Can You Imagine a Major US City With No Police?

Blizzard

Member
Joined
Dec 10, 2012
Messages
3,664
These people can:
'A City Without Police?' Some Minneapolis Candidates Say 'Yes'

In this case, the question was asked of mayoral candidates for the city of Minneapolis. A surprising number (meaning more that one) responded in the affirmative to this question or indicated it as a goal, including city council members. Although the question was asked in Minneapolis, I've got to believe it's been asked elsewhere as well.

I'm not usually stunned at a lot of the news these days but this one gave me pause. It's almost unbelievable that: 1. Any legitimate candidate would even respond to such an absurd question and 2. That they would respond with any type of answer even remotely affirming the idea. These are the leaders of the community. Is this really a representative viewpoint of the people they serve?

Perhaps I'm just that out of touch. There really are people that live in a world of rainbows and butterflies.
 
A lot of politicians, celebrities, media darlings live in a bubble in which violence and the, ahem, seedier part of society do not occupy. So to them, in their world, they don't see a need for police. I live close to a town of about 50K, there is a road in the town, to the north is ghetto like any other town, high crime, drugs, gangs; south of that road is all $1 million stately homes, a serene southern college, and the appearance of a southern Shangri La in which crime rarely happens. The people in the latter don't even know about the existence of the former, and don't see a need for a PD.

Anywho, that's my take; but yeah, I can't believe a modern politician would actually a) believe it and b) say it out loud.
 
In my view, the responses seem to be driven from a belief of widespread abuse, oppression by police departments. As such, police cannot be trusted and aren't needed or do greater harm. And/or, they truly believe in some future utopia; a place where a police force is not needed because all people are inherently kind to each other.
 
Woah, that's taking it pretty far. I believe in things like having low level drug offenses and stuff get handled by social workers but that's about as far as I can go.

There's always going to be violent assholes and I, for one, really appreciate having police around to take care of them - and wouldn't appreciate a politician trying to take that away.
 
It's also about smaller crimes than crimes against persons. A lot of people don't want to bother talking to cops long enough to make an actual report, let alone testify in court.
But those things do matter, reporting a stolen bike, phone or garden gnome. Some folks have lucked out when their property was recovered by Police after they busted small rings. People have to do their due diligence in properly identifying their property. Testifying against an assault suspect may stop them from graduating to murder at some point.

But again, people are assholes. They don't always deserve what comes to them but they sure as shit tend to facilitate.
 
Minneapolis is...is a Ferguson or Trayvon Martin type riot waiting to happen. Minneapolis cops can (and are) heavy handed at time, but as someone who has lived here for nearly 25 years? I don't blame them one bit. This is one tough city, pretending that all is well because of their many parks and bike-lanes. Meanwhile, downtown businesses are screaming for more police support because it is literally impossible to walk from most parking areas to your destination without being hassled by homeless or 'youth' looking to pick a fight by calling out names to your girl.

I avoid it as much as possible.
 
A Major city with no police force would be a city with armed security for the wealthy...and no recourse to what they do.

If your talking about a Xanudu world....wake up.

Interesting comments. In the book The people's history of the United States, Author Howard Zinn includes a chapter about how the government pays the military, police, fireman, etc., only to keep themselves safe and in power. His argument is that if you pay these "protectors" decent, middle class wages, they will not rock the boat and will never bite the hand that feeds them.
 
I can only echo the points already made by everyone else.


While I haven't lived in truly terrible places (some of which areas of Baltimore, Chicago, and Atlanta are known for) North O isn't exactly a beacon of low crime and neighborly love. I find it hard to imagine what it would be like without a police presence in that area, luckily OPD has a massive amount of support so this scenario is highly unlikely from ever occurring.


Really though, who do you go to when your store or gas station is robbed. What number do you call when someone just shot up the house down the street. You guys understand this but do the people wanting this understand? Its so absurd it's almost hard to believe, what will happen when you remove the security providing force to a high crime rate area? Hint, it rhymes with dower back room. Which only leads to more violence.


There are good and bad officers just like there are good and bad in everything, but going the nuclear option is definitely not the way to address it..
 
I refuse to read that nonsense. These liberal shill cunts that cry about police are either criminals or have their heads up their collective fourth point of contact. Take the current attack in NYC. As fucked as it is, who were the ones running toward the threat and shot the fucker? Cops. Vegas. Cops. Every shit hole hood rat corner, back woods trailer park meth lab and everything in between? Cops.

M.
 
Back
Top