ChiefsPlanet Mobile
Page 3 of 5
< 123 45 >
Patteeu Memorial Political Forum>MPLS Police could be on the ballot this fall
displacedinMN 02:42 PM 04-30-2021
Article-

Spoiler!


To me-what ever the plan is-it puts the entire metro at risk
[Reply]
Eureka 11:14 AM 07-01-2021
Lots of cities across the world have their own community run law enforcement. Most people in those cities don't talk back to the law enforcement. See pic on why the citizens obey that type law enforcement.


[Reply]
displacedinMN 08:56 PM 07-01-2021
But they want to defund the police.....This will be fun



A Hennepin County judge has ruled that the city of Minneapolis must hire more police officers to abide by its charter.

On Thursday, Judge Jamie Anderson granted a Writ of Mandamus sought by Minneapolis residents.

According to the city's charter, it must fund a police force of at least .0017 employees per resident. City attorneys argued the charter refers to the most recent decennial census, which would still be the 2010 census. However, the filing states attorneys for both the petitioners and the city agreed to have the court use the census's 2019 population estimate of 429,606.

Additionally, the city said it's projected to have 649 sworn officers by Jan. 1, 2022.

In her decision, Anderson said the Minneapolis residents were able to prove that the city's rising crime rate was caused by a lack of officers and also led to personal injury to them. The filing states one of the petitioners was diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder and had their house shot twice. Anderson also determined the residents didn't have any other course of action to solve the lack of officers, as they wrote a letter to the interim city attorney and received a response saying the city doesn't have to have all of the police positions filled at once.

Therefore, Anderson granted the residents' Writ of Mandamus and ordered the city to raise its number of sworn officers to at least 730.33 or the number equaling .0017 times the city population based on the 2020 Census when that is published, whichever is higher. The city is required to comply by around June 30, 2022, or a date both sides agree on. If the city doesn't employ the required number of police officers by that time, it will have to show cause before the court as to why it hasn't done so.

5 EYEWITNESS NEWS reached out to the city of Minneapolis, which said its attorneys are currently reviewing the ruling.
[Reply]
Bump 09:04 PM 07-01-2021
they'll vote yes for it. Want to know why? because that's what the TV will tell them to do.
[Reply]
Bugeater 09:56 PM 07-01-2021
Originally Posted by vailpass:
Good. Let the animals run the zoo for a while and see what happens.
And all we gonna do
Is walk around to catch the thrill
On streets we call the zoo


[Reply]
displacedinMN 09:10 PM 07-02-2021
Minnesota's largest law enforcement lobbying groups are suing the state over a 2020 law change governing police use of force after failing to persuade the Legislature to push back a deadline for training officers in the new requirements.

The suit, filed Friday in Ramsey County District Court, is asking a judge to declare unconstitutional legislation passed last summer after the murder of George Floyd at the hands of Minneapolis police.

The four groups — the Minnesota Chiefs of Police Association, Minnesota Sheriffs' Association, Minnesota Police and Peace Officers Association, and Law Enforcement Labor Services Inc. — allege the new use-of-force standards unconstitutionally compel officers to forfeit their rights to refuse to testify against themselves in deadly force cases.

Filed against Gov. Tim Walz and the state of Minnesota, the suit also seeks an injunction to delay implementation of certain new requirements "that were intended to require training and for which there has been insufficient time and opportunity to engage in the requisite training."

Claire Lancaster, spokeswoman for the governor, said their office is reviewing the lawsuit and will work with the Legislature to determine whether clarifying language is necessary.

Under the 2020 law change, law enforcement officers can no longer justify deadly force to protect themselves or another person from "apparent" death or great bodily harm. The new law struck the word "apparent" and now reads "to protect the peace officer or another from death or great bodily harm."

The change also added new conditions that the threat be "articulated with specificity" by the officer, is "reasonably likely to occur absent action by the law enforcement officer" and "must be addressed through use of deadly force without unreasonable delay."

The groups argue that Minnesota law enforcement agencies haven't had an opportunity to receive training in the new requirements, saying they received guidance from the Department of Public Safety less than two weeks before the law was set to take effect in March.

"The process that led to last year's law change was rushed under unprecedented circumstances," said Brian Peters, executive director of the Minnesota Police and Peace Officers Association. "This law should have been fixed, but since the legislative session has now concluded, it is necessary to turn to the legal system."

The law enforcement groups say that some police chiefs and sheriffs in neighboring states have refused to assist neighboring Minnesota agencies over concerns about the new requirements. Multiple agencies in North Dakota have since removed officers from interstate task forces, they said.

Jim Mortenson, executive director of Law Enforcement Labor Services, said the law was "not only unconstitutional but impractical" in terms of resources and the time frame.

"When it comes to laws regarding the use of deadly force, it is imperative that we get it right," Mortenson said.

Attorney General Keith Ellison could not be reached for comment.

Stephen Montemayor • 612-673-1755

Twitter: @smontemayor
[Reply]
Eureka 09:38 PM 07-02-2021
It will get to the point that LEO's will not be able to point their gun at a suspect until they can clearly see that a gun is already pointed at them.
[Reply]
chiefzilla1501 10:01 PM 07-02-2021
Originally Posted by Garcia Bronco:
This right here. The police didn't start out this way so-to-say...they evolved to be this way...and why? Because the environment they are in dictates that they do.
They evolved to be this way because for decades they've had uncontrolled power and have been showered with resources. The more citizens resent it, the more their power grows. They are just as responsible for creating that environment. Maybe, just maybe, this kind of overreactive nonsense in MPLS wouldn't happen if we had just listened decades ago. Doesn't it make sense that a community truly committed to community building and reducing retaliation would reduce the need for officers to be "hardened"?
[Reply]
chiefzilla1501 10:27 PM 07-02-2021
Originally Posted by BigRichard:
They could quit en masse and then when everyone needs private security... profit
I know this is meant as a joke, but introducing more privatization to policing is actually kind of an interesting concept to play around with.
[Reply]
displacedinMN 07:07 AM 07-09-2021
Short story-----


MPLS were chasing an armed robbery suspect-Police car hit another and they hit a third and killed the person inside.

NOW-MPLS wants to review their policies on chases.

Why dont we just end the police?

They cant chase, arrest, frisk, look at, restrain or question anyone. They have been castrated in the city of MPLS.

Also, listening to Frey the other day-his words are worthless. no one is going to listen to him. He cannot be voted out soon enough.
[Reply]
Shaid 07:16 AM 07-09-2021
Originally Posted by notorious:
:-)

If they go this route, the new Dept. of Public Safety will become just like the current police eventually.


You can’t deal with scumbag criminals without becoming hardened yourself.
Completely true.
[Reply]
Garcia Bronco 09:27 AM 07-09-2021
Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501:
They evolved to be this way because for decades they've had uncontrolled power and have been showered with resources. The more citizens resent it, the more their power grows. They are just as responsible for creating that environment. Maybe, just maybe, this kind of overreactive nonsense in MPLS wouldn't happen if we had just listened decades ago. Doesn't it make sense that a community truly committed to community building and reducing retaliation would reduce the need for officers to be "hardened"?
Gosh all they need to do is not shoot & murder people are sell drugs in their Community to children and most the stuff would sort itself out in the positive. We don't have a police problem we have a citizenry attitude problem. George Floyd is the perfect example of problem. He's a career Criminal that wouldn't get into a vehicle when he was getting arrested after being in a vehicle driving down to where he went to commit his crime. The direct lack of empathy from an officer like Derek Chauvin is exactly because of people like George Floyd
[Reply]
chiefzilla1501 09:52 AM 07-09-2021
Originally Posted by Garcia Bronco:
Gosh all they need to do is not shoot & murder people are sell drugs in their Community to children and most the stuff would sort itself out in the positive. We don't have a police problem we have a citizenry attitude problem. George Floyd is the perfect example of problem. He's a career Criminal that wouldn't get into a vehicle when he was getting arrested after being in a vehicle driving down to where he went to commit his crime. The direct lack of empathy from an officer like Derek Chauvin is exactly because of people like George Floyd
Or maybe if police had listened to communities for decades we wouldn't have reached a place where Chauvin gets martyred for it. Maybe if we had even the slightest good faith effort at reform we wouldn't need Minneapolis to come swinging with something so extreme. What we are seeing is an overreaction to a lack of progress where one side has flat out refused to compromise.
[Reply]
displacedinMN 05:08 PM 08-20-2021
The latest:

The city cannot decide how to word the ballot question. It has to be done tonight or it cannot be put on the ballot.

Only MPLS can fuck things up this much.
Minneapolis officials were rushing Friday night to reach an agreement on ballot language for a proposal that will determine the future of the city's Police Department.

Twice on Friday, the City Council approved wording that Mayor Jacob Frey vetoed.

"I am appalled by the lack of transparency in this approach. The ballot language leaves voters in the dark and our residents without essential information at the ballot box," the mayor wrote in his second veto of the day. "I cannot in good conscience move this language forward."

The council will return at 6:15 p.m. to decide whether to overturn the mayor's veto or keep it in place. Under state law, city officials have until 11:59 p.m. Friday to finalize the wording and submit it to Hennepin County. If they miss the deadline, they risk being held in contempt of court.

Hennepin County elections officials said they do not recall any instances when a city missed the deadline.

The proposal has become a central issue in the November elections and is drawing national money and attention as people wait to see whether and how Minneapolis will fulfill a promise to transform public safety after George Floyd's murder.

The proposal was written by a new political committee called Yes 4 Minneapolis, but city officials are tasked with writing the precise question that will appear on the ballot.

At the center of the debate — and litigated in court this week — is a question of how much detail they should provide on the ballot.

Late last month, city officials approved a plan to ask voters if they want to change the charter "to strike and replace the Police Department with a Department of Public Safety that employs a comprehensive public health approach, and which would include licensed peace officers (police officers) if necessary, to fulfill its responsibilities for public safety."

Below that question, the ballot would have included a 198-word explanatory note that listed additional parts of the proposal, including some Frey said he wants mentioned.

Yes 4 Minneapolis filed a lawsuit challenging the city's use of the explanatory note, and last week, Hennepin County Judge Jamie Anderson ordered the city to remove it from the proposed ballot language. She said the city had the power to write such notes, but the language it chose was "problematic." She noted that the explanation was longer than the question itself.

The judge said "a voter could very well construe such a lengthy and detailed explanation as either an endorsement or a warning," but declined to speculate on whether the note would help or hurt the proposal's chances of success.

City officials on Friday considered multiple versions that did not contain an explanatory note, but they still fiercely argued over which parts of the proposal should be listed in the ballot question.

Underlying their debate was a question of how to interpret a state law that says: "The statement of the question on the ballot shall be sufficient to identify the amendment clearly and to distinguish the question from every other question on the ballot at the same time."

Some council members argued they couldn't fit in all the details and needed to focus on ensuring they provided enough information to tell residents they were voting on the public safety proposal, as opposed to other questions that will also be on the ballot. That echoed arguments made by an attorney for Yes 4 Minneapolis.

Other council members said they believed they needed to inform voters of all the key language being added and removed from the charter, echoing advice from the city attorney's office.

On Friday afternoon, during their second meeting of the day, council members approved language asking voters if they want to "strike and replace the Police Deparment with a Department of Public Safety which could include licensed peace officers (police officers) if necessary, with administrative authority to be consistent with other city departments to fulfill its responsibilities for public safety."

During that meeting, Frey pushed back on the council's wording.

"Why? Why are we afraid to share the language that this petition clearly states and that would clearly be removed from the charter?" he said.

The mayor wanted the ballot language to mention the removal of the police minimum staffing requirement, the removal of the mayor's "complete power over police operations," and the deletion of a line pertaining to the police chief's job.

Council Member Andrew Johnson said he believed their version covered some of that. Of the removal of the minimum staffing requirement, he said, "I think that is reflected in this, about 'including licensed police officers if necessary.' It is right there in 'if necessary.'"

The mayor and council members, who were divided on the issue, debated what the implications would be for removing the line in the charter that references the police chief's job — and what they could say without misleading voters.

Frey suggested they change the language to say there would be "shared authority by the mayor and City Council." Council Member Cam Gordon said he thought about similar wording, but also believed they covered that by saying the authority over the departmentwould be "consistent with other city departments."

Some council members acknowledged the wording wasn't likely to please everyone.

Council Member Jamal Osman said he believed they had an obligation to work together to provide "language that is clean," and had worked diligently to try to do that.

Still, he added, "None of the sides will be happy."

Terrance W. Moore, an attorney for Yes 4 Minneapolis, said Friday evening that they supported the council's latest ballot language.

Council Member Lisa Goodman said she didn't believe the current language was adequate, and had told her colleagues earlier in the day that they "should expect litigation on the other side of it" if they don't include enough information about the proposal.

"This is not sufficient," she said in the afternoon meeting. "It does not explain what's coming out. It doesn't exactly explain what's coming in. What it is is a poor compromise to get the number of votes needed by the deadline."

The latest version passed along a 9-4 vote, with Goodman, Linea Palmisano, Alondra Cano, and Kevin Reich casting the votes against.

This story is developing and will be updated.

Liz Navratil • 612-673-4994
[Reply]
Eureka 05:24 PM 08-20-2021
I can come up with some simple language for voters with yes or no answers.....

"Do you want a lower presence of police officers in black neighborhoods?"

"Would you like MPD to patrol with one hand tied behind their back?"

"Should MPLS have less police patrols and give the city council board a pay raise?"

"Should MPLS have less police patrols and let the city council board members beef up their own private security?"

Put that on the ballot.
[Reply]
Pasta Little Brother 05:36 PM 08-20-2021
Originally Posted by AdolfOliverBush:
Because most of them can't do better than those jobs.
Aren't you unemployed
[Reply]
Bump 08-20-2021, 05:50 PM
This message has been deleted by Bump.
Page 3 of 5
< 123 45 >
Up