Proposed changes to US policing

[Pies4shaw]

https://minnesota.cbslocal.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/15909630/2020/06/MPD-Charter-Amendment_VII-062420-Final.pdf

That link is to the text of the changes to the Charter of the City of Minneapolis proposed, as I understand it, by those with the majority number on the Council.

This may undergo change, of course (a consultation process is proposed). At present, though, it would disestablish the police force, establish in its place a department of community safety and violence prevention, provide that people who do not have law enforcement experience would be eligible to head that department and empower the department to have a law enforcement arm with licensed officers.

I should stress, for those of you who are not used to interpreting legislation for a living, that the proposed amendments do not preclude people with a law enforcement backing from heading the department. They merely make it plain that the head does not have to be a policeman.

The most significant impact of these changes would appear to be the structural one. There will be a law enforcement service and that service will be “the police” (whether they go by that title or not) but that service will report to a departmental head with broader operational responsibilities.

Thus, the police in Minneapolis would cease to be a law unto themselves. There is zero prospect of there being no police force, although there is a strong chance it’ll be called something else. The legislation is similar in form to much other legislation throughout the common law world (“The Minister May establish a department of “x”). The fact that the wording appears permissory in form does not mean that there is a serious prospect that the department won’t have a law enforcement arm.

There’ll be 96,000 or so people in Minnesota who’ve just bought overpriced guns and will be looking to get rid of them, again, soon enough.

[stui magpie]

I don't interpret legislation for a living but have been required to do so for many years and have been proven right in arguments with lawyers before.

I read a few things subtly differently.

Currently, the Chief of Police reports directly to the Mayor, this proposed amendment creates a new department and any law enforcement group would report into that department, so we're aligned there

I don't read that the current legislation provides that the chief of Police must have a law enforcement background, unless you include the Chief as a Police officer as detailed at 7.3 (2) which I don't.

The proposed new legislation doesn't just provide that people who do not have law enforcement experience would be eligible to head that department , it requires them to have specified experience in a non law enforcement capacity. So yes, it doesn't prevent a law enforcement person applying but they need to have the specific experience other than law enforcement otherwise they are precluded. It also specifies that the new department will prioritise a "holistic, public health oriented approach"

Interesting that it removes the ratio requirement of a minimum 1 police officer to 0.0017 citizens, which mandated the number of Police and replaced it with a non ratio'd provision for "Law enforcement"

I was intrigued at the references to "licensed peace officer" so I googled that. Interesting.

https://dps.mn.gov/entity/post/becoming-a-peace-officer/Pages/standards-for-peace-officer-eligibility.aspx

In short, It will be interesting to see what comes out of this. A high level of community consultation could twist this in any and every conceivable direction, but I won't be expecting anyone to be handing their guns back anytime soon.

If I lived there I'd be either stocking up too or looking at moving.

[Pies4shaw]

Yes, I don’t think we see things differently. You’ve just looked at a couple of things I wasn’t commenting on.

[think positive]

51 other states to live in, id be moving!

[Wokko]

[Tannin]

Bye!

[Wokko]

[think positive]

Zing!

[think positive]

https://youtu.be/DS8bKS_XAeE

Spot

On

[Pies4shaw]

Anyone watching that drivel would think that defunding the police means there will be no law enforcement authorities.

[think positive]

So in simple terms what will there be?

And also, what was edible, that’s an ex USA policeofficer, a black one, saying in simple terms what will help, and I can’t see where he’s wrong.

[Wokko]

Going great so far

https://twitter.com/i/status/1277072884754788353

[Pies4shaw]

That’s just another cheap and pointless meme from the right. There have been no changes to policing arrangements - the laws have not been passed. Indeed, they have not even gone to consultation stage, yet.

Thus, whatever is in your mate’s video, it’s a symptom of the old policing problem - an element of what needs to be fixed, not a basis for criticising any attempted solution.

[Pi]

I find it interesting that while a city council decides to dismiss most of its police department and undermine the morale of officers on the ground and yet at the same time not one overpaid city bureaucrat has decided to resign.

Surely there must be at least one honest bureaucrat who knows they have failed and feels they need to forfeit their generous emoluments, or perhaps they know if they were to vanish no one would notice.

[think positive]