DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus Minneapolis has paid $63,000 to private security firms council members

The same folks that want to disband the police department. So that's how it works.....disband the police and then use taxpayer dollars to protect only the political hypocrites. Granted they're not in place yet, but does anybody think that these jackwagons are going to rely on the "community safety programs" for their own safety? Just like Obamacare was good enough for the common folk but not for the politicians.

https://www.startribune.com/mpls-has-paid-63k-to-protect-for-three-council-members/571555642/

The city of Minneapolis has paid two private security firms $63,000 over the last three weeks to protect three City Council members amid tensions over George Floyd’s death and efforts to end the Police Department.

While the city has not named the council members — saying their identities weren’t public information — the Star Tribune has confirmed they are Council Vice President Andrea Jenkins and Council Members Alondra Cano and Phillipe Cunningham.

“This security service is intended to be temporary and bridge to other security measures implemented by council members themselves,” city spokeswoman Sarah McKenzie said Monday.

McKenzie said the city has spent $63,000 over the past three weeks for security service for three council members. She said contracts for less than $175,000 typically do not need public approval from council, and they do not expect these expenses to surpass that threshold.

The security is coming from two companies: Aegis and Belcom. McKenzie said the companies provide licensed, armed security officers.

The council members have been under increasing scrutiny since they and some of their colleagues gathered in Powderhorn Park earlier this month and promised to begin the process of ending the Minneapolis Police Department. The plans were vague at that point, heightening tensions between people who wanted to dismantle the department and those who feared the repercussions of a city without a traditional police force.

On Friday, the City Council voted unanimously to advance a proposal that would eliminate from the city charter — essentially its constitution — the requirement to maintain and fund the department. In its place, the city would be required to have a department of community safety and violence prevention, which could employ “licensed peace officers” but wouldn’t be required to do so. That would ultimately need approval from voters.

Asked whether the Minneapolis Police Department had any reports of threats against council members, department spokesman John Elder said he didn’t have any information he could share. In Minnesota, public officials who make reports to police can ask that their name be redacted, which would prohibit the department from confirming whether those reports exist.

“The Minneapolis Police Department takes threats seriously and [they] will/would be vigorously investigated,” Elder said in an e-mail.

Cunningham, in a Twitter thread, compared the security that council members are receiving to coverage provided regularly to the mayor.

The city has provided security to the mayor dating back decades.

That security is provided through the Minneapolis Police Department. An officer, who also serves as a driver, accompanies the mayor at most public events. At least two officers rotate on that schedule. During large public events, they might work simultaneously.

It was not immediately clear how the cost of the mayor’s security compares to the cost of the private security being offered to council members. Elder said MPD did not receive requests for security for council members.

Jenkins declined to comment about the private security, saying she feared the story would jeopardize the safety of her, Cano and Cunningham.

“A story about that really makes it even more necessary to have security,” she said.

Cano said she was tied up Monday in meetings about the homeless encampment in Powderhorn Park, and Cunningham did not respond to a message.

Cunningham previously tweeted that he had “received numerous death threats since I was campaigning for either being transgender or outspoken about police accountability and systems change.”

He wrote that he did not feel comfortable providing more detail. “Security was offered to me by the City, and I accepted it because I need to keep my family safe from the very real threats against me. … I believe any reasonable person would have accepted help like I did. It’s unfortunate my family’s safety has been exploited for a news talking point.”

Security for THEM. Not us.

Things are out of hand. At some point, we fight back.

The defunding the police movement will eventually correct itself.

But then YOU/WE are breaking the law.

We are simply viewed as minions.

This country is on a dangerous heading.

They are disbanding a corrupt murdering police department there. The old corrupt cops and their unions are po’ed. They have the right to protect themselves from those Corrupt cops and their unions. Get over It, it’s not your city anyways. They need to rebuild their trust with a new model. They aren’t defunding.

We already do but we have to listen to your crap when we do.

Is that why you always get shorter sentences for the same crimes?

The Minneapolis situation is one of only a handful that are going overboard on the defunding of police.

Most want to shift funding to things that police shouldn't be doing.. They want to take some funding away to be used on things that the police currently do, but that they don't want them to do.. I saw a list of these things, but I'll be damned if I can find it.

This is an op ed from the Davidson Country sheriff which is the county Nashville resides in...

Commentary: It’s time to reallocate law enforcement resources

Police spend 80 percent of time on social service needs

Over the past few weeks, I have watched as the sentiment of “Defund the Police” has broadened throughout the country. At first, this idea was off-putting to me and I was frustrated “all” law enforcement-related jobs were being villainized by the absolute horrendous actions of a few. Throughout Nashville and this nation, there are excellent law enforcement folks doing a really tough job and doing it the right way. As some time passed and I was able to think about what people are truly asking for, I realized I have been calling for similar action, just under a different banner.

I have worked in jails and prisons all my adult life. Many years ago, I became active and took a leadership role as president of the American Correctional Association. During that time, I traveled internationally as a representative of the United States corrections profession. At a conference in Belgium, with a large sense of pride, I stood to introduce myself in front of practitioners from all over the world.

The reaction from my international colleagues was not what I expected. I could hear a low murmur sweep the room – even snickering. The feelings from other country representatives regarding the U.S. and our criminal justice system became painfully clear. I was aware our incarceration rates were much higher than other countries; I wasn’t aware we were (and still are) a source of mockery when it comes to this subject until that very moment.

This experience made me recognize here in the U.S., unlike many other countries, we use the criminal justice system for far too many social service-type issues. I started to better understand the importance of redirecting funds. My hope was money could be used in other areas to benefit the most vulnerable of our community. Many times, I have said publicly: “Thirty percent of those individuals in our facilities suffer from mental illness. You should take 30% of our budget, 30% of the police budget, the district attorney’s, the courts, etc., and dedicate that money to a fully functioning community-based mental health system that actually helps people, doesn’t criminalize them.”

People like to say we “deinstitutionalized” the mentally ill in the late 1960’s. No, we didn’t. We began institutionalizing them in the criminal justice system. During this same time, the number of diagnosable mental disorders tripled. These two factors are what led our country to this crisis; making jails de facto mental health institutions. We hide mental illness and charge the bill to local jails by calling it a criminal justice matter. This isn’t unique to Nashville. Taxpayers across this nation are paying for a person to be arrested, booked, secured, and housed as a security threat inside of a facility that is not designed with mental health treatment in mind. Most people, when encountering someone who is naked in the park or counting pink elephants in the air, automatically call the police, instead of call for help. Our society has conditioned itself to believe police are necessary when someone is sick. Take this problem out of the criminal justice system and take the money with it.

Law enforcement must deal with many social issues that do not require a sworn officer. Honestly, our society has left few viable alternatives. I recently watched a Sunday morning show featuring the International Association of Chiefs of Police past president. He explained how officers in their routine daily job assignment spend 80% of their time on social service needs and 20% on law enforcement needs. Ironically, 80% of their training is on law enforcement and 20% on social services. This isn’t an issue police agencies asked for; it’s something that has evolved over the years and landed in the criminal justice system. It became popular for politicians to pass legislation and funding to support “public safety” initiatives. The end result is what we are seeing today. Many social service and healthcare issues such as mental health, addiction, and homelessness have transferred to the criminal justice system.

It’s important for us all to stop and seek common ground. Anyone who feels they are wrongly attacked or accused is naturally going to be defensive. Law enforcement has been under attack lately, although in some cases rightly so. For many, it is a difficult time to discuss the subject “Defund the Police” because, on the surface, it sounds extremely offensive or even an impossible consideration. If we look at it as shifting funding to the appropriate place maybe we can meet in the middle. Reallocating resources and building a community-based mental health system will not only save those who suffer from mental illness, but will also allow sheriffs, police, district attorneys, courts, and others to focus on more appropriate matters.

https://tennesseelookout.com/2020/07/06/commentary-its-time-to-reallocate-law-enforcement-resources/

As I've said many times, people are too busy being mad at the saying instead of looking at what it actually means. And those same people won't bother reading this or care what it says either.

Nope, not gonna let you slide out of that one. Defund means exactly that. Its not like the English language is incapable of providing the words necessary to accurately describe "what they really mean". No one is spray painting "DEFUND" on the streets and buildings around police stations out of a sense solidarity with the police, as if they had their eyes opened up and thought 'Wow! the cops do too much! We need to help them reduce their responsibilities!"

For years law enforcement has been telling the public isn't equipped to be the main providers of mental health services but everyone keeps ignoring us.

I will applaud the article you posted for recognizing just how much has been thrown on law enforcement in terms of dealing with the mentally ill. Our previous Sheriff mentioned in an interview a few years back that at any given time 60-80% of people in his jail had some degree of mental illness going on. Now, I can't attest to the history nationally, but I can tell you that our situation locally wasn't precipitated by a movement to treat mental illness as a crime. Back in 2010 the then Dem governor and Dem legislature absolutely trashed the mental health system in NC. I was sworn in 2009, but the few years before that I worked at one of the largest state run mental health hospitals. Two things happened in 2010: First, the did build a brand new hospital, but it had fewer beds than the 2 large hospitals they closed had individually.

Second, prior to that Medicaid/Medicare funding and disbursement for the mentally ill and people with disabilities was handled at the individual county level. They took the money and oversight out of the hands of the counties and gave it all to a 3rd party company. NC operated on a 2 year budget. Case Workers would have to send a yearly budget request for their clients. Now as with anything else budget request related, you typically shoot for the moon but expect to land on the roof. That's how it worked under the counties. Well, under this 3rd party company, that first year everyone was landing on the moon. When it came to the second years budgets, they found out that they had burned through most of the 2yr budget already and were then starting to deny needed services left and right.

Now the fallout of those 2 events was easily predictable. The question everyone kept asking was: where are these people going to go? You've taken away the hospitals. There are nowhere near enough group homes, let alone group homes capable of handling people with the more severe illnesses. The only place for them to go to was the streets.

That question was always ignored.

Again, I do applaud the article for finally recognizing at least half of what the problem is. While I don't have a problem with the creation of additional mental health resources, I do have a problem with some of the offered 'solutions' particularly the ones about having 911 driven social worker and mental health response teams. It's at best naive. Here's why: the vast majority of mental health professionals are not capable of handling someone who is violent.

When I worked at the hospital and one of the patients would get aggressive, it was the grunt healthcare technicians who were left to get them under control. You might have a charge nurse on scene that would attempt to verbally get them under control, but you have too remember a person in crisis isn't likely working with a rational thinking mind. The psychiatrist? LOL you wouldn't see them until the patient was secured in room.

As a cop? Here's how things typically go:

-Psychiatrist/therapist has a client who expresses suicidal thoughts... call the police
-Psychiatrist/therapist has a 10yr old get angry and throw things and hit people... call the police
-Group home resident gets upset with the staff about the rules and throws a tantrum... call the police
-EMS gets dispatched to an elderly person with dimentia and is combative... call the police
-Family member stops taking their meds and they just don't want to deal with them anymore... call the police

I can't tell you Dawgs how many psychiatrists/psychologists/therapists I've had to explain the Commitment Process to. These are mental health professionals and they don't even know the process to get a person in crisis access to the first level of acute help. Now, we don't see that problem in hospitals because the ER docs deal with it so much, but all these tiny private practices? The outpatient therapy places?

I mean, if they really can find enough people who are willing and capable of creating one of these special response teams, no one would be happier than law enforcement. I just think the odds of seeing such a things as being too great for the simple fact that no one has been preventing such a thing from being created already.

And 911 driven social workers? Really? I mean, if you want to increase access to domestic violence related resources I am 100% for it. But that has to come after the initial response. There's a reason why Domestics are the type of call 2 officers are sent to as SOP. The 911 call for someone who has been the victim of a domestic assault doesn't always indicate an assault occurred. So you can't triage the calls and say "well, you can send the response team to the calls that just say they are arguing". Even if it is just initially a verbal argument, the moment any party gets the least bit aggressive they'll be calling.. the police.

I'm 100% all for increasing mental health and domestic violence resources, but trying to carve it out of police budgets in all likelihood isn't going to be sufficient.

It's odd how a county sheriff feels so much differently than you do. Let me tell you what's going on in Nashville as an example. Currently the Nashville police department has six helicopters. Not two, not three, but six. Four of them are Vietnam war era helicopters. What they are wanting to do is scrap the four older ones and buy two new ones. That would mean that the the taxpayers will have foot the bill for a total of four newer type helicopters and their upkeep. Do I understand the need for a police department to have a helicopter? Yes I do. But four or six?

To pretend the police do not have bloated budgets just like the military does, to pretend their isn't excess spending, would be to expect the people to be naive.

Now you can carry on with the "not going to let you slide on that one" all you like. But you're saying exactly what the Davidson County sheriff was saying "before" he looked into what the actual meaning was. It turns out not only was he right, but I was right too.



As I also said, the left could do a lot better job at messaging.

We do agree that mental care was gutted in this country. What the main complaint was is that the facilities were run down, the care wasn't up to snuff and the system was in need of overhaul. What happened was those old places were either torn down, abandoned and never replaced. It's a shame that happened. But most can see that putting mental health in the hands of law enforcement isn't the answer.

Will you have cases that are so violent that law enforcement will need to be involved? Certainly. But when you eliminate the ones where law enforcement doesn't need to be involved, it will greatly reduce their involvement. And dealing with the homeless. That's yet another area law enforcement has to deal with that it shouldn't be burdened with. And where did anyone say that the money law enforcement is allocating to helping the homeless and the mentally ill would "fully fund the solution"?

You'll have to excuse me if I take the word of a sheriff who has been at this job for much longer than you have. A man who is actually in charge of a large police budget. A man who is actually willing to look at this topic objectively rather than trying to hand out a lesson in English.

It's an all too familiar thing in our nation at this time where people take feelings over experience. Emotions over facts. I'm far more willing to take the word of a sheriff who has the facts and the experience and has left his emotions and feelings at the door.