The Protectors are one of several neighborhood public safety groups that emerged here in the days and weeks after the city was rocked by protests that followed Floyd’s death in police custody on May 25. Many of the groups continued operating throughout the summer and early fall, and they are ramping up again as Minneapolis braces for the end of former police officer Derek Chauvin’s trial on charges of murder and manslaughter in Floyd’s death, and beyond that, the inevitable warm-weather spike in crime.
Their successes may inspire other American communities that are seeking alternatives to traditional policing. On the other hand, their failures could empower those fighting for the status quo or for more-moderate change.
Post by thedutchgirl on Apr 13, 2021 19:19:15 GMT -5
As a person who lives directly south of this, in Minneapolis, in the Third Precinct, I have a lot of thoughts. I like what the Protectors are doing. I live in a neighborhood just to the south where most are White (myself included) and very opposed to guns and so we don't have the same types of groups to patrol as the Protectors do, for instance. Or the people, such as myself, who do own weapons, are viewed very negatively if you even mention having a weapon.
And the article speaks about the reduction in police too, for community policing efforts. That's a huge problem right now in Minneapolis. We went from about 1000 sworn officers 10+ years ago, 800 at the beginning of 2020, to less than 600 now. Definitely no capacity to meaningfully interact with community organizations right now when it is all essentially triage for the most violent interactions.
There are no easy answers. But I do identify with calling the police and no one responding. That happens all the time all over the city. It is not lost on me that some areas have faced this for years, and that's a huge problem. I've called and been told multiple times since May 2020 no one will respond, including in quasi dangerous situations (late-night, clearly drunk driving, at very high speeds on city residential streets, on the wrong side of the road).
I am having trouble processing too because my brain keeps coming up with scenarios in which it could work and scenarios in which it would be terrible. I can see racist white men salivating to be the protectors, armed to the teeth, and having things get way out of control and even worse than they are now. And I know rival gangs cooperated in this article, but if any of them suddenly changed their minds, that could get ugly as well. On the other hand, this could be beneficial in many ways.
But I tend to think that power corrupts and guns are a large part of the problem, and if you let a band of (completely untrained) individuals roam with guns, they could just become the new police.
I know there are other groups the cities have been working with to reduce looting and crime in preparation for the Chauvin verdict, but I think the Little Earth community is different than any of them.
Little Earth is a Native American community that was developed to create affordable housing for urban Native Americans in the 70's. I feel they have a stronger sense of community and identity because of their mission (Little Eath's). They have been working towards empowering, educating, assisting and building relationships and opportunities within Minneapolis for the native Americans community.
I'm not trying to discount other "protector" groups, but I just wonder about the sense of community and ties- are they deep/strong enough as the Little Earth ties to keep them going and have then same effect.
I guess I'd like to see an article about them and the successes they have had rather than just a spotlight on one group.
As for the concept as a whole, I need to think on it. My immediate thoughts are based on what's happening now in my city. The immediate need for neighborhood watch and business protection.
I am having trouble processing too because my brain keeps coming up with scenarios in which it could work and scenarios in which it would be terrible. I can see racist white men salivating to be the protectors, armed to the teeth, and having things get way out of control and even worse than they are now. And I know rival gangs cooperated in this article, but if any of them suddenly changed their minds, that could get ugly as well. On the other hand, this could be beneficial in many ways.
But I tend to think that power corrupts and guns are a large part of the problem, and if you let a band of (completely untrained) individuals roam with guns, they could just become the new police.
I had these thoughts, but kept circling back to the fact that it's not a white community.
I think the best that I could relate it to is the Black Panthers, and what they did for their community.
As for the concept as a whole, I need to think on it. My immediate thoughts are based on what's happening now in my city. The immediate need for neighborhood watch [1] and business protection [2].
I am having trouble processing too because my brain keeps coming up with scenarios in which it could work and scenarios in which it would be terrible. I can see racist white men salivating to be the protectors, armed to the teeth, and having things get way out of control and even worse than they are now. And I know rival gangs cooperated in this article, but if any of them suddenly changed their minds, that could get ugly as well. On the other hand, this could be beneficial in many ways.
But I tend to think that power corrupts and guns are a large part of the problem, and if you let a band of (completely untrained) individuals roam with guns, they could just become the new police.
I had these thoughts, but kept circling back to the fact that it's not a white community.
I think the best that I could relate it to is the Black Panthers, and what they did for their community.
But does it open the door for groups like this to be acceptable in white communities too? There were some of these groups of armed white people (mostly men) in the suburbs this summer in response to protests that happened in other parts of town. It felt even more reckless and dangerous. I don’t have a solution but I know that as a white woman I was terrified of the groups of white men “defending” the neighborhoods were I grew up so I can only imagine how others felt.
As for the concept as a whole, I need to think on it. My immediate thoughts are based on what's happening now in my city. The immediate need for neighborhood watch [1] and business protection [2].
1, George Zimmerman; and 2, Kyle Rittenhouse.
If I recall those were people acting alone.
The people that are taking care of the immediate and short term concerns in the Minneapolis/St. Paul area are working with local police and have formed organizations. Liability insurance is needed to do the work they are doing.
lexus yes, that is basically what happened with Kenosha and Kyle Rittenhouse.
I feel like this concept works for unarmed things. Like in Chicago, there were volunteers who walked kids to and from school in known gang territory to help them get there safely. Police would obviously not come for that (and shouldn’t come because it could escalate the situation).
lexus yes, that is basically what happened with Kenosha and Kyle Rittenhouse.
I feel like this concept works for unarmed things. Like in Chicago, there were volunteers who walked kids to and from school in known gang territory to help them get there safely. Police would obviously not come for that (and shouldn’t come because it could escalate the situation).
Right, in my community there was one protest that became destructive. Then a group of people (mostly white men) claimed they were helping the police “defend” the community. It kept growing and there was no training and mostly intimidation tactics being used. They would show up at protests as counter protesters or stand “guard” in front of stores. Some of the small community mayors even thanked them publicly for their “service”. Thankfully they never hurt anyone but there were some tense moments.
The people that are taking care of the immediate and short term concerns in the Minneapolis/St. Paul area are working with local police and have formed organizations. Liability insurance is needed to do the work they are doing.
Rittenhouse was answering the call of local business people (I believe). He definitely wasn't there on his own, but acting as part of a group.
While I agree that they don't match the profile of the neighborhood in the article, both were acting on "authority" that was given to them either by a community or neighborhood.
The people that are taking care of the immediate and short term concerns in the Minneapolis/St. Paul area are working with local police and have formed organizations. Liability insurance is needed to do the work they are doing.
They’re “working with” police... is that meant to make people feel better about the safety of these groups? Because that just sounds even more dangerous to me given the context.
Organizations don’t make this sort of activity less dangerous, nor does liability insurance or alliances with the police.
The people that are taking care of the immediate and short term concerns in the Minneapolis/St. Paul area are working with local police and have formed organizations. Liability insurance is needed to do the work they are doing.
Rittenhouse was answering the call of local business people (I believe). He definitely wasn't there on his own, but acting as part of a group.
While I agree that they don't match the profile of the neighborhood in the article, both were acting on "authority" that was given to them either by a community or neighborhood.
On mobile- but your last statement is the point I was trying to make.
The people that are taking care of the immediate and short term concerns in the Minneapolis/St. Paul area are working with local police and have formed organizations. Liability insurance is needed to do the work they are doing.
They’re “working with” police... is that meant to make people feel better about the safety of these groups? Because that just sounds even more dangerous to me given the context.
Organizations don’t make this sort of activity less dangerous, nor does liability insurance or alliances with the police.
Sorry, probably should say not working with the police, but with political leaders in the city. To the best of my knowledge, all groups are BIPOC.