That phrase was probably a bad choice of words; I believe the fuller intent was
"Let's fund initiatives which build our community, like teachers and school lunch so our kids aren't hungry. That's more important than funding police who come from outside our community and have a reputation for extortion and murder of our citizens instead of protecting us."
You may disagree with the read on the situation of the people involved, but I would be very surprised if you support the idea of you being taxed to support an armed force which was sent into your community and only ever acted in a hostile way towards you.
By the way, the DOJ seems also to feel that the Minneapolis Police was hostile to the citizens
> We can totally reimagine what public safety means, what skills we’re recruiting for, what tools we do and don’t need. We can invest in cultural competency and mental health training, de-escalation and conflict resolution.
> We can resolve confusion over a $20 grocery transaction without drawing a weapon, or pulling out handcuffs.
> The whole world is watching, and we can declare policing as we know it a thing of the past, and create a compassionate, non-violent future. It will be hard. But so is managing a dysfunctional relationship with an unaccountable armed force in our city.
That phrase got so much traction precisely because it's a bad choice of words. It's easy to dismiss a movement if you latch onto the worst framing you can find, take it literally to the point of bad faith, and refuse to dig any deeper.
It was probably a bad choice of words, but chosen for a reason. I'm guessing of course, but I think the people that picked those words knew what they were doing. They wanted to appeal to people who think the police do more harm than good.
"Let's fund initiatives which build our community, like teachers and school lunch so our kids aren't hungry. That's more important than funding police who come from outside our community and have a reputation for extortion and murder of our citizens instead of protecting us."
You may disagree with the read on the situation of the people involved, but I would be very surprised if you support the idea of you being taxed to support an armed force which was sent into your community and only ever acted in a hostile way towards you.
By the way, the DOJ seems also to feel that the Minneapolis Police was hostile to the citizens
Minneapolis Police Used Illegal, Abusive Practices for Years, DOJ Finds https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36917349
Minneapolis Police Use Force Against Black People at 7 Times the Rate of Whites https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23403891
At urging of Minneapolis police, EMS workers subdued dozens with ketamine https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17328770
And the slogan comes as part of a larger discussion of what the role of police should be in society, see i.e.
Minneapolis City Council looking into disbanding police department https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23398910
> We can totally reimagine what public safety means, what skills we’re recruiting for, what tools we do and don’t need. We can invest in cultural competency and mental health training, de-escalation and conflict resolution.
> We can resolve confusion over a $20 grocery transaction without drawing a weapon, or pulling out handcuffs.
> The whole world is watching, and we can declare policing as we know it a thing of the past, and create a compassionate, non-violent future. It will be hard. But so is managing a dysfunctional relationship with an unaccountable armed force in our city.