Minneapolis police chief ends negotiations with police union

[Cow Poke]

Minneapolis police chief ends negotiations with police union

This thread is about the Minneapolis POLICE UNION, and may spill over into other POLICE UNION topics.

I know I sound like a broken record on POLICE UNIONS, but I think that's a YUGE part of reforming police departments --- apparently so does Minneapolis' Police Chief.

Minneapolis Police Chief Medaria Arradondo announced on Wednesday that he would withdraw from contract negotiations with the force’s police union in an effort to kick-start reform amid criticism over the police killing of George Floyd.

The move comes amid heightened awareness of the role police unions sometimes play in stifling reform efforts that aim to combat police brutality.

“I plan to bring in subject matter experience and advisers to conduct a thorough review of how the contract can be restructured to provide greater community transparency and more flexibility for true reform,” Arradondo said at a news conference in Minneapolis, expressing a desire to examine the department’s disciplinary process and use of force guidelines.

Arradondo also said the department would put in place systems that would allow leaders to identify early warning signs of police misconduct.

Speaking at a news conference later Wednesday, Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey backed Arradondo's decision to pull out of negotiations.

"He's the right person to lead our department through a full-on cultural shift and restructure the terms of the way that our Minneapolis Police Department does business," Frey said. "Chief Arradondo's decision to withdraw from the union contract negotiations is the right one. It shows courage, it shows integrity, and he has my full support."

The police chief’s announcement followed nationwide calls for an end to racial injustice in policing sparked by the death of Floyd, a 46-year-old black man killed by a Minneapolis police officer.

On Sunday, the Minneapolis City Council announced a veto-proof majority of its members would vote to dismantle the city's police department. But Arradondo vowed the department would continue to ensure the safety of city residents until another system was in place.

"Our elected officials certainly can engage in those conversations, but until there is a robust plan that reassures the safety of our residents, I will not leave them,” Arradondo said.

Arradondo, who in 2017 became the department’s first African American leader, said race is “inextricably a part of the American policing system.”

“We will never evolve in this profession if we do not address it head on. Communities of color have paid the heaviest of costs, and that is with their lives,” Arradondo said. “And our children must be safeguarded from ever having to contribute to the horrific and shameful chapter of this country's history."

[Thoughtful Monk]

In my city, an attempt to set-up a civilian police accountability board has been delayed by a lawsuit by the local union. As I recall the judge ruled the board violated the collective bargaining agreement and some aspect of state law. This all came down a few weeks before Minneapolis.

I haven't heard anything by getting rid of the local police union. Since the city leadership is Democrat and leaning progressive, it won't surprise me if they try.

[Cow Poke]

In my city, an attempt to set-up a civilian police accountability board has been delayed by a lawsuit by the local union.

I'm shocked. Shocked, I say.

As I recall the judge ruled the board violated the collective bargaining agreement and some aspect of state law. This all came down a few weeks before Minneapolis.

I haven't heard anything by getting rid of the local police union. Since the city leadership is Democrat and leaning progressive, it won't surprise me if they try.

I'd be interested if you hear anything else on this.

So, the liberals are at odds with THEMSELVES --- it's the LIBERALS who are so "Union friendly" and it's the UNIONS that prevent reform!

[myth]

I'm ok with idea of police oversight groups, in general. I am not ok with giving panels of people with no legal training or law enforcement experience say over police discipline issues. I no longer believe that the average person of normal intelligence can be consistently relied upon to review something as nuanced as a police use of force scenario. They simply lack the relevant training, education, and experience to understand these situations. I also understand the whole reason for such oversight panels is to try to avoid "police policing themselves". I might be able to support an oversight panel where, say, one third are current or former law enforcement officers (none actively serving with the agency they're overseeing), one third have legal training and experience (specifically experience in criminal law), and the other third are citizens with a relatively clean criminal records and varying amounts of education.

There's a city near me that has a civilian oversight panel that basically gets to tell the police chief how to run the department. The panel positions are elected positions, and there's no requirement that the members have any sort of relevant training, experience, or education. As one could expect, it's an unmitigated disaster. Officer are disciplined by community activists with an agenda and others with no idea of the practical or legal landscape of the issues they get to decide. They have major restrictions on types of equipment they're allowed to have (for example, no long rifles or shotguns unless you're at a certain rank or assigned as a SWAT team member...and some of those weapons are stored in the armory and not readily accessible in an emergency situation). It's insane to argue that you can trust someone with a pistol but not a long rifle. If you can't trust their judgement or ability with a long rifle, they shouldn't be allowed to carry a pistol around anyways. As a result of all of the above, they have insane turnover, can't fill their open positions, and loose top-quality employees to surrounding agencies (some of whom even pay less). I wouldn't work in that environment for triple my current pay. No amount of pay is worth letting ignorant people put my personal safety at risk because of their own personal or political agendas.

[Cow Poke]

I'm ok with idea of police oversight groups, in general. I am not ok with giving panels of people with no legal training or law enforcement experience say over police discipline issues. I no longer believe that the average person of normal intelligence can be consistently relied upon to review something as nuanced as a police use of force scenario. They simply lack the relevant training, education, and experience to understand these situations. I also understand the whole reason for such oversight panels is to try to avoid "police policing themselves". I might be able to support an oversight panel where, say, one third are current or former law enforcement officers (none actively serving with the agency they're overseeing), one third have legal training and experience (specifically experience in criminal law), and the other third are citizens with a relatively clean criminal records and varying amounts of education.

There's a city near me that has a civilian oversight panel that basically gets to tell the police chief how to run the department. The panel positions are elected positions, and there's no requirement that the members have any sort of relevant training, experience, or education. As one could expect, it's an unmitigated disaster. Officer are disciplined by community activists with an agenda and others with no idea of the practical or legal landscape of the issues they get to decide. They have major restrictions on types of equipment they're allowed to have (for example, no long rifles or shotguns unless you're at a certain rank or assigned as a SWAT team member...and some of those weapons are stored in the armory and not readily accessible in an emergency situation). It's insane to argue that you can trust someone with a pistol but not a long rifle. If you can't trust their judgement or ability with a long rifle, they shouldn't be allowed to carry a pistol around anyways. As a result of all of the above, they have insane turnover, can't fill their open positions, and loose top-quality employees to surrounding agencies (some of whom even pay less). I wouldn't work in that environment for triple my current pay. No amount of pay is worth letting ignorant people put my personal safety at risk because of their own personal or political agendas.

Well, it's worse than that - it's not just that they have "no legal training or law enforcement experience" - it's that they get their narrative from the left, and are shamed into supporting it.

[DesertBerean]

I'm ok with idea of police oversight groups, in general. I am not ok with giving panels of people with no legal training or law enforcement experience say over police discipline issues. I no longer believe that the average person of normal intelligence can be consistently relied upon to review something as nuanced as a police use of force scenario. They simply lack the relevant training, education, and experience to understand these situations. I also understand the whole reason for such oversight panels is to try to avoid "police policing themselves". I might be able to support an oversight panel where, say, one third are current or former law enforcement officers (none actively serving with the agency they're overseeing), one third have legal training and experience (specifically experience in criminal law), and the other third are citizens with a relatively clean criminal records and varying amounts of education.

There's a city near me that has a civilian oversight panel that basically gets to tell the police chief how to run the department. The panel positions are elected positions, and there's no requirement that the members have any sort of relevant training, experience, or education. As one could expect, it's an unmitigated disaster. Officer are disciplined by community activists with an agenda and others with no idea of the practical or legal landscape of the issues they get to decide. They have major restrictions on types of equipment they're allowed to have (for example, no long rifles or shotguns unless you're at a certain rank or assigned as a SWAT team member...and some of those weapons are stored in the armory and not readily accessible in an emergency situation). It's insane to argue that you can trust someone with a pistol but not a long rifle. If you can't trust their judgement or ability with a long rifle, they shouldn't be allowed to carry a pistol around anyways. As a result of all of the above, they have insane turnover, can't fill their open positions, and loose top-quality employees to surrounding agencies (some of whom even pay less). I wouldn't work in that environment for triple my current pay. No amount of pay is worth letting ignorant people put my personal safety at risk because of their own personal or political agendas.

myth, good to see you.

About your post.... 😯😯😯😯😯

[Leonhard]

Well, it's worse than that - it's not just that they have "no legal training or law enforcement experience" - it's that they get their narrative from the left, and are shamed into supporting it.

Do you have a viable alternative?

[Cow Poke]

Do you have a viable alternative?

Absolutely -

A) hire a Police Chief with a good background in Law Enforcement and management, and give him the authority to hire and fire and discipline as needed*.
2) encourage him to align his Department with "best practices" programs, like the Texas Police Chief Association’s “Best Practices” program.
C) base his salary and raises on compliance, along with his command staff.

*that is almost impossible with a Police Union involved.

[Leonhard]

Absolutely -

A) hire a Police Chief with a good background in Law Enforcement and management, and give him the authority to hire and fire and discipline as needed*.
2) encourage him to align his Department with "best practices" programs, like the Texas Police Chief Association’s “Best Practices” program.
C) base his salary and raises on compliance, along with his command staff.

*that is almost impossible with a Police Union involved.

I wonder whether we should make a Cow Poke's Police Advice stickie.

And thank you for providing a sane perspective on the police.

[Cow Poke]

I wonder whether we should make a Cow Poke's Police Advice stickie.

And thank you for providing a sane perspective on the police.

We NEED them - and we need to teach our children to respect them.
They, on the other hand, need to be worthy of that respect.

[myth]

We NEED them - and we need to teach our children to respect them.
They, on the other hand, need to be worthy of that respect.

Indeed. You know just as well as I do, that the police also get upset with (actual) police corruption and bad use of force scenarios....it makes us all look bad.

[myth]

myth, good to see you.

About your post.... 😯😯😯😯😯

Hi DesertBerean, good to see you too!

Not sure which part the emojis were for....I'm assuming the latter paragraph, but if it's the former......long experience with watching how so many people (even intelligent people with common sense), come to whacky conclusions, has eroded my trust in other people's judgement.

[DesertBerean]

Hi DesertBerean, good to see you too!

Not sure which part the emojis were for....I'm assuming the latter paragraph, but if it's the former......long experience with watching how so many people (even intelligent people with common sense), come to whacky conclusions, has eroded my trust in other people's judgement.

Mostly the second paragraph.

[MaxVel]

Something that seems to be at play a bit here is a desire for people to make their own rules. When someone breaks the law, or the police have reasonable grounds to suspect that, they have the duty to stop that person and arrest them or at least hold them until they're satisfied there's no issue. If a person physically resists arrest, then the police are entitled to use reasonable force to arrest them. If a person does something in the course of that that puts officers or anyone's lives in danger, then the police may have to use potentially lethal force. Grabbing for a cop's gun. Wrestling with and beginning to overcome, a policeman. Etc.

There is surprisingly (to people who haven't actually done it) very little time to make a decision in such a situation. A choice that may result in an officer or bystander being killed.



Some people (activists) seem to to think that that is not OK for police to use force to arrest someone.

OK. Make your own laws and rules. Create your own police force. What happens when someone refuses to obey those laws? When someone tries to use violence on a police officer trying to enforce the laws?

IF you are going to have a society with laws, then you need some enforcement. IF you have enforcement, then you are going to need some kind of overwhelming force for those (hopefully few) who won't obey unless physically made to.

[Leonhard]

Something that seems to be at play a bit here is a desire for people to make their own rules. When someone breaks the law, or the police have reasonable grounds to suspect that, they have the duty to stop that person and arrest them or at least hold them until they're satisfied there's no issue. If a person physically resists arrest, then the police are entitled to use reasonable force to arrest them. If a person does something in the course of that that puts officers or anyone's lives in danger, then the police may have to use potentially lethal force. Grabbing for a cop's gun. Wrestling with and beginning to overcome, a policeman. Etc.

Except none of those actions you describe happened in any of the cases that have intiated these riots. In most of these situations like Botham Shem who was gunned down within his own home, Phillip Castille who was gunned down in his own car while trying to cooporate with the officer, Daniel Shaver who was gunned down by a fully automatic rifle while crawling along the ground begging for his life trying to cooporate with incoherent instructions, Breonna Taylor shot in her own apartment by law enforcers (on something insane called a "no knock" warrent) or George Floyd where the person involved kept applying force with his knee after Floyd was limp and unconcious.

In none of these actions have any of the police officers been in anything like the situations you describe. They were the instigators, at all points they were in control of the situation and they messed up badly causing the loss of life.