party's fringe members.
A self-described Democratic Socialist appears to have lost to a write-in moderate Democratic candidate in Buffalo. Virginia elected a Republican to state office for the first time since 2009. New Jersey was close, but looks like safe for Democrats for now.
The Democrats refuse to pass an infrastructure bill the President highly touted. Their wish list of over $3 trillion in spending has had to be pared back and back and back, and STILL can't pass the House. Changes to the bill continue to be made, almost daily. Is Nancy headed to another "We must pass it so we can find out what's in it" moment here?
Can anyone tell us what Democrats have really accomplished with the majority?