Minneapolis City Council Unanimously Votes To Replace Police With Community-Led Model

[TU Curmudgeon]

EXPANDED the total number policing the city. The county police did not police the city at the start. Now they do.

I see, so the entirety of the county police are now "policing the city" and none of them are "policing the country" - yeah, right, sure.

No, 300 is more than 200. At the start, going by the numbers you posit (it was actually 175 city police, not 200), ...

I see that you missed the "(all numbers are for illustrative purposes only) " bit.

... there were 200 city police policing the city. Going with your numbers again, there were 200 county police who dealt with the county, and did not police in the city (the city only making up a part of the county).

Now, minus the 100 city police, add the remaining 100 city police to the county police who now, after the change, police the city, and you have 300 police policing the city where before you only had 200.

Sticking with my ILLUSTRATIVE number, prior to the change, there were 400 police officers who were policing the city _and the county_ - after the change, there were 300 police officers who were policing the city _and the county_.

This isn't rocket science, bud.

Indeed it isn't. Now would you like to tell me what assuming that 100% of the police officers who used to be policing the county are no longer policing the county is? "Really dumb" springs instantly to mind, but you might have a more colourful term for it.

They increased county police by 100 by adding the 100 from the city force to them. That's an INCREASE in the amount of people policing the city as prior the city police wer ethe only ones policing the city. The number policing the city is over double now what it was when there was just the city force policing the city (the county force did not police the city at that time).

See above.

 

[danielpalos]

They have a State supreme law of the land for a reason.

 

[Gondwanaland]

I see, so the entirety of the county police are now "policing the city" and none of them are "policing the country" - yeah, right, sure.



I see that you missed the "(all numbers are for illustrative purposes only) " bit.



Sticking with my ILLUSTRATIVE number, prior to the change, there were 400 police officers who were policing the city _and the county_ - after the change, there were 300 police officers who were policing the city _and the county_.



Indeed it isn't. Now would you like to tell me what assuming that 100% of the police officers who used to be policing the county are no longer policing the county is? "Really dumb" springs instantly to mind, but you might have a more colourful term for it.



See above.

The county police were NOT policing the city. That's why your attempt to put things into your 'illustrative' example falls on its face. THe county police WERE NOT policing the city until AFTER. Trying to tack them on to defend this idiotic claim that the number of cops policing the city magically didn't increase even though the number did, only makes you look even more foolish.

 

[Moderate Right]

Minneapolis City Council Unanimously Votes To Replace Police With Community-Led Model (Forbes).
For 13 years of my professional career, I represented and advised law enforcement agencies at the State level. Like the officers that penned the letter, when I watched thre video of George Floyd's arrest, I knew - as any sentient human being does - that "that was not right". Minneapolis police officers pen open letter condemning former officer Derek Chauvin (CNN). That reaction is universal, which is why it has spread so wide, so fast, and includes thousands of members of police departments nation-, even world-, wide. The officers who endorsed that letter represent the best of law enforcement, just as Chauvin represents the worst.

So, what does reforming the police mean? What does the City Council's action portend? I suspect those officers will be part of the process.

This is a perfect case of throwing the baby out with the bath water. Chauvin doesn't represent the entire Minneapolis police force, these officers who penned the letter prove that. Tearing down the entire police department over some bad apples is a stupid solution. Just get rid of the bad apples.

 

[Lursa]

The county police were NOT policing the city. That's why your attempt to put things into your 'illustrative' example falls on its face. THe county police WERE NOT policing the city until AFTER. Trying to tack them on to defend this idiotic claim that the number of cops policing the city magically didn't increase even though the number did, only makes you look even more foolish.

And they still have to focus on (spread their numbers across) the rest of the county. Truly, it's not rocket science...and the responsibilities and training...esp. the new community focused training...for the "new" Camden force are not the same, wont have the same positive effects on...the city itself.

This is the barely coherent and grammatically inept speech of a man who desperately wants to be able to claim that he "cured coronavirus."

That's it, in a nutshell. When we do get a handle on this crisis, he wants to be able to pull out footage and declare "I called it! I said use this! I said try this! I told them to do this, it was my idea!" He's just doing it with lots of stupid stuff because he doesnt want to miss an opportunity. He's afraid 'the big one' will be mentioned and he wont get credit for it.

It's all about declaring himself the savior of the cv crisis and we'll hear all about it, esp in his campaign. (Which is basically each of his press briefings these days) --- Lursa

 

[Lursa]

This is a perfect case of throwing the baby out with the bath water. Chauvin doesn't represent the entire Minneapolis police force, these officers who penned the letter prove that. Tearing down the entire police department over some bad apples is a stupid solution. Just get rid of the bad apples.

How many decades does it take for change? We are only seeing an upsurge in these cases because everyone has a camera now and video cameras are everywhere, including sometimes on the cops. But the outrage has been going on for...ever and complaints and reports, esp from blacks, were ignored and swept under the carpet...and obviously it wasnt enough for change.

Only now, when there is VISUAL PROOF does there seem to be any will for action...because we can ALL now SEE the damage.

This is the barely coherent and grammatically inept speech of a man who desperately wants to be able to claim that he "cured coronavirus."

That's it, in a nutshell. When we do get a handle on this crisis, he wants to be able to pull out footage and declare "I called it! I said use this! I said try this! I told them to do this, it was my idea!" He's just doing it with lots of stupid stuff because he doesnt want to miss an opportunity. He's afraid 'the big one' will be mentioned and he wont get credit for it.

It's all about declaring himself the savior of the cv crisis and we'll hear all about it, esp in his campaign. (Which is basically each of his press briefings these days) --- Lursa

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

The county police were NOT policing the city. That's why your attempt to put things into your 'illustrative' example falls on its face. THe county police WERE NOT policing the city until AFTER. Trying to tack them on to defend this idiotic claim that the number of cops policing the city magically didn't increase even though the number did, only makes you look even more foolish.

You appear to not quite understand that when there are 200 people "policing the county" and "200 people "policing the city" that means that there are 400 people "policing the county and the city" and that when you let 100 of those who were "policing the city" go while putting 100 of them on strength to those who were "policing the county, and then have the augmented police force which is now "policing the county and the city" you have 300 people who are "policing the county and the city" and that that is a decrease from the 400 who were formerly "policing the county and the city".

Since you do not appear to quite understand that 3 is less than 4, I can see no reason to attempt to convince you that it is.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

One thing it probably must mean to insure success is jettisoning the MPD union.

This powerful union makes it almost impossible to suspend or terminate officers for cause.

That is the KEY ISSUE - the City of Minneapolis should have the right to terminate officers whose unprofessional actions do not fit the profile of what people in the city want out of a police officer.
The police union in that town thinks IT has the right to dictate what department policy will be in direct contradiction to the will of the people.

This stops now.

 

[Gondwanaland]

You appear to not quite understand that when there are 200 people "policing the county" and "200 people "policing the city" that means that there are 400 people "policing the county and the city" and that when you let 100 of those who were "policing the city" go while putting 100 of them on strength to those who were "policing the county, and then have the augmented police force which is now "policing the county and the city" you have 300 people who are "policing the county and the city" and that that is a decrease from the 400 who were formerly "policing the county and the city".

Since you do not appear to quite understand that 3 is less than 4, I can see no reason to attempt to convince you that it is.

THe 200 policing the county were NOT policing the city. The 200 policing the city were NOT policing the county. Why are you having so much trouble grasping this basic fact?

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

That is the KEY ISSUE - the City of Minneapolis should have the right to terminate officers whose unprofessional actions do not fit the profile of what people in the city want out of a police officer.
The police union in that town thinks IT has the right to dictate what department policy will be in direct contradiction to the will of the people.

This stops now.

Have you seen "In U.S., arbitration allows police officers fired for misconduct to return to jobs" (from Associated Press, via Global News)?

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

THe 200 policing the county were NOT policing the city. The 200 policing the city were NOT policing the county. Why are you having so much trouble grasping this basic fact?

Keeping with the illustrative numbers previously used, my position is

There were a total of 400 police officers and, between them they were responsible for policing both the county and the city.

There are now 300 police officers and, between them they are responsible for policing both the county and the city.

THEREFORE the total number of police officers has decreased.
​

while your position appears to be

There were a total of 400 police officers and, between them they were responsible for policing both the county and the city.

There are now 300 police officers and, they are all policing the city.

THEREFORE the total number of police officers has increased.
​

One of those positions is reality based, and one isn't.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

Have you seen "In U.S., arbitration allows police officers fired for misconduct to return to jobs" (from Associated Press, via Global News)?

Of course, and again, this points right back to the police unions. Police unions are apparently adept at short circuiting the entire democratic process altogether, thus thwarting repeated attempts at reform. If this keeps up, things are going to get much worse.

A city contracts with a police department and it is quite naturally the will of the people AND the City Council and the Mayor who decide police policy, if democracy and the rule of law have anything to do with it. Union leaders are not elected officials, they are union officials, therefore those unions should not have more power than the will of the people.

But by all the evidence, it appears that they do.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

That's a very intriquing thought. Instead of "Police Stations" and "Fire Halls" there could be (invented term follows) "Community Response Centres" that could include multiple services (possibly even including "drop in clinics"). Some of those services would, naturally, be available 24/7/52 while others need not be (I do note that "Social Services" [by whatever name known locally] DOES generally offer 24/7/52 service but not at the same level around the clock).

I lived in Hamilton Ontario for a while and when I was there there was a lot of discussion over the fact that the existing city hall was simply too crowded and the existing work load couldn't be handled properly. However, city council blanched when told what the cost of a replacement city hall would be. Then someone came up with the idea of a 12 hour, 3 day, workweek with half the staff working MON/TUE/WED and the other half working THU/FRI/SAT (after six weeks they changed work days). That reduced the office crowding, allowed more time for the citizenry to deal with city hall gave the city hall four day weekends (except for the ones that were either one, or seven days long) and didn't cost a dime.



All true, but you should also consider the need for "Don't get so offended so fast" training.

With all due respect, I get the feeling Canadian police operate in a manner vastly different from American police.
I don't know how much time you've spent in the Lower 48 but if not at all, or very little, then you might not have an idea of what's going on down here.

Of course for all I know you may be a dual citizen and perhaps you lived in NYC for twenty years.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

Good luck with that, you have zero idea what happens if trucks decide collectively not to go to a place because it's unsafe.

Oh you mean like when "all trucks collectively decided to block freeways in DC because they wanted to show their opposition to liberals"?
On that day, the "Trucker Blockade" consisted of less than fifty trucks.
Nobody anywhere reported any traffic tie ups.
Truckers swore that MILLIONS OF TRUCKS were all going to take part!

Trust me, if a group of truckers decide to not go to a city, ten other truckers will.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

Camden is literally the opposite of what BLM is demanding at the moment. Camden, sure, did away with its local PD. But it replaced it with County PD, and over doubled the amount of police (paid less than the local PD had been paid) taking care of the city, from 175 to over 400. Literally increased the police force in Camden with its methods. That's very much not what BLM is calling for. Despite all the "what they really mean is...." stuff being pushed out there to try to soften what is being called for, the leaders themselves have spoken - defund the police means do away with the police.

Regardless of what they said, they don't have the numbers to force the issue and the various majorities in the population of these cities will decide what THEY think it means.
It amazes me how desperate you are, trying to convince everyone that the sky is falling.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

I'm starting to suspect right wingers think the liberal stance is literally "it's always bad for a cop to kill a black person for any reason in any circumstance, but it's always ok for a cop to kill a white person for any reason in any circumstance."

Why else would they keep bringing up completely incomparable examples?

I'm a liberal, here's my stance:

Code 4 means Code 4.
If a suspect IS Code 4, the rough stuff stops because they are now IN CUSTODY, and since they ARE in custody, you are now responsible for their lives until they get to see the inside of the jail, at which point your responsibility ends and due process under the law begins, and each and every one of you cops were told those exact words at the police academy.
I know this for a fact because I've sat in and listened while covering for the news.

Code 4 is Code 4, the rough stuff stops, and custody begins.
George Floyd was most definitely as Code 4 as it gets.

If they struggle or are combative, police have solutions for that too, solutions that do not involve cutting off air and blood flow on handcuffed human beings.
Period, end of story.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

This is a perfect case of throwing the baby out with the bath water. Chauvin doesn't represent the entire Minneapolis police force, these officers who penned the letter prove that. Tearing down the entire police department over some bad apples is a stupid solution. Just get rid of the bad apples.

The problem is for the last ten years the city HAS been trying to get rid of the bad apples but Bob Kroll and his white supremacist Minneapolis police union have prevented the city from doing that.
Read up on the actual facts, because that's the absolute truth.
Minneapolis has been UNABLE to get rid of their bad cops. They have TRIED.

Police unions in most of our major cities not only have too much POLITICAL power, many of them are also riddled with white supremacists as well.
It is almost IMPOSSIBLE for major cities to get rid of bad cops. That's what the problem is.

Minneapolis is not throwing out the baby with the bathwater, they are cutting ties with the Minneapolis Federation of Police, and the only way they are able to do it is to disband and start over.

And it is not going to happen overnight, and Minneapolis will not wake up one morning with "no police" so stop acting like that's what's happening because it's not.
I lived in South Minneapolis, so I know what the situation is with the cops up there.
The MPD has always had a bad rep but in the last decade it has gotten MUCH worse.

 

[Gondwanaland]

Keeping with the illustrative numbers previously used, my position is

There were a total of 400 police officers and, between them they were responsible for policing both the county and the city.

There are now 300 police officers and, between them they are responsible for policing both the county and the city.

THEREFORE the total number of police officers has decreased.
​

while your position appears to be

There were a total of 400 police officers and, between them they were responsible for policing both the county and the city.

There are now 300 police officers and, they are all policing the city.

THEREFORE the total number of police officers has increased.
​

One of those positions is reality based, and one isn't.

Your numbers do not reflect reality. The county police DID NOT ****ING POLICE THE CITY before the change. The city police DID NOT ****ING POLICE THE COUNTY before the change.

 

[justabubba]

Of course, and again, this points right back to the police unions. Police unions are apparently adept at short circuiting the entire democratic process altogether, thus thwarting repeated attempts at reform. If this keeps up, things are going to get much worse.

A city contracts with a police department and it is quite naturally the will of the people AND the City Council and the Mayor who decide police policy, if democracy and the rule of law have anything to do with it. Union leaders are not elected officials, they are union officials, therefore those unions should not have more power than the will of the people.

But by all the evidence, it appears that they do.

1 by federal law, those union officials MUST be democratically elected

2 those individuals representing management are representing the views of those who were elected into pubic office because they were delegated by them

notice how both sides are represented at the negotiation table

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

1 by federal law, those union officials MUST be democratically elected

Only by the cops. Minneapolis residents do not vote in a union head.
The head of a police union is not "public office" therefore a union head is not the equal of the Mayor or the Chief of Police.
The union head is not elected by the people of the city.

2 those individuals representing management are representing the views of those who were elected into pubic office because they were delegated by them

notice how both sides are represented at the negotiation table

But that's the POINT I was getting at.
MANAGEMENT consists of the Chief of Police, Mayor and City Council, with that latter representing the will of the residents of the city.
The police union in Minneapolis has been fighting the Chief of Police, Mayor and City Council for well over a decade, and in fact refusing POINT BLANK when the Chief of Police, Mayor and City Council have instructed them to adapt to new policies.

Here, read:

Google Search: "minneapolis struggles with police union"

 

[justabubba]

The problem is for the last ten years the city HAS been trying to get rid of the bad apples but Bob Kroll and his white supremacist Minneapolis police union have prevented the city from doing that.
Read up on the actual facts, because that's the absolute truth.
Minneapolis has been UNABLE to get rid of their bad cops. They have TRIED.

Police unions in most of our major cities not only have too much POLITICAL power, many of them are also riddled with white supremacists as well.
It is almost IMPOSSIBLE for major cities to get rid of bad cops. That's what the problem is.

Minneapolis is not throwing out the baby with the bathwater, they are cutting ties with the Minneapolis Federation of Police, and the only way they are able to do it is to disband and start over.

And it is not going to happen overnight, and Minneapolis will not wake up one morning with "no police" so stop acting like that's what's happening because it's not.
I lived in South Minneapolis, so I know what the situation is with the cops up there.
The MPD has always had a bad rep but in the last decade it has gotten MUCH worse.

that's a bull**** post
if the police managers want to get rid of bad cops it is quite easy to do
DOCUMENT the wrongdoing
PROVE that the police officer violated established policy
how is a bad cop going to escape punishment before an objective third party - who has a legal background and a reputation to maintain - if the evidence is against him
if that cop is so bad as to warrant termination then why does management not build a factual case against that employee
two answers for the most part: laziness and/or incompetence. most would be stunned at the small percentage of managers who ever read the labor-management contract
union employees want to get rid of the bad employees
often, they are terrible co-workers who rock the boat needlessly. the job is usually more difficult because they are still on board
as a union official, i determined how much time, money, and effort i was going to put into a bargaining unit employee's defense
but i was NEVER going to allow that employee to face punishment unless management could both document his screwups AND follow the labor-management contract in effecting that discipline

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

that's a bull**** post
if the police managers want to get rid of bad cops it is quite easy to do
DOCUMENT the wrongdoing
PROVE that the police officer violated established policy
how is a bad cop going to escape punishment before an objective third party - who has a legal background and a reputation to maintain - if the evidence is against him
if that cop is so bad as to warrant termination then why does management not build a factual case against that employee
two answers for the most part: laziness and/or incompetence. most would be stunned at the small percentage of managers who ever read the labor-management contract
union employees want to get rid of the bad employees
often, they are terrible co-workers who rock the boat needlessly. the job is usually more difficult because they are still on board
as a union official, i determined how much time, money, and effort i was going to put into a bargaining unit employee's defense
but i was NEVER going to allow that employee to face punishment unless management could both document his screwups AND follow the labor-management contract in effecting that discipline

I take it you think that ALL of the news stories were fake, and that everyone else was wrong, and the police union was 100 percent right all the time.
Is that it?

 

[joko104]

I don't need to pray for failure. This is a self fulfilling prophecy. I wouldn't be surprised if it's designed to fail.

The Democratic leadership of white majority Democratic cities want their black communities destroyed and the more blacks killing other blacks the more they'll love it! This is what the Democratic Party has always done - attacked communities and destroyed black people's lives.

 

[justabubba]

Only by the cops. Minneapolis residents do not vote in a union head.
The head of a police union is not "public office" therefore a union head is not the equal of the Mayor or the Chief of Police.
The union head is not elected by the people of the city.

of course by the cops
actually only by the cops who are dues paying members. non dues paying members are also bargaining unit employees who - by law - MUST be represented by the union; however, only the union - dues paying - members are eligible to vote for union officers

But that's the POINT I was getting at.
MANAGEMENT consists of the Chief of Police, Mayor and City Council, with that latter representing the will of the residents of the city.
The police union in Minneapolis has been fighting the Chief of Police, Mayor and City Council for well over a decade, and in fact refusing POINT BLANK when the Chief of Police, Mayor and City Council have instructed them to adapt to new policies.

Here, read:

Google Search: "minneapolis struggles with police union"

you seem not to understand how unions work and the benefits they enjoy under federal law
with the exception of the designated "management rights," which are non-negotiable (unless management is stupid enough to allow management rights to be negotiated [yes, it happens]), all other aspects of conditions of employment are able to be negotiated. [in the federal sector that does NOT include wage rates, which are established by congress]
in this instance, there is basis to assume that a labor-management contract has already been negotiated
so, these new policies the police want to incorporate can be effected ONLY AFTER THEY ARE NEGOTIATED
management does not have unilateral authority to impose new policies or to revise established policies unilaterally
i get it. that's what you want. but tuff titties. the federal law expects labor and management to negotiate the conditions of employment
if new laws are passed that undermine some aspect of the established contract the union MUST follow those new laws
but ONLY AFTER impact and implementation of those new statutory changes have been negotiated by both parties
so, what you are asking for no union should ever agree to provide - allowing management to make unilateral policy changes
that would establish a past practice which might then be used to undermine other employee protections

 

[justabubba]

I take it you think that ALL of the news stories were fake, and that everyone else was wrong, and the police union was 100 percent right all the time.
Is that it?

you presented that the union is responsible for bad employees being allowed to stick around
i presented the reality
a bad employee's actions should be documented and used to justify discipline imposed by management upon that employee
the union has a federally imposed obligation to represent that bargaining unit member
it does not get to not fulfill that fiduciary obligation to the employee
your quarrel is misdirected
it is management which allows bad employees to stick around
if they documented the evidence of the employee's wrongdoing, the union representation would be insufficient to prevent an objective third party from making the call based on the presented EVIDENCE
management is not doing its job when bad employees are able to stick around
the union cannot represent both the employee and management. management must do its job