As Minnesotan I can affirm that Defund the police is stupid

Post Reply New Topic

The FBI is more like a national detective agency. While detective work is part of policing, the FBI doesn't regularly do any kind of general "street" policing.

Likewise, do the mounties do local-level policing on a regular scale throughout Canada? I know they issue speeding tickets along the Al-Can Highway in the Yukon, but if a liquor store in Toronto is robbed, do you call the mounties?

My impression is that the Mounties are similar to US state police forces in many ways.

America is WAY past the first step.

Take a trip to Nigeria sometime.

Go a few miles on a highway.

You'll see the difference between Nigeria and the US right away.

Because, in Nigeria, there will be checkpoints where motorists have to pay bribes.

Ontario and Quebec don't rely on the Mounties for local policing, but other provinces do.



Do state police do local-level policing? If not then the comparison doesn't work because the RCMP does.



In America only some people get shaken down by the police over trivial things like window tint, how low their car sits or their air freshener, but that doesn't mean the that some people in America aren't subjected to similar harassment as what you're describing. The biggest difference is that the cop involved doesn't pocket the money afterwards, but I'm really not sure that makes things better.

Abuse of power is still abuse of power.

The state police could, conceivably, do local-level policing. In practice, though, the most they do is provide aid to the local police departments.

You might not believe this: but I've been harassed by police merely for jogging in the "wrong neighborhood." I was "profiled" once between I had a bulge in my sweatpants; the cop thought I was carrying a gun. When I was 18, I was falsely arrested for sneaking on the subway. I went through the whole rigamarole---except I was lucky that I had ID; otherwise, I would have spent 3 days, instead of 5 hours, in jail.

I understand the police often abuse their power; I've been the recipient of this.

That's what I figured. I'm pretty sure that's how the OPP (Ontario Provincial Police) works in municipalities with their own police (York, Peel, Toronto, etc). OPP do local policing where I live.



I absolutely believe you, it doesn't surprise me and it shouldn't happen. When it happens it should be addressed with the goal of trying to eliminate it as much as humanly possible.

Ya know what, that is a Really Good Question.
Anyone have a Really Good answer?

It seems I'm going to have to think a minute ...
Umm ...
Well ...
Maybe it matters to them when they can get rich from it?

https://thepetroglyph.com/obamas-nation ... fea95f1bf1

I just found this!
Seems like Obama himself suggested a national police force back in his 2008 campaign.
Who’d a thunk it?
First step to authoritarian regime indeed.

I don't care who advocated the idea of a "Federal Police." I know most people wouldn't go for it here in the US. Whether Obama advocated for it, Hubert Humphrey advocated for it, Ronald Reagan advocated for it----whoever.

If anybody thinks that Trump didn't want to be a dictator----I mean blatantly so, not subtle at all-----then that person is oblivious to the world around him/her, and is under the Trump Spell.

One can be a Republican, Conservative, Libertarian, etc....without being under his spell.

Well, we will have to agree to disagree.

I honestly don't get the appeal of Trump.

Ill try to explain as best as I can from what I see is the Trump supporter perspective:

Imagine you're an American who hold onto traditional American values that you feel are being eroded and desecrated by a cabal of elite political insiders who are so disconnected from the everyday regular Americans that you aren't finding any of your values or ethos represented by anybody in Congress or the Presidency. Then comes along a man who claims to represent the average American, a man who acts like an everyman, who doesnt use fancy jargon but says it like it is, a man who doesnt conform to political correctness but speaks the "truth" even if its offensive, a man who is a man 1 army wrecking the establishment of the media and elite oligarchy threatening to subvert America and erode its strong democratic and Christian principles. To Trump supporters Trump is the man whose sticking it to the elite, who won't allow America to be prostituted to China, who chauvinistically puts America 1st and who will vigorously defend the traditional values of America against those who would love to destroy America.

Trump to them is the man who singlehandedly stood up to the leftist, socialist, Muslim, Chinese and globalist nexus that doesnt represent the interests of the average white middle class fly over American.

The fact that Trump is the 1st president in US history to never ever have any political experience adds to that appeal of an everyman who isn't being controlled or bought by the elite.

Trump is a myth, though.

He IS the oligarchy.

He hasn’t any idea about the Everyperson...except their prejudices.

Trump is rich for sure, but he's not a political insider. When Trump supporters look at Trump as the bastion against the elite what they mean is that Trump represents a man who became rich through the entrepreneurial path and risk taking in business, which contrasts to politicians who game the system and who derive power through leeching/parasitism off of a revolving door of political favors and cronyism.

Trump supporters don't hate the rich and when they speak opprobriously of the elite that doesnt mean the rich, that means what they consider those who are unjustly rich, i.e. parasites and those who are using positions of power to game the system.

Trump as a business man who took risks and was an entrepreneur isn't the elite in the same way Obama or Nancy Pelosi is to these people.

But doesn't defunding mean less police on the streets and police will act more violently on the streets if there is less back to assist them though. Like take this for example.

Let's say there are five crooks on the streets armed with knives and clubs. The police are able to send in 15 officers with guns, and the officers are able to surround them and give them warnings to surrender. The officers are less likely to shoot if they have a whole team that can surround them. Plus the crooks now they cannot take on an entire platoon of police and will more likely surrender their weapons and surrender, more likely that is.

Let's say the police have been defunded and now only one officer can be sent, and has to deal with five guys armed with knives and clubs. They may think they can take the cop and they charge him and try to. The cop now opens fire on all five in order to prevent them taking his gun and killing him.

So now you have a situation that may end more violently with just one cop compared to a whole team. The more cops that are on the streets, with more back up, the less likely they will feel their lives are as threatened because there are more fo them. And the more cops on the streets, the more intimidated armed criminals will feel to surrender, as oppose to feeling more confident they can win if there are less cops on the street which will more likely result in a more violent outcome.

This is the type of things that happened in the wild west. Not enough police and a lot more violence. Society wanted to get away from the wild west and have more cops to to intimidate armed suspects into surrendering. But now a lot of people want to go back to the wild west days for some reason.