packgrad said:

---

---

This will be interesting to see. How could cops ever be replaced? What structure could they be replaced with? Robots maybe?

statefan91 said:

---

packgrad said:

---

---

That's dumb. Police are absolutely important, they just need to be trained to not kneel on someone's neck for 9 minutes and ignore their pleas for help

---

"They"

The department should strongly consider going thru the CALEA Accreditation process. This Commission on the Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies strives to improve the level of public safety service that a department delivers and is constantly updating and evolving the standards that they believe in and these standards are created with input from LEA from around the country. These accreditated departments
are constantly following these standards as they must be re-accreditated every 3 years.

This is the type of organization that can be a good starting point in completely reviewing the current structure and then determine the type of policing model that this department needs in the future. Just one potential starting point for the Minneapolis PD.

packgrad said:

---

---

Transformative justice better be free bc the tax base will be gone before he can blink

Eta- if there is one thing the last week has made clear to voters, turning out to vote for City Council is a "must do" moving forward. The number of idiots elected to these positions is astounding

packgrad said:

---

---

If this isnt some sort of joke and I lived in Minneapolis, my house would be for sale this morning. No way I would stay there

Candace Owens has a video trending on Twitter. It's long (~17 mins), but the girl spits fire. She got a slow clap from me.

packgrad said:

---

Candace Owens has a video trending on Twitter. It's long (~17 mins), but the girl spits fire. She got a slow clap from me.

---

She's hot!

wilmwolf80 said:

---

^Ain't that the truth. Here in Wilmington, in non-presidential years, it can take as little as 5,000 votes to win a city council or county commissioner seat because people just don't vote. Then people complain about the development and other decisions that get made. Well, you let five thousand people determine what happens to a two hundred thousand by not showing up. Hell, the mayor has run unopposed four of the the last five times he was elected because no one cares enough to challenge him. Exercising your right to vote, and making informed decisions at the polls when you do vote, is how you effect change on where you live. If you don't like the sheriff, vote him out. If you don't like the police chief, vote out whomever appoints him.

---

WWolf...Very good points about encouraging people to get out and vote in local elections. As a local elected official, turn-out for these elctions is small, and those elcted leaders affect people each and every day in their towns and communities.

Regarding voting someone in who will get rid of a police chief or a finance director or another department head in local government, it does not work that way in the majority of towns and cities in NC. In the Manager-Council form of local govt., the elected body selects a Town/City manager and that person is placed in charge of going thru the interview process in hiring staff, especially department heads. In most cases in this form of local govt., the elected body is only responsible for hiring the manager and the attorney.

While NC is an at-will state, that applies mainly to private businesses and companies. Most govt. employees, at the Federal & State & Local levels, are not at-will employees. They are hired thru a process that allows for grievances to be filed, complaints to be filed, etc, etc. There are a few at-will employees appointed by the President and the Govenor, and a few by local offcials, but these are most likely employees that simply can not be fired by a newly elected body of people.

In the Mayor-Council form of govt., usually in small towns that have small budgets where they can not afford to hire a full time police chief or other department head, these elected offcials sometimes act as the chief or the inspector or the public works director. A good way to get into trouble IMO, but it still happens in some smaller towns.

So your point of getting out to vote is a great point, but simply electing a new Mayor and Council members does not mean that a Police Chief or a Parks & Rec director can be fired. it simply does not work that way due to employee rights granted in this State by the NC Legislature.

Thanks for the information. My point was not really about firing anyone, moreso that the people that make the decisions are elected, and if you want your voice heard about who fills those positions when they are open, you vote in people whose beliefs align with yours.

Yes sir. Good points raised. It is a shame that only the national and state elections get the 50, 60 % or more turn out at the polls. You see your local elected officials at the grocery or hardware store or at church or as a neighbor right down the street. They live where you live and hear what you hear at the local level.

Tootie speaks truth, I know of some towns with more than 25K people and as few as 125 votes gets you a council seat. That makes those 125 people almost as powerful as Jesus Christ in the ear of that elected person.

Burn baby, burn.

So what does that mean exactly? Reorganization? Hiring brand new officers across the board somehow?

Minneapolis can be a guinea pig for a new system.

I can tell you though I'm glad I don't live there now

Guess I'll be eliminating Minneapolis from my list of cities I'd like to visit. Will be interesting to see who is going to protect the city leaders when the carnage starts?

metcalfmafia said:

---

So what does that mean exactly? Reorganization? Hiring brand new officers across the board somehow?

---

Who knows? I imagine the meaning is fluid so whatever definition used when questioning it can be met with outrage, as with all leftist hashtags.

This is the definition google provides for me. "Divesting funds from police departments and then reallocating them to social services and other community resources where they are needed. "

There was more but that was the meat.

Welcome to anarchy Minneapolis.

Washing their feet? Wow

Is this acceptable? I don't think so.

metcalfmafia said:

---

So what does that mean exactly? Reorganization? Hiring brand new officers across the board somehow?

---

Good question. Here is the scary thing about making statements like this...totally dismantling their PD...were they even considering doing this this 4 weeks ago? 3 weeks ago?

I think it is obvious that they have both serious PD issues but also issues in their DA's office. They definitely need to completely evaluate their current PD structure , the people who are the administrators of the PD, how they train and select their new hires, and a complete evaluation of their PD policies, within the department and how they interact in the community. Their PD definitely needs to make some serious changes in the structure of their department. But making a hasty decision by just listening to suggestions that have not been discussed and vetted, that is how you make even more mistakes.

And how can an officer with as many serious complaints against him still be working there ? The DA's office has some explaining to do, too. He should have never been working there after the numerous complaints against him. I don't know if their PD is unionized, but if so, that union is getting ready to lose a lot of authority in MINN.

No, doesn't look acceptable. Seems like stupid harassment.

Just to confirm, is this the incident they said was an attack on the police officer?

No idea. Would you consider this an attack if the officer was just a regular woman and the harassers were men?

Tootie4Pack said:

---

metcalfmafia said:

---

So what does that mean exactly? Reorganization? Hiring brand new officers across the board somehow?

---

Good question. Here is the scary thing about making statements like this...totally dismantling their PD...were they even considering doing this this 4 weeks ago? 3 weeks ago?

I think it is obvious that they have both serious PD issues but also issues in their DA's office. They definitely need to completely evaluate their current PD structure , the people who are the administrators of the PD, how they train and select their new hires, and a complete evaluation of their PD policies, within the department and how they interact in the community. Their PD definitely needs to make some serious changes in the structure of their department. But making a hasty decision by just listening to suggestions that have not been discussed and vetted, that is how you make even more mistakes.

And how can an officer with as many serious complaints against him still be working there ? The DA's office has some explaining to do, too. He should have never been working there after the numerous complaints against him. I don't know if their PD is unionized, but if so, that union is getting ready to lose a lot of authority in MINN.

---

The problem is it means very different things to different people and groups. So it's very possible those groups will agree there should be a change, then get absolutely nothing done as they fight among themselves. Some want to get rid of the police force entirely (dumb IMO), some want reduce the budget of the force to spend less on police and more on other areas, some want a wholesale change in leadership, personnel, etc. and others want either meaningful reforms on training and accountability. All of those disparate interests are going to have to come to some type of consensus.

Minn PD is definitely unionized and they will be the first line pushing back against reforms. Police unions are very powerful politically on the local level and Im not so sure that they will lose authority like you think they will. I hope I'm wrong though.
Powerful police unions can get fired officers reinstated over the wishes of leaders who ARE trying to punish bad cops and run a clean ship. The Minn union president said he is fighting to get all of the officers reinstated, "I've worked with the four defense attorneys that are representing each of our four terminated individuals under criminal investigation, in addition with our labor attorneys to fight for their jobs. They were terminated without due process..."

packgrad said:

---

No idea. Would you consider this an attack if the officer was just a regular woman and the harassers were men?

---

It seems like harassment to me. Glad the other police came in to protect him.

Yes, I expect the union to step up and try to do everything they can for their clients. They may have been terminated without due process. In the rush to try to calm the crowds of people, they may have violated their labor agreement. As screwed up as that department and the DA look based on past decisions, this may have happened.

Whatever, the technicalities are that may have violated their labor agreement, these (4) officers are in some serious trouble. I think we all agree with that. And they are allowed due process under the law, despite the fact that George Floyd was not given the same due process.

Tootie4Pack said:

---

Yes, I expect the union to step up and try to do everything they can for their clients. They may have been terminated without due process. In the rush to try to calm the crowds of people, they may have violated their labor agreement. As screwed up as that department and the DA look based on past decisions, this may have happened.

Whatever, the technicalities are that may have violated their labor agreement, these (4) officers are in some serious trouble. I think we all agree with that. And they are allowed due process under the law, despite the fact that George Floyd was not given the same due process.

---

They absolutely should get due process for criminal charges, as anyone deserves in this country. As far as due process for termination, that very much depends on what is in their collective bargaining agreement. That agreement may be itself an issue that needs reform though. There is enough video evidence against Chauvin that the chief should have been able to fire immediately (as they have).

As for all 4 officers being in serious trouble, I *think* Chauvin will be convicted. The two guys who were brand new will probably be offered immunity or low level charges to testify against Chavin and the other. Which is fair IMO, someone 4 days on the job should be able to look to their senior officer for guidance.

IseWolf22 said:

---

Tootie4Pack said:

---

Yes, I expect the union to step up and try to do everything they can for their clients. They may have been terminated without due process. In the rush to try to calm the crowds of people, they may have violated their labor agreement. As screwed up as that department and the DA look based on past decisions, this may have happened.

Whatever, the technicalities are that may have violated their labor agreement, these (4) officers are in some serious trouble. I think we all agree with that. And they are allowed due process under the law, despite the fact that George Floyd was not given the same due process.

---

They absolutely should get due process for criminal charges, as anyone deserves in this country. As far as due process for termination, that very much depends on what is in their collective bargaining agreement. That agreement may be itself an issue that needs reform though. There is enough video evidence against Chauvin that the chief should have been able to fire immediately (as they have).

As for all 4 officers being in serious trouble, I *think* Chauvin will be convicted. The two guys who were brand new will probably be offered immunity or low level charges to testify against Chavin and the other. Which is fair IMO, someone 4 days on the job should be able to look to their senior officer for guidance.

---

Agreed on the new officers. I can't imagine what's going through their heads right now. Knowing nothing about what's necessary to prove 2nd degree vs 3rd degree (is premeditation or intent necessary?), I worry that he may have a tough time proving what is necessary to get the conviction. Which also could be part of Ellison's, the antifa supporter, endgame. Big time conspiracy theory there, I know.

I thought I remembered reading the 3rd degree made sense but I'm not sure 2nd degree does.

https://www.actionnewsjax.com/news/trending/how-is-second-degree-murder-different-third-degree-charges-minnesota/5NZGNC2H4NCMRKXVRX4B7DE5FQ/

Quote:

---

According to Minnesota's state statutes, a person can be charged with second-degree murder under two conditions. First, if the person "causes the death of a human being with intent to effect the death of that person or another, but without premeditation." Second, if the person causes the death "while committing or attempting to commit a drive-by shooting."

---

I don't think Chauvin was trying to kill Floyd. I also don't think he cared about his wellbeing which is why I think the below makes more sense:

Quote:

---

According to state statutes, a person can be charged with third-degree murder "by perpetrating an act eminently dangerous to others and evincing a depraved mind," without regard for life and without intent to kill.

---

Thank you for the info. That is exactly what concerns me. I don't see how he can prove that. When he can't get a conviction, prepare for more riots and speaking about how black people cant get justice.

I agree that the other officers will most likely plea a deal, but in the environment that exists up there , and the video evidence that they just stood there and did nothing ....Any leniency will be washed away by their compliance of doing nothing. I don't believe this will be the same as the Rodney King officers. Too much anger and frustration with the video. Yes, they had video in the King event, but today's environment is so different
than what happened then. Will also be a test for that DA's office.

Any way you look at it, it is a terrible situation. A man was killed by an over aggressive cop and his colleagues just stood there and watched.

Will the judges instructions allow the jury to come back with a lesser charge? If not then this case could be a problem, based on the definition.

statefan91 said:

---

I don't think Chauvin was trying to kill Floyd. I also don't think he cared about his wellbeing which is why I think the below makes more sense:

Quote:

---

According to state statutes, a person can be charged with third-degree murder "by perpetrating an act eminently dangerous to others and evincing a depraved mind," without regard for life and without intent to kill.

---

---

I think even third degree murder would be hard bar to clear.

"...AND evincing a depraved mind" to me is the kicker. Can the prosecutor prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the perp evinced a depraved mind?

I wouldn't feel good about my chances if I was a prosecutor; I'd feel much better about negligent homicide (2nd degree manslaughter in Minn.)

But what will be so key is whether the prosecutor can turn the attention of the jury to the eminence of the danger to George Floyd as evidence of depravity.

The clause is construed as being "so eminently dangerous to others that you would not have done it without having a completely depraved heart or mind."

The act of putting your knee on the neck of a retrained man, listening to him say he can't breathe, and then keeping your knee on his neck for 3.5 minutes after he stopped moving and after your supporting officers tell you they don't feel a pulse, is as eminently dangerous as it reasonably gets.

I wouldn't be sleeping well if I was that prosecutor though, with all that's riding on the outcome and all the eyeballs that will be focused on your courtroom.