Minneapolis City Council prez: We don’t have all the answers on who’ll be responding to crime once we disband the police


Does she have some of the answers?

I mean, it’d be good to have a few answers lined up before outright dissolving law enforcement.

This is the second time in less than 12 hours that a CNN anchor has asked her an eminently predictable question about how she plans to keep civilized society from breaking down in a city of 400,000 people only to have her punt. At least she admitted here that she doesn’t know; this morning her response was to mumble some dorm-room cant about how dialing 911 is a form of privilege.

It makes me laugh that the entire national Democratic establishment is having to scramble to counterprogram this idiot and her colleagues on the City Council because they took their woke radicalism a little too seriously. The nominee did it:

One of his new shortlisters for VP did it:

Another shortlister for VP danced around the issue, making the case for moving some of the police’s funding to social services, mental-heath agencies, and so, but stopping well short of abolition:

The Speaker of the House also danced away, not wanting to antagonize progressives by slamming the idea while also clearly not wanting to antagonize the other 90 percent of the country by endorsing it:

Trump ended up converting the turnover by the City Council into an easy lay-up during one of his own appearances today:

CNN reported yesterday that early last week he wanted 10,000 active-duty troops deployed to American cities. To put that in perspective, by next month we’ll be down to 8,600 in Afghanistan. Trump and Mark Milley reportedly had “tense words” about the need for regular troops given that the violence was already in decline at the time: “A second defense official said Milley strongly felt the threshold — informally described as dire circumstances — for calling in active duty troops could not be met, opening the door to whether such a potential presidential order would be legal.” By Friday public support for using regular troops to supplement police had dropped from 55/30 the week before to 42/48, although a second poll found support at 52/47 for using the military against violent protests.

A fascinating what-if: How would it have played politically if Trump had deployed the troops over Milley’s resistance? Bear in mind that the protests were more peaceful last week. If they had remained that way during a deployment, Trump would have said his show of force had scared the rioters straight. Maybe his polls would have soared. Or maybe a show of “soft” martial law would have antagonized protesters, leading to more unrest. Or maybe the public would have found the gesture scary and heavy-handed notwithstanding the pacifying effect it had. Whatever the answer, not deploying them was the right call. I’m glad Trump listened to his advisors.

We’re not going to disband or defund the police (outside Minneapolis, I mean) but reform is a whole other question. Some of these departments do need reform. Lots of it. I’ll leave you with these two clips.





Source link

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *