About that "defund the police" Democrat in MN...

Image by LovableNinja from Pixabay

Last week, I wrote about Shivanthi Sathanandan situation. She’s the Democrat in Minnesota who called for “dismantling the police”–as close to “defund the police” as you can get–and apparently changed her tune after being the victim of a violent carjacking.


Now, it’s not unusual to see someone be pretty pro-bad guy right up until they are a victim of a violent criminal. In a strange sort of way, I respect the guy who can get beaten and still support policies like defunding the police. At least then you know it’s a deeply rooted principle versus just following the crowd.

Sathanandan, however, wasn’t like that. In truth, many people wouldn’t be, so I’m not throwing any shade at her for the change.

But the latest is a different matter.

You see, while Sathanandan is apparently now publicly thanking the police, there are some things reportedly going on behind the scenes worthy of comment.

From our sister site, Townhall:

However, there was also an unconfirmed report that she complained about the response time of the police, that it took five minutes for them to arrive, which seems like a pretty good response time for a city police department. But imagine being upset about response time when you advocated to get rid of the police three years ago.

Now, there’s a further report from Townhall’s Julio Rosas that raises more issues.

Warning for coarse language.

According to Rosas:

A Minneapolis law enforcement source tells me officers in the 4th precinct are being encouraged to patrol Sathanandan’s neighborhood when not responding to calls.“Now she wants extra police presence? She can eat the largest bag of di**s,” the source added.



It’s one thing to change your mind about that whole “defund the police” stuff. It’s quite another to demand extra police presence after that.

Frankly, I get the response. I’d tell her to eat a bag of those myself under the circumstances.

What’s more, she’s expecting an increased police presence because of what happened to her and due to her status as the vice chair of the state’s version of the Democratic Party, all while having a history of pushing for gun control.

In other words, she wanted to defund the police while also trying to take away your ability to defend yourself, and the moment she’s victimized, she expects the same police she wanted to defund to be her own personal security.

Sathanandan would never accept you or me getting an increased police presence in our neighborhoods after being the victim of a violent crime absent some reason to believe it would happen again. Meanwhile, she’d also deny you or me having the ability to defend ourselves because that would require a firearm.

Now, it’s possible that Sathanandan might be rethinking her opposition to gun rights in the wake of what happened to her, but I’m skeptical. Far too often, folks like this think they’re more deserving of protection than we are. I mean, who among us would demand an increased police presence after a random act of violence? We might ask about it, but unless it was part of a neighborhood pattern, we wouldn’t expect all that much.


She does.


Join the conversation as a VIP Member