I seriously doubt you can have no police force ever. But you can restructure the system in a dramatic way. I don't think this is something that is done in weeks, months, or even a few years but very slowly over a generation. Because politics doesn't work that way, I am not sure how much change will actually happen anywhere. But perhaps there is a way to increase the local community more in addressing public safety so the police are used in tandem to support community efforts. Personally, I always thought it was odd that police were not recruited from the neighborhoods they would patrol. Or even be more involved in the community. A cop should know the people in a neighborhood, build trust and be a representative for the police to the neighborhood and a representative for the neighborhood to police. I think in reality what will happen is reform - real reform, not just a bunch of training seminars which seem to have no impact.
Where does it say that this unnamed organization that represents liberalism - where does it say the first responders to a crime scene should not be police? This is the problem with how you post, you just take a tweet and make a false claim. Using half-truths to twist something around.
Given the unemployment rate, if the whole department quits, it shouldn't be too hard to fill the vacancies with people who needed jobs.
Why we have professional trained LE is that in much of history primarily relying upon the community to do policing didn’t work out well. The insular nature of neighborhood led to distrust of outsiders while overlooking problems within. Over the last two weeks I’ve been involved in my neighborhood safety and security measures and while we’re well meaning it’s very clear we’re not equipped to handle it.
I don't disagree with you. If someone is calling in because they are suicidal, obviously sending someone to their location is smart. Should it be a cop? Should it be a social worker? I think a case for either could be made. I'd want to see the plan and the research behind the plan before I said anything.
I did find that interesting but have a real hard time with thinking how you implement that with such a large area and population. Just based on Google searching Camden 10 square miles, 74,000 population Minneapolis 58 square miles, 430,000 population Roughly 6 times the area to cover and 6 times the population is hard to fathom them implementing the same type of plan.
I think it would be less of an issue than you think in large part because of the attention being given to that particular city. I agree with you that just turning over a police force would cause some very serious short term problems for a city, but this may well be the exception.
Everything you have said is true, but that does not mean different approaches shouldn’t be tried. What we are doing now is not working well enough. There will always be a need for a police force and your city will have one. However taking some of the costs of a police force and spending it on preventative measures is not necessarily a bad idea. Further a change in culture and training and even the expectations of what a police officer does can possibly bring positive change. The devil is in the details. However change is a coming.
they doubled their police force though. Defund the police advocates are asking for less police and more social workers. Camden’s reforms are much more incremental
Well, they disbanded the local police force and partnered with the county police to allow them to hire more workers. I don’t know how many of the local police force were re-hired by the county. I am assuming they felt creating a new agency with a new set of rules is easier than getting the existing culture to implement change on their own. You’re certainly right it has been a process for them and change wasn’t implemented overnight, but the statistics seem to show they’ve improved the crime rates. I’m not sure how much the citizens enjoy the extra police patrol on the other hand. I think “defund the police” is a catchy slogan but vague on explanations. I don’t think it means less police and more social workers. I think it means cut spending on military weapons (for example) and divert that budget money to social initiatives.
I got a feeling it might lead to vigilante justice and really make things bad. There is a thread in the hangout about watching a movie and then feeling the need to buy a gun.
If the disbandment is immediate, I missed that. The public has spoken quite loudly to do something. An intention has been stated. Get rid of the bad replace with something better. The actual nut and bolts (the plan) will come later. sometime you just don’t mess around the edge. It can back fire, is risky, the devil you know is “better”... all that justification because of status quo and just enough comfort. If you want real culture transformation, you have to push beyond the edge so I commend them for trying and hope they succeed.
if a police force is so bad the department has to be disbanded is the county's sheriff department really going to be that much better?
This exactly the problem. What are the details? I agree we need a lot of change but a rushed process that is being driven by emotion isn't the way to do it. There is no concrete plan and the plans put out right now there issues that need to be considered. This morning though I am a little calmer. The City of Charter of MPLS requires a police force of a certain size. Any major change in size and nature of the PD should require a public debate and public vote. It cannot be done by just the city council.
Frankly that sounds a lot like what we hear from people pushing to repeal the ACA. All of us should know that rushing through major policy changes based upon emotion often leads to other problems. Thankfully it looks like the City Charter will compel a more thorough public discussion and a vote.
One of the problems is how this has been reported. I saw articles with a headline saying they "voted" to disband with a veto proof majority. What they meant to say was "vowed" to disband.
