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.
metcalfmafia said:
So what does that mean exactly? Reorganization? Hiring brand new officers across the board somehow?
metcalfmafia said:
So what does that mean exactly? Reorganization? Hiring brand new officers across the board somehow?
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.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.
It seems like harassment to me. Glad the other police came in to protect him.packgrad said:
No idea. Would you consider this an attack if the officer was just a regular woman and the harassers were men?
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).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.
IseWolf22 said: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).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.
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.
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 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."
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.
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.