Active Now

Discussion » Questions » Current Events and News » Minneapolis city council votes to remove police. But they receive Tax payer funded Private Security? How can they justify this?

Minneapolis city council votes to remove police. But they receive Tax payer funded Private Security? How can they justify this?

No police for you.....but you can pay for my private security. 

Posted - June 29


  • 37752


     ( . . . remove police. But . . . )
     ( . . . remove police, but . . . )

    This is a continuation of one sentence, not two separate sentences.)

     (Tax payer taxpayer)

    Lowercase, not uppercase.  One word, not two. 

      June 29, 2020 8:56 PM MDT

  • 6428
    I can tell you haven't investigated this issue beyond some Fox New headline. I was going to answer, but it would likely be a waste of my time.
      June 29, 2020 9:16 PM MDT

  • 13619
    they can't
      June 29, 2020 10:38 PM MDT

  • 6428
    Police are funded by taxpayers. The MPD is short of resources due to recent events, so private security was hired. The cost was approximately the same. The council is proposing to revamp public safety, not eliminate it.  If Derek Chauvin can get protection at taxpayer expense, so should the City Council, whether we agree with their proposal or not. I don't know how much this protection for Chauvin prior to his arrest cost the taxpayers.

      June 29, 2020 10:51 PM MDT

  • 23167
    The counsil voted to disband the police. Then hired private security.

    They are short of spend resources on private security? $63,000 in less than a month for 3 council members? I think resources have been wasted. 
      June 30, 2020 5:49 AM MDT

  • 6428
    You asked how they justified it. I answered. I am not defending, opposing, or endorsing what they propose. But I do understand that citizens, including public officials, who are receiving credible death threats should be protected (as was Derek Chauvin at taxpayer cost as well). When I said they were short of resources, the resource I meant was police officers, so it made sense to use private security rather than take police away from other duties. To say that public officials are less entitled to protection when their lives are in danger  than private citizens simply because some don't like their politics does not make sense to me. The city has stated that the cost of private vs. police security is about the same. If you think that the City is proposing eliminating public safety when they dismantle the current system, then you need to educate yourself. I'm pretty sure I just wasted my time typing this and I don't plan to engage any further with you on this.
      June 30, 2020 6:24 AM MDT

  • 23167
    No where did I say the council members were not entitled to the same protection of any other citizen. Of course that assumes the city will be paying for the private security for any other citizen who has received threats as well. 

    That said the police say they have no reports of th
    reats to the council members. So perhaps they simply skipped asking the police for protection and went straight to the private security company. (That is my geuss based on no police reporting)

    This post was edited by my2cents at July 2, 2020 10:47 AM MDT
      June 30, 2020 6:49 AM MDT

  • 1737
    They cannot justify it. The Minneapolis City Council announced plans to disband its police department and invest in community-based public safety programs following calls from activists to ‘defund the police. In other words, the city council folded under the pressure. No matter how you cut it, disbanding the police is a really bad idea and that decision will come back to haunt them. Private security is not the answer and is no match for what the police put up with on a daily basis.
      July 2, 2020 10:46 AM MDT