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.

[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?

[Leonhard]

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.