Poll: Public safety amendment has edge, but most don't want police cuts
By - dimabima
Very interesting to see how nuanced the responses to the survey are. Feelings are definitely less cut and dry than what you would assume based on Reddit (not a surprise, just an observation).
Agreed, except I am a bit surprised. My sense was that either people believed we needed to double down on the status quo to get more police or they supported the amendment because they believed in abolition as a long-term goal. It's kinda surprising that people seem to understand more than the average disingenuous loud voice would suggest.
Edit: don't drink and post, friends. Cleaned up typos.
The whole thing comes out of the defund movement, so that is the ultimate goal; this amendment is just the first step along the path
Correct. The amendment is rooted in allowing for the *possibility* of eventual "defunding". That is part of what Y4M believes in. That said, there's nothing in the amendment itself that requires or encourages defunding. Any council, current or future, will decide police funding, much as they currently do.
The current council has voted to give police all the funding the mayor requested, including funding several recruiting classes to increase the number of police in the city. The next council is likely to be more conservative than this one, particularly regarding policing. The reality is, if "defunding" ever happens, it's not coming anytime soon, and it'll be in the form of reallocating money to other types of first responders to reduce the roles police are responsible for.
But, yes, the amendment makes that more possible.
>The next council is likely to be more conservative than this one, particularly regarding policing.
Why do you say this? If the amendment is approved, that probably means defund challengers did well and they'll be expected to take advantage. They'll be more progressive and have a mandate to make a statement on the police.
Ward 1 is the only place that seems likely to get more progressive. Most other wards are progressive incumbents defending against more conservative challengers. So, not a lot of seats for progressives to pick up. Moreover (and maybe it's just unrepresentative samples on social media), I'm seeing a lot more support for more conservative candidates, particularly in wards 4 and 5. I'd be surprised if at least one if those seats didn't get more conservative. On the whole, I'd bet on one or two fewer progressives on the council.
Based on the polls yesterday, I don't think the amendment is tied to progressive council candidates as much as I would've expected. Voters seem to understand that they can empower the council while also choosing candidates who share their views.
I don't think Twitter is a good indicator but there's not else to go on besides fundraising. I could see Vetaw winning. Ellison has the name. Wards 3 and 11 also look like they could flip just because of the neighborhoods and the fundraising disparities. Gordon looks like he's in trouble but I don't know if his challengers are more "conservative" or not.
I think if the amendment passes but a handful of progressive incumbents lose to "conservatives" and Frey is reelected, that'll just show that people didn't really understand the issues.
Cops are good. Oversight of cops is good. Both completely normal, healthy opinions shared by the vast majority of people that the loudest people will die on a hill arguing against.
Seems like bad news for the mayor if people are aware they can have the amendment without reducing the police. The upcoming supreme court opinion is also probably pretty bad for him since his strategy seems to be confusion.
Not sure about that. He's the only viable candidate who is clearly opposed to reducing police staffing, which is the strong preference of voters in this poll.
Not quite what was asked, but you're correct he's the least likely to reduce police staffing. Of course, he's also overseen the biggest police staffing drop in the history of the department, so we'll have to see how effective attacks against him are.
That's only relevant to voters if anyone running against him wouldn't have been worse than him.
> He's the only viable candidate who is clearly opposed to reducing police staffing
Knuth is getting shit on twitter for doing the same, so I wouldn't say he's the only one.
Twitter is probably pretty unrepresentative
Don't disagree, its swings left for sure. But Frey isn't the only candidate saying he won't lower police levels from where they are now, Knuth has been saying the same for over a month now, and the same people who complain about Frey for that reason are complaining about her.
I vehemently disagree. I think plenty of people will vote for Frey and vote "Yes". And looking around, I don't see a lot of support for increasing police staffing from the current council. Many of us who plan to vote No realize that the amendment doesn't abolish the police or anything like that, the concern is about increasing staffing to what it needs to be. We trust Frey to do that more than the council.
They current council approved the mayor's recruiting plan unanimously. Seems bad for the mayor if people realize that the current city council is already hiring police as fast as we can.
Wasn't that a court decision? I thought that a suit was brought against the city and a judge agreed that staffing levels need to be brought up ASAP.
The question is why would anybody want to work for MPD when it might be on the way to being abolished in a few months.
The court decisions happened afterwards and is meaningless, as the city is already making a good faith effort to meet the standard currently in the charter. It was a suit to get free media for the mayor and his allies, not to actually change anything.
The council approved new recruits in February.
In July, Judge Jamie Anderson ruled that Minneapolis has to hire more officer to meet the minimum, and they have until June 30, 2022 to comply. [https://kstp.com/news/hennepin-county-rules-minneapolis-must-hire-more-police-officers-to-abide-by-city-charter-writ-of-mandamus/6159429/?cat=1](https://kstp.com/news/hennepin-county-rules-minneapolis-must-hire-more-police-officers-to-abide-by-city-charter-writ-of-mandamus/6159429/?cat=1)
It's a lot of officers to hire in one year, so I'm not exactly sure what the expectations should be for city to try to meet a goal that's practically impossible. I have not seen the mayor or police chief advocating that we should try to hire 80 officers in a year. Lower hiring standards?
It's one of the reasons a police minimum doesn't make a lot of sense. What happens if a bunch of police quit and you fall far below the minimum? How long do you have to come back in compliance? How do you balance officer recruitment with safety? Aren't these things the council should do based on the situation rather than relying on an arbitrary guideline in the charter?
>It's one of the reasons a police minimum doesn't make a lot of sense. What happens if a bunch of police quit and you fall far below the minimum? How long do you have to come back in compliance? How do you balance officer recruitment with safety? Aren't these things the council should do based on the situation rather than relying on an arbitrary guideline in the charter?
Those are all arguments for why you shouldn't staff at the bare minimum, not why a minimum shouldn't exist.
Frey has all the power and money to fix the staffing shortage *now*. He hasn’t.
You think he’ll suddenly do that because he’s accountable to *less* people?
On the money part, Frey only has the budget, which is approved by the Council.
The city is in a challenging situation with hiring. There are national challenges with law enforcement hiring and Minneapolis has an even bigger one. Given the posturing of the city council (think Powderhorn Park) and all of the uncertainty surrounding the department. I'd doubt that candidates are jumping to apply. Two options are to lower standards (which nobody wants) or to pay more, which I don't think anyone wants either and which Frey can't do unilaterally.
> to pay more, which I don't think anyone wants
I want that. Better pay attracts better candidates. The biggest problem with MPD hasn't been that they don't use body cams or go through warrior training or anything like that; it's that they seem to keep hiring total idiots.
How dumb do you have to be to accidentally shoot a small Australian lady? To think some guy in his car with a woman and child is gonna shoot you because you smell weed? To confuse your gun for a taser? To kneel on an obviously drugged out dude until he dies?
That's something we are only going to fix by finding a way to hire better candidates and a higher salary is the number one starting place for that.
> How dumb do you have to be to accidentally shoot a small Australian lady?
Noor was a CSO who they sent to college, as part of the initiatives to increase diversity in the department. He was the first Somali American to join the MPD, and was groomed to join them for a while.
[Betsy Hodges posted about him being sworn in.](https://www.startribune.com/when-he-was-hired-noor-was-a-welcome-addition-to-the-force/477433823/)
Somehow in the gap between that and the shooting, he became way, way, way too flighty and scared. He was not fit to be a cop, but for whatever reason, he wasn't pulled from the streets.
>To think some guy in his car with a woman and child is gonna shoot you because you smell weed?
Because it happens. Traffic stops go 0-100 ***really*** quick. The shooting of Castille was a failure of officer training or officer *composure* though. When I watch that tape I see an officer having a full blown panic attack on the job. He shouldn't have been on the streets.
Also, not Minneapolis Police.
>To confuse your gun for a taser?
Ever put your car in reverse instead of drive or vice versa? You have been driving for years!
[Those kinds of mix ups do happen](https://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2021/07/28/suv-launches-from-5th-floor-of-richmond-garage-onto-4th-floor-parked-cars/), particularly under stress. A common critique from some traineirs is that tasers should not use the same shape or functionality as a gun, so that if you intend to deploy a taser with a gun in hand it would not be pointed at the suspect.
If a taser was shaped like a flashlight (as many models were in the early days, before marketing pressure about, "ease of training" had the gun shaped, trigger fired design become the norm.) then there wouldn't be taser confusion for firarms, instead it would be flashlights, which obviously is a lot, LOT better.
Also, not Minneapolis Police.
>To kneel on an obviously drugged out dude until he dies?
Chauvin was really clearly proving to the crowd that he was the big man in charge. His defiant verbal and body language comes down to that. He didn't give a shit what 'civilians' thought, and he was going to show them what copping was all about.
The murder of Floyd exemplifies that sort of indifference that is endemic to the long time street cop in a big city, taken above and beyond to the extreme. The inability of the two new officers to muster the courage to intervene on the scene, is endemic to a department culture that relies on *ingroup* and *outgroup* systems. Knowing that if they took a real stand against a senior officer, they would be part of the outgroup, fast. They did speak up, and, kudos for doing something boys, but it wasn't enough.
>That's something we are only going to fix by finding a way to hire better candidates and a higher salary is the number one starting place for that.
Personally I think the way to fix the last one isn't to hire a few great cops, it's to hire a flood of new cops that completely eclipse that ingroup/outgroup culture. If the MPD hired 400 officers in a year, they wouldn't need to give a shit about the old workplace politics, they would be the new wave of culture.
Obviously that's a hugely challenging prospect, and outside resources would be needed, hiring a bunch of outside LE consultants to train, manage and onboard this new wave of officers. But I don't think recruitment would be an issue if you got the word out about MPD2.0
But it would take ***2 years*** because the state mandated requirements take about that long. 12-18 months if you already have a bachelors in an unrelated field.
That adds a lot of important context that for the most part I agree with. I know two of those events were in nearby jurisdictions and not MPD itself but I believe there is a lot of commonality in their cultures, candidate pools, and hiring practices. Enough to consider the solutions for them as common anyway.
Me calling them "dumb" is definitely an oversimplification. A better word would be "unqualified."
Fair enough, I just don't like oversimplifications.
So Frey *can’t* do anything to increase police staffing?
Like, I’m just genuinely confused as how someone could have any faith in someone who ran on a platform of public safety, oversaw one of the worst periods in Minneapolis in regards to public safety, saw the largest exodus of police in city history and is running his re-election on public safety and hiring more officers when he’s the one responsible for our numbers now and prior to said exodus.
You're mixing up having full faith and thinking he's the best option. I don't fully blame him for letting the riots happen, but he deserves part of the blame. I also think he'd be much more forceful with clamping shit down if given another chance. For the current environment, I would love for him to formally request and pressure on the Hennepin County Sheriff or State Patrol to supplement police presence in the city. Otherwise I'm not sure what else he could individually do to hire more officers unless he went to the council to ask for a chunk of money for hiring bonuses - don't see that one passing.
> I also think he'd be much more forceful with clamping shit down if given another chance.
It concerns me that you think this is A. acceptable, B. Would even work.
So you're happy that a good chunk of Lake Street, along with part of Midway and Broadway burned down?
A quicker National Guard deployment and not letting the 3rd precinct burn down would have made a huge difference.
I doubt it would have made any difference tbh. People know the guard aren't going to shoot them, its not going to stop anything. Unless of course you're suggesting the guard start shooting live rounds in the middle of the city.
Hiring police isn't like Walmart. There aren't candidates standing around waiting in the wings. They have to go through schooling and then the academy. Which has to be budgeted for and planned. Even if everybody wanted to recruit to max numbers right now it would take years to fill all those roles. And how effective are rookie cops? It takes a long time to learn the beat.
You have to pay experienced good cops from other departments enough to deal with being a cop in Minneapolis versus the sweet life in Edina or writing speeding tickets on the freeway in the state patrol or wherever.
Unfortunately you might have to double their pay to make the move across France.
75% of black respondents do not want cuts to the police force.
IF you are a white progressive, I would like you to ponder that what POC are trying to tell you.
I'm not a POC so I can't speak for them, but it looks to me like they see the value. Some of the other poll numbers tell me they have mixed feelings about the police at best but they see the value. So the question is.....how can reform the police department to increase the police presence and overall safety while at the same time making the changes needed to increase POC trust in the department.
Some of these ideas in the "YES" vote group might be getting to the right area in that we don't need police to be involved in every interaction. I am not sure about the progressives however, because for the most part they seem to say nothing but negative and inflammatory stuff about the police, so I guess I don't trust them to remove the minimum staffing requirement and to actual staff the force. I see the value on the police force for sure, but I also see how if I lived in certain neighborhoods that I may have had some negative interactions.
I don't have the answer, but to me safety is number 1. If the city is not safe, a lot of bad things come from that...and right now, and historically, support for the police is how you keep your community safe from the really bad guys. The really bad guys that wounded 11 people in shootings last night.
(PS I realized I said I couldn't speak for POC but then proceeded to do so...so in sum..they thoughts are my own...and my best guess as to what these poll numbers are saying).
Some interesting results in this poll. I'm a little surprised to see the amendment with a lead. Lots of crossover between Yes on the amendment and No on lower police funding (fwiw, I would probably answer the poll this way).
Additional detail on methodology: https://www.mprnews.org/story/2021/09/18/how-the-poll-was-conducted. In my opinion, they ran a pretty good poll. Glad they oversampled the black population.
The great news: Voters can get exactly what they want. They can get a new Department of Public Safety *and* a city budget that doesn't reduce the appropriations to police work.
That's almost certainly what will happen for at least the first budget year, no good reason to lower the number of officers even further after the department just had 200 of them quit a year ago.
I mean, it's not what will happen if the ballot question fails. Voters will have to be brave enough to vote for what they want. Vote for the ballot amendment and vote for candidates who will reform police without reducing police services.
>Vote for the ballot amendment and vote for candidates who will reform police without reducing police services
Can I ask what planet is it that you are living on? You are an idiot and voters like you will be responsible for what happens to Minneapolis going forward
> Vote for the ballot amendment and vote for candidates who will reform police without reducing police services.
For the next two years I would assume that would apply to everyone. As I said, we already dropped 200 officers, and abolition is meant to be taken slow, almost a quarter of the force leaving in one year is more than even I wanted to see. Minneapolis is in a good spot to build alternatives for the time being, I don't think any cuts to police will be necessary for the next 2-4 years, even if crime drops when we exit the pandemic.
>Minneapolis is in a good spot to build alternatives for the time being, I don't think any cuts to police will be necessary for the next 2-4 years, even if crime drops when we exit the pandemic.
This is perhaps the most deluded comment I have seen written in the history of reddit
I can find several actually delusional posts on just the first page of your deranged post history
I'm sorry but what ON EARTH do you think is going to happen? You are voting for the demolition of your law enforcement I'm not sure that you realise that? Good luck!
Unlike you, I can read, so I think I know what I'm getting into.
Yes. It's not necessarily what I want, but I've been working hard to make this case on social media, so I'm glad to see it might be catching on. A DPS, whatever it ends up being, should be more responsive to what people want than the current system. I think it's objectively a better system, even if it results in what I see as worse policies.
> DPS, whatever it ends up being, should be more responsive to what people want than the current system.
It would be nice if the ballot question actually asked: "do you want MORE law enforcement or LESS law enforcement"? Because without knowing the answer to that, the city council would get to decide and base public sentiment off twitter extremists
Question 2 comes from a coalition of folks who want less law enforcement.
This hasn't been talked about all that much, but the potential outcome of Yes passing and the conservatives on the council retaking a small majority would be consistent with these poll results. Still not convinced of that happening, but this is what it might look like especially considering the results for black voters and the competitive elections in wards 4 and 5.
If yes passes, I don't think long term much will really change. I think there will be little enthusiasm to reduce the size of the force much beyond where it's at.
Even enthusiastic DPS backers might worry that a too-aggressive shift away from traditional policing could backfire, resulting in the appearance that crime is getting worse and their changes being responsible, swinging the pendulum back to traditional policing and away form DPS-type approach.
Mostly I think we'll find the DPS approach at the scale where it's effective and transformative is much more expensive than the city can really afford. Combined with a necessary, but larger than wished for, baseline of uniformed police, the system will end up a muddled hybrid that mostly doesn't achieve any goals in a way that's satisfying to anyone.
> I think there will be little enthusiasm to reduce the size of the force much beyond where it's at.
I expect there will be in the far off future, but we're talking at least a decade, I generally agree and don't think the amendment will honestly change much. What I do expect to change quite a bit is the CPAC amendment that should be on the ballot next year. Having an elected commission handle police complaints and discipline should give voters a way to hold the department accountable, and that should lead to tangible change.
I think if we had an effective system of accountability, including criminal prosecutions, I doubt there would be much interest in the rest of it. Bad cops would be much more likely to get fired and the rest of the force would be less inclined to stray.
The only way the department shrinks further is if there is wild success with the DPS model. The problems are cost, the public's patience/tolerance for the system to get built up and look effective, and of course for this model to actually work as promoted.
"Black voters are less likely to support the proposed public safety department than white voters and are more concerned that cutting the police force would have a negative effect on public safety. "
This sounds about right
I want less of the kill people cops and more of the investigate crimes cops.
Also, I want to see cross tabs, how do young black voters compare to old black voters?
Here's actual poll results, but the age range is still broad. Just under 50 or 50+: https://www.startribune.com/minnesota-poll-public-safety-minneapolis-police-crime-charter-amendment-ballot-question/600097989/
It's less of a chasm than it is for white voters but its still the main dividing line.
Love how consistently you can look at any given political issue and find that the largest split is by age, this being no exception. There's an absolutely massive generational divide in Minneapolis and it shows no signs of getting any better.
Don't generational divides, by nature, always get better? At least for the younger generation?
Actuarial table says: yes.
People's opinions change as they get older, more experienced, and the effects of lead poisoning run their course.
people’s opinions change as they *have their life experiences change
One would think, so far its only gotten worse.
That's how it kinda always is. You go from ignorant and apathetic to idealistic activist to too-busy-for-this-shit cynic to retiree on guard to keep the new crazies out. Get the apathetic college kids and too-busy but not quite cynics to the polls and you've got yourselves a landslide.
I will say though, kids today are much better plugged in and on the ball than my generation was at their age. I am pretty confident that the kids will be alright. Now if these old fucks in charge would just retire and go away....
I dont think peoples political views really change that much as they get older. It's just that what is considered liberal or conservative changes.
People change slightly, but yes. What was culturally very liberal 60 years ago like women can have careers and homosexuals are people too, is pretty mainstream. Economically, you have a lot more to lose and have fewer needs when you're older, so for the most part, you have regrets paying taxes all those years and only getting a piddly social security check back. Add on about 40+ years of cynicism and seeing the same charlatans and grifters, you begin to assume anyone talking of making things better is pulling your leg - better to keep things the way they have been working than start something new.
This was my #1 problem with anything anti-police; it’s been pushed by people who more than likely won’t feel the effects of the policies. My wife’s family live in Minny, and they told me the council there tried to deconstruct the police dept., but then hired private security for their neighbourhood lmao. So fucked up. Literally like some dystopian fiction.
I push for anti-polices policies. I live in the heart of North Minneapolis. If anyone has anything to lose its me and my community.
This has to be a wake up call for white progressives. The poll also shows black residents being the group MOST against police cuts. This is why communities of color don't want progressives moving into their neighborhoods(of course rural and suburban residents want nothing to do with them either). It's creepy. If you hate yourself fine, just shut up and go cry at home and take your meds. One thing is clear from this poll. Communities of color hate progressive policies and want a strong police presence.
When these types gather in large numbers they start advocating for bizarre policy ideas like defunding the police, and advocating for releasing violent criminals out of prison early(falsely claiming to represent communities of color of course). Go away and stop gentrifying neighborhoods with your cringelord advocacy. Haven't enough innocent people died over the last couple years?
White savior complex is real. And those people tend to be loud about it.
I personally witnessed a middle aged white lady driving a nice SUV pull up and start screaming at MPD officers (who were minding their own business) about "how many black bodies they were going to kidnap". Funny because one of the officers was black and one was female. Go home and watch some more Rachel Maddow lady.
It’s strange ‘progressivism’ has been reshaped in the design of some very strange ideals- many ‘progressive’ notions or policies are not literally progressive. The early release of violent offenders is a classic example. Progressivism is essentially moral utilitarianism- it was always meant to be a practical idealism. Unfortunately, it seems to have been hijacked on egocentric lines, which use avenues of race, sexuality, etc., to feed their own system akin (but inversely relational) to conservative fearmongering.
I work in North and there is a literal war going on. My coworkers that also live in North say they won't even go outside in their neighborhood right now. That isn't a healthy way to live.
Most against cuts and opposed to amendment 42%-47% vs white voters who support it 51%-40%.
I'm woke enough to admit that I was wrong for strongly advocating for the early release of all violent criminals. I'll quit creeping around neighborhoods of color and start the long process of finding a community that does want me.
I would prefer if you didn't move and stated exactly where you are so as to ensure that your shitty ideas don't find a new home. You've done enough damage. Just stay put for now.
This is a pretty extreme takeaway for a poll that showed that black voters are divided on the topic of the amendment.
> The poll also shows black residents being the group MOST against police cuts.
It also showed that black voters were the most likely group to both support the amendment and oppose police cuts.
> Communities of color hate progressive policies
I think you're projecting here...
> This is why communities of color don't want progressives moving into their neighborhoods(of course rural and suburban residents want nothing to do with them either). It's creepy. If you hate yourself fine, just shut up and go cry at home and take your meds.
What the fuck is this drivel? You sound unhinged.
>I think you're projecting here...
Nope. They hate you. They aren't shy about it either.
Not sure why you're calling me out. I don't consider myself a "progressive." And none of those articles support your statement.
>Not sure why you're calling me out. I don't consider myself a "progressive." And none of those articles support your statement.
Just substitute everything I said with "bike lanes" and apply my post to you
They are very interested in creating safer streets, yes. Especially since the victims of car crashes in this city are disproportionately black and on the Northside, including a kid on a skateboard not too long ago.
But besides that, what’s your point? I have political priorities that align with the priorities of the residents of the Northside and I have priorities that don’t.
>But besides that, what’s your point? I have political priorities that align with the priorities of the residents of the Northside and I have priorities that don’t.
My point is that this is why people don't want you folks moving into their neighborhoods. I was very clear on that. Out of curiosity how are you voting on the MPD question?
It should be noted that the congressional black caucus was very supportive of harsh federal mandatory minimums for drug crimes. It’s not at all uncommon for black people to support the most repressive and harsh law enforcement option available to them.
“I know what’s best for you”
>It should be noted that the congressional black caucus was very supportive of harsh federal mandatory minimums for drug crimes. It’s not at all uncommon for black people to support the most repressive and harsh law enforcement option available to them.
20 years ago called and wants its talking point back.
The mandatory minimums are at least 30 years old. Are you referring to something different.
Need any help carrying that burden, white man?
Yea, I’m not white. Are you?
> and advocating for releasing violent criminals out of prison early
This is quite possibly the dumbest strawman I have ever seen
Many local and national progressives touted this pathetic organization, almost universally supporting them. This sub itself has multiple threads encouraging folks to donate. They took the money and bailed out dozens of violent criminals and the results have been disastrous. And facts be damned you somehow feel justified to claim this is a strawman. This is why everyone hates you.
One guy is neither a pattern nor is it the view of literally anyone I know. This sounds like it was an accident, but I guess that doesn't matter when you have a reactionary agenda to try and shove down liberal Minneapolis' throats now does it?
>one guy is neither a pattern nor is it the view of literally anyone I know. This sounds like it was an accident, but I guess that doesn't matter when you have a reactionary agenda to try and shove down liberal Minneapolis' throats now does it?
See here you are defending Mn freedom fund, yet on the other hand claiming I'm strawmanning progressives.
Here's another "accident"
You can post as many anecdotes as you want, people have a right to bail in MN, its literally the law, if you don't like it either try to change it or move. Violent criminals shouldn't have bail in MN, but they do, and as noted in the first article you posted, Freedom Fund has changed how and who they give bail funds to. Sounds to me like they're actually trying to address the problem.
>You can post as many anecdotes as you want, people have a right to bail in MN, its literally the law, if you don't like it either try to change it or move.
You claimed the following was strawmanning progressives
**"and advocating for releasing violent criminals out of prison early"**
But then you said this as a defense of Mn freedom fund.
**"You can post as many anecdotes as you want, people have a right to bail in MN, its literally the law, if you don't like it either try to change it or move"**
The level of cognitive dissonance is astounding.
Where did I advocate for releasing violent criminals? I'm explaining state law to your ignorant ass. If you want to keep only reading half of what I write you're welcome to, it won't make you look like any less of the chud you are.
>Where did I advocate for releasing violent criminals?
That wasn't my claim.
**"When these types gather in large numbers they start advocating for bizarre policy ideas like defunding the police, and advocating for releasing violent criminals out of prison early"**
It's trivially true and I've demonstrated it to anyone who's cared enough to read this far.
"bizarre ideas like treating people like human beings" might be alien to a homophobe like yourself, but to actual people its just part of life.
Did they apologize to the kid who was attacked from behind and beaten by one of the violent felons they released? Not even sure if he would be understand anymore because of the severity of his brain bleed and traumatic brain injury. Oh well 🤷🏼♂️
MA Bail Fund released a bunch of people awaiting sex crimes and oddly enough, [they quickly got arrested for committing the same crimes again.](https://www.boston25news.com/news/25-investigates/25-investigates-mass-bail-fund-helped-free-dozens-facing-charges-such-rape-assault-battery-disorderly-conduct/WB3QC32F6JGLJDOZCBE62YXEME/)
This is a terrible argument and shows the flaws in our current system. If letting out these criminals on bail is bad for the community, *maybe they shouldn't have access to bail in the first place*. This is a problem that rests on the judges and prosecutors who are letting this happen in the first place.
The freedom fund is a symptom of a greater problem. Address the source, and this wouldn't be a problem in the first place.
>Address the source, and this wouldn't be a problem in the first place.
That would require electing a DA that's less progressive which would actually demand the high or no bail requests.
For violent crimes? I don't see any problem with that.
> don't see any problem with that.
Seeing how the DA was elected, you're in the minority
I think this is where progressives and me differ a lot. If you are commiting violent crimes and hurting the community you shouldn't be let out back on the street.
All the prosecutors and judges that keep doing this are hurting the city.
I don't know how you can take this poll and somehow conclude that black communities want a strong police presence. That's quite the reach. Leave your authoritarian projecting at the door.
I do agree with you on progressives somewhat though. As a North Minneapolis resident, I **hated** when progressives tried to tell me how I was supposed to feel and act. Like you don't live here, fuck off.
People have long forgotten that the most substantial result of the 92 LA Riots was the black community handing the mayor's office to the GOP on a sliver platter. The Black community was pissed about Rodney King, but they were *more* pissed about the mayor's proposals in response.
As for reform, that came out of the Christopher Commission, which was already underway and was almost derailed by the riots.
Some things this poll doesn't provide direct evidence for, in my opinion:
* "*Voters want more police*." Not wanting less is not the same as wanting more.
* "*Voters want to maintain or increase police budget.*" They think Minneapolis "should not reduce the size of the police force." They may think we should keep or increase the number of of officers while also moving budget to other safety initiatives.
* *"Voters don't want alternatives to the police."* Voters were asked, in isolation, if reducing the police force make them more safe. That's not really the public policy question at play here, it's whether other spending could make us safer than the current level of police spending.
* "*Voters don't want us to fire a single police officer*." Voters may want the bad apples fired. It's not impossible to believe we should fire the worts cops while maintaining staffing levels.
I can see why you'd draw these conclusions from the poll, and I will even agree that some of these are likely true based on the results. I think it's far to say Minneapolis voters:
* Love the police chief
* Hate the police
* Aren't ready to start reducing the size of the police force
* Black voters feel more strongly than white people about these things
* Voters overall marginally support a new structure under the public safety department, though notably black women oppose this 50-37.
Cut em get rid of em fuck em
I wish only good for most. But I will say being from st Michael and maplegrove most of us don't feel safe down town you may say who cares? All your downtown business do we pay a large part of your taxs