5 ms·

(I'm a resident of the Minneapolis suburbs) At this point, from some of my friends in the city, it sounds like there just isn't much oversight at all---they've

by snazz 6y ago

(I'm a resident of the Minneapolis suburbs) At this point, from some of my friends in the city, it sounds like there just isn't much oversight at all---they've now been caught on video taking guns from people with valid licenses and now arresting the press. I don't think that we can effectively apply logic when the police system seems so disorganized.

throwaway894345 6y ago
These seem like flagrant violations of constitutional rights; I would be interested to hear from a lawyer what kind of legal liability the police (as a department and as individual bad-apple officers) are opening themselves up to by behaving this way. Hopefully justice is served and constitutional rights are protected.
- _bxg1 6y ago
  It's become clear time and again that they never open themselves up to actual liability. But it would be interesting to hear how wide the gap is between law and reality in this case.
  - throwaway894345 6y ago
    > It's become clear time and again that they never open themselves up to actual liability. I understand that the criminal justice system is very often lenient on police officers, and I'm strongly in favor of increased police accountability; however, there are still many cases of police officers going to prison and departments/municipalities being sued for police misconduct, so to say that there is no actual liability is hyperbole.
    - _bxg1 6y ago
      We've seen multiple murders by police happen on camera in the past couple years, with little to no action taken. The present one is the first case I know of where anyone from inside the government actually called for an investigation, and it was probably because they were afraid of the very riot situation we now find ourselves in. When they can kill someone who isn't a threat, on camera, and face no consequences, why would we expect them to face consequences for something like a frivolous arrest?
      - throwaway894345 6y ago
        > We've seen multiple murders by police happen on camera in the past couple years, with little to no action taken. I don't doubt this, but I don't see how you get from there to "there is no liability at all". > The present one is the first case I know of where anyone from inside the government actually called for an investigation, and it was probably because they were afraid of the very riot situation we now find ourselves in. I'm not sure what you mean by "anyone from inside the government is called for an investigation"; do you mean you don't think police officers in these situations are never or rarely investigated, charged, etc? Or are you speaking about some other government official (and if so, I don't know what you're talking about specifically or how it relates to this broader conversation about liability). > When they can kill someone who isn't a threat, on camera, and face no consequences, why would we expect them to face consequences for something like a frivolous arrest? Your premise is wrong. A quick Google search turned up this collection of police department settlements[0] and this collection of police officers[1] charged in recent, high-profile killings. Note that there is a middle ground between "there is no accountability" and "the system is working just fine"--we absolutely should increase police accountability, but "there is no liability/accountability" isn't accurate or helpful. [0]: https://www.themarshallproject.org/records/1712-police-settlements https://www.themarshallproject.org/records/1712-police-settl... [1]: https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/cases-police-officers-charged-shootings-66017791 https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/cases-police-officers-ch...
        corrys 6y ago
        > Your premise is wrong. You are both right. However, in the article [1] a large number of police officers were either acquitted, are awaiting sentencing, or were not punished, what the general population would consider, fairly. When we hear about police departments agreeing to settle - that does not give us, as a society, a closure. Individual police officers have committed crimes, but now the tax payers are paying for that? That's not accountability.
        throwaway894345 6y ago
        I generally agree with the above, but you're framing this as a disagreement which makes me think you misunderstood the context of the thread. My position is that there is some accountability but it's not sufficient for any reasonable standard of justice.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- aljg 6y ago
  I don't believe they are opening themselves up to any legal liability. See [1] and links for a disturbing list of recent examples of police receiving qualified immunity. One example from the article: > On May 18, the court turned away three of these appeals, including a jaw-dropping case in which police were granted qualified immunity after literally stealing $225,000. (There is no clearly established right not to be robbed by cops, the court held.) [1] https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/05/george-floyd-supreme-court-police-qualified-immunity.html https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/05/george-floyd-sup...
  - throwaway894345 6y ago
    There's not enough liability, perhaps, but there's certainly some. Here[0] is a list of police department settlements and another[1] of individual police officers being tried and/or convicted for recent high-profile killings. Note that media coverage is inherently sensational and therefore not reflective of reality--just because the media gives much more attention to killings than to the legal repercussions doesn't mean that the latter doesn't exist. In this particular instance, surely CNN has a strong case against the Minneapolis police department? [0]: https://www.themarshallproject.org/records/1712-police-settlements https://www.themarshallproject.org/records/1712-police-settl... [1]: https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/cases-police-officers-charged-shootings-66017791 https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/cases-police-officers-ch...
    - aljg 6y ago
      Good point, I retract my blanket statement of "no legal liability." I should have said that they are not criminally liable. Your link [1] shows how rarely police officers are found criminally liable for murder even in the most egregious of circumstances (only the most egregious ones are prosecuted at all and even most of those result in acquittals). On the other hand you are right that link [0] shows that it is much more common that the police are found to have civil liability. Not personally, of course, the payments will come out of liability insurance (and, therefore, taxpayer coffers).
      - 6y ago
acobster 6y ago
They're highly organized. I think perhaps a better word for their actions is "unjustified," or if you're feeling less charitable, "unjustifiable."
- yborg 6y ago
  There are police departments that are an organizational mess and there are departments that are even corrupt. There was a case here in Illinois in Cicero 20 years ago where the State Police were brought in to take over the force until the leadership could be replaced because of corruption. I can't say anything about the situation with the Minneapolis PD, but it seems like it has a major training problem, there was also the case a couple of years ago of the cop that shot and killed a (white) woman in her PJs who was reporting a possible crime out of the window of their patrol vehicle.
- craftinator 6y ago
  I think that government backed thuggery of this nature was one of the driving forces behind the Second Amendment.
xvf22 6y ago
They're organized but their goals and values are different than you think they are.
kaitai 6y ago
To folks saying "they're highly organized", listen to Walz's press conference -- they're not organized, the National Guard didn't get a plan so didn't go in, it's a series of excuses.

by snazz 6y ago

throwaway894345 6y ago

These seem like flagrant violations of constitutional rights; I would be interested to hear from a lawyer what kind of legal liability the police (as a department and as individual bad-apple officers) are opening themselves up to by behaving this way. Hopefully justice is served and constitutional rights are protected.

_bxg1 6y ago
It's become clear time and again that they never open themselves up to actual liability. But it would be interesting to hear how wide the gap is between law and reality in this case.
- throwaway894345 6y ago
  > It's become clear time and again that they never open themselves up to actual liability. I understand that the criminal justice system is very often lenient on police officers, and I'm strongly in favor of increased police accountability; however, there are still many cases of police officers going to prison and departments/municipalities being sued for police misconduct, so to say that there is no actual liability is hyperbole.
  - _bxg1 6y ago
    We've seen multiple murders by police happen on camera in the past couple years, with little to no action taken. The present one is the first case I know of where anyone from inside the government actually called for an investigation, and it was probably because they were afraid of the very riot situation we now find ourselves in. When they can kill someone who isn't a threat, on camera, and face no consequences, why would we expect them to face consequences for something like a frivolous arrest?
    - throwaway894345 6y ago
      > We've seen multiple murders by police happen on camera in the past couple years, with little to no action taken. I don't doubt this, but I don't see how you get from there to "there is no liability at all". > The present one is the first case I know of where anyone from inside the government actually called for an investigation, and it was probably because they were afraid of the very riot situation we now find ourselves in. I'm not sure what you mean by "anyone from inside the government is called for an investigation"; do you mean you don't think police officers in these situations are never or rarely investigated, charged, etc? Or are you speaking about some other government official (and if so, I don't know what you're talking about specifically or how it relates to this broader conversation about liability). > When they can kill someone who isn't a threat, on camera, and face no consequences, why would we expect them to face consequences for something like a frivolous arrest? Your premise is wrong. A quick Google search turned up this collection of police department settlements[0] and this collection of police officers[1] charged in recent, high-profile killings. Note that there is a middle ground between "there is no accountability" and "the system is working just fine"--we absolutely should increase police accountability, but "there is no liability/accountability" isn't accurate or helpful. [0]: https://www.themarshallproject.org/records/1712-police-settlements https://www.themarshallproject.org/records/1712-police-settl... [1]: https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/cases-police-officers-charged-shootings-66017791 https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/cases-police-officers-ch...
      - corrys 6y ago
        > Your premise is wrong. You are both right. However, in the article [1] a large number of police officers were either acquitted, are awaiting sentencing, or were not punished, what the general population would consider, fairly. When we hear about police departments agreeing to settle - that does not give us, as a society, a closure. Individual police officers have committed crimes, but now the tax payers are paying for that? That's not accountability.
        throwaway894345 6y ago
        I generally agree with the above, but you're framing this as a disagreement which makes me think you misunderstood the context of the thread. My position is that there is some accountability but it's not sufficient for any reasonable standard of justice.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
aljg 6y ago
I don't believe they are opening themselves up to any legal liability. See [1] and links for a disturbing list of recent examples of police receiving qualified immunity. One example from the article: > On May 18, the court turned away three of these appeals, including a jaw-dropping case in which police were granted qualified immunity after literally stealing $225,000. (There is no clearly established right not to be robbed by cops, the court held.) [1] https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/05/george-floyd-supreme-court-police-qualified-immunity.html https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/05/george-floyd-sup...
- throwaway894345 6y ago
  There's not enough liability, perhaps, but there's certainly some. Here[0] is a list of police department settlements and another[1] of individual police officers being tried and/or convicted for recent high-profile killings. Note that media coverage is inherently sensational and therefore not reflective of reality--just because the media gives much more attention to killings than to the legal repercussions doesn't mean that the latter doesn't exist. In this particular instance, surely CNN has a strong case against the Minneapolis police department? [0]: https://www.themarshallproject.org/records/1712-police-settlements https://www.themarshallproject.org/records/1712-police-settl... [1]: https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/cases-police-officers-charged-shootings-66017791 https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/cases-police-officers-ch...
  - aljg 6y ago
    Good point, I retract my blanket statement of "no legal liability." I should have said that they are not criminally liable. Your link [1] shows how rarely police officers are found criminally liable for murder even in the most egregious of circumstances (only the most egregious ones are prosecuted at all and even most of those result in acquittals). On the other hand you are right that link [0] shows that it is much more common that the police are found to have civil liability. Not personally, of course, the payments will come out of liability insurance (and, therefore, taxpayer coffers).
    - 6y ago

acobster 6y ago

They're highly organized. I think perhaps a better word for their actions is "unjustified," or if you're feeling less charitable, "unjustifiable."

yborg 6y ago
There are police departments that are an organizational mess and there are departments that are even corrupt. There was a case here in Illinois in Cicero 20 years ago where the State Police were brought in to take over the force until the leadership could be replaced because of corruption. I can't say anything about the situation with the Minneapolis PD, but it seems like it has a major training problem, there was also the case a couple of years ago of the cop that shot and killed a (white) woman in her PJs who was reporting a possible crime out of the window of their patrol vehicle.
craftinator 6y ago
I think that government backed thuggery of this nature was one of the driving forces behind the Second Amendment.

xvf22 6y ago

They're organized but their goals and values are different than you think they are.

kaitai 6y ago

To folks saying "they're highly organized", listen to Walz's press conference -- they're not organized, the National Guard didn't get a plan so didn't go in, it's a series of excuses.