All posts in the topic RNC and the Police (Short link)
Summary
- There are 58 posts — by 27 authors — in this topic.
- Latest post made by Neal Krasnoff at 2008 Jun 30 02:56 UTC
| From | File | Date |
|---|---|---|
| Andrew Hine | DSC02346.JPG | 2008 Jun 11 14:18 UTC |
Perhaps concerns about police behavior at the RNC aren't completely unfounded. At the Obama rally the other night a person handing out flyers announcing a protest on Labor day was placed in a squad car and given a citation for 'scalping' tickets and 'soliciting and peddling.' The bogus charges have been dropped and the city has apologized but the incident is disturbing in that it suggests that there are officers out there who are willing to stoop to lying to stop innocuous activity they simply don't like. Fortunately, an ACLU attorney happened to witness the incident. One wonders how far this might have gone otherwise. While the citation has been dropped there's been no mention of discipline for the offending officers. http://www.twincities.com/ci_9496973?nclick_check=1
The arrest also raises alarm bells for me. The excuse that the police have not
completed training for the RNC does not explain why police officers don't
already know about first amendment free speech rights. While the leafleter has
not filed a suit against the city, surely arrested protesters in August will
file suits. Such suits have dramatically raised the cost of hosting a national
party convention for Los Angeles and New York, where suits are still working
their way through the courts.
I suggest that the police department immediate begin working with officers to
explain that their role is not just crowd control, but also to defend the
individual rights of all Americans.
One, I am grateful to Charlie for posting this necessary reveille. Two, wow.
I've been angry since first reading Charlie's post and I'm still not sure what
to say about it. While I understand this is a 1st amendment issue I fear that
focusing on that causes us to miss the broader and more disturbing implications
of the crime--which it was--committed by the St. Paul police officers in this
incident. It bothers me that the City so far is talking about apologies
instead of investigations and indictments. Look, I am a fan of the St. Paul
police and the current mayor. I think in both cases the job is hard and
complex and criticisms are frequently misplaced. That some St. Paul police
officers are acting like thugs--and that is not inflammatory, consider their
actions--is so profoundly disappointing because of how professional and hard
working the vast majority of our force is. That the mayor should talk about
mere apologies in this case can only, I hope, reflect the great appreciation he
has for our officers. Unfortunately, in this case it's ridiculous.
Set aside the event, the crowd control, the RNC and the protestor's flier. In
other words, set aside the 1st amendment. What is chilling, what should be
arousing our outrage is this: They *lied*. These officers falsely detained a
person--not a ham sandwich or an errant bit of litter, a person just like you
or me. They used the power of their position to imprison a citizen in the back
of a squad for made-up crimes--and not even credible ones! Scalping? That's
what shocks me. I imagine myself standing on a street corner waiting for the
light and suddenly being arrested and thrown in the back of a squad. Why? For
writing this post? For being under 5'10"? Or was it for scalping tickets for
an Abraham Lincoln speech? Who would know? Who would believe me by the time
certain apologies were handed out from credible DFLers?
This was not a misunderstanding. This was a bizarre abuse of power by a couple
of police officers who should, investigation supporting, be thrown off the
force and charged with false imprisonment.
No, seriously, I am not ranting. I believe I have every right to be angry.
What if that had been you? What if the police officers in question had decided
they liked your watch or your physical attributes enough to abuse their state
sponsored power and authority over you. What if you were sitting in the back
of a squad and an officer, someone you respected and trusted five minutes ago,
were, in full consciousness of his/her acts, lying to your face?
We, as citizens, in the interest of a civil society, cede certain authorities
over our persons to state agencies such as the police. Abuse of that trust is,
while perhaps not surprising on occasion, competely unacceptable. This is no
time for apologies from the police or the mayor. The very idea is insulting
and deeply disturbing. The officers in question have proven themselves
unworthy of the special trust which the vast majority of our force carries with
honor. To do anything less than strip them of the power to abuse their fellow
citizens insults every other police officer and threatens to make buffoons of
the mayor's administration.
We have a great City, a great mayor, and an exceptional police force. I, and I
can't imagine I'm alone in this, will be watching with special concern to see
how this incident is handled in hope that our pride and enthusiasm not be
proven naive.
Now granted I haven't seen the police report and am reacting only to my own
sensibilities and to the fact that the department immediately apologized...
The confusion apparently stemmed from the Xcel's request which was
ill-founded, to stop the leafleting. There was a law passed forbidding
ticket scalping on the Arena and Convention Center Block. How they could've
made the stretch is amazing to me. I believe I even authored the ordinance
and can tell you it was simply a prohibition similar to how we regulate
street vendors - not leafleteers.
That said, I understand how a street cop could be persuaded by arena staff
that the restriction applied here. The ordinance is less than a year old
and has only been used at a few Wild games.
What I am grateful for is the demeanor of our demonstrator/advocate. He WAS
excercizing free speech and the general rule is that anywhere the public can
be in a public space, free speech applies. That he did not attempt
physically to free himself is a credit to his judgement and poise. His
restrained behavior doubtless saved the city from a much bigger black eye
than we received. What he did enables us to correct our mistake prior to
the RNC where tempers and feelings may be a few degrees hotter.
We owe him thanks as well as an apology.
If a pound of flesh needs to be exacted, I'd offer to be handled in the same
manner and be dropped ten blocks away. (I'd prefer it be during the hours
Keyes is open so I could stop for a stack of pancakes, however that wasn't
an option for our detainee.) I guess I could invite him along and buy him
breakfast. He can pick the time and day...
I'm being a little light about this even though free speech is a huge
passion of mine. This was serious but I'd ask that in light of the SPPD's
overall excellent track record we move on and do it right next time.
thanks
dave
ward two - RNC epicentre
It's great that the city immediately apologized for this incident but I'd still
like an explanation as to how a cop issued a citation for ticket scalping to
someone handing out a flyer for a protest. So far, I've heard nothing about any
disciplinary action for what looks to me like a serious case of police
overreaching.
On Jun 7, 2008, at 11:08 PM, M Charles Swope wrote:
> disciplinary action for what looks to me like a serious case of
> police overreaching.
I'm curious to hear from others in the forum, who have not already
posted on this topic, about their own opinions of this incident and
their expectations for the RNC convention.
With 35,000 people in attendance and (presumably) lots of
folks passing out flyers and leaf-lets, do you believe
that this incident says anything systematic about how
the police are likely to respond to demonstrators at
the RNC convention?
Are you satisfied with the police response to this incident?
Do you think that police handling of this incident
is a good or bad sign, for how things will play out
during the Republican National Convention?
Best wishes,
Tim Erickson
Hamline Midway
It's some comfort that the Mayor takes the incident at the Xcel Center
seriously enough to order more training for the entire force on the applicable
ordinances and the 1st Amendment. If a few officers, including a sargeant,
demonstrate that they don't understand that it's unacceptable to falsely charge
someone with "ticket scalping" for exercising their constitutional rights by
passing out a flyer, it's not unreasonable to wonder how many other officers
might be similarly inclined. I assume that was in the Mayor's mind when he
ordered additional training.
To say the least, I think it is extremely unfortunate that our police don't
know the difference between first amendment rights and scalping. And I don't
think after the fact apologizing is the most satisfactory response. Why
don't the police know the difference? Why don't the Xcel people know the
difference? "Who" are the Xcel people who advocated this position? What
responsibility do they have for the "error"? What is the relationship
between Xcel and the police about these matters? Is it prearranged?
Who is going to teach all of them the difference between first amendment
rights and scalping? When? It seems pretty obvious to me what the
difference might be--especially for an event that was free, as someone
already pointed out. If there is no other, systemic, response this incident
does not bode well. And it will probably cost us something for this gaffe.
I do believe this is a critically important issue and I am so grateful to
live in a city where people care about it enough to ensure people's civil
liberties are protected. I also appreciate most people (led by SPIFers!)
pushing hard to solve the problems now so our community doesn't melt down to
the horrors of a bad sci fi movie in September -- while also taking care not
to make sweeping generalizations or demonize entire departments or
governments.
The St. Paul School District is also a major player in this (and countless
other) citywide issues. We're not the target today around the RNC prep, but
we undoubtedly will be at some point. I think it helps tremendously when we
I have long suspected that the prime duty of the police it to protect the
welfare of the rich. The rich don't like democracy, first amendment
rights, ordinary citizens, free speech, etc - because they all get in they
way of class rule. Everywhere else, and right here in St Paul. Odds are
they will mishandle the RNC here too, along with the CIA NSA etc here for
that unfortunate event. Were the cops to anger the rich, they'd probably
be disciplined; when they narrow ordinary citizens freedoms, they are let
go, then often celebrated. We don't live in a real democracy; if we want
one we will have to work for it.
-David Shove
Unfortunately this incident adds to the suspicion that SPPD and others will
conspire to covertly and overtly take steps to squash dissent. Here it was
only the River Center staff and a cop or two. In August there will be all the
Republicans, the Secret Service, FBI, BCA, etc. in much much much more
conflicted circumstances.
I can see things like this incident being manufactured or taken advantage of by
provocateurs on the right and amongst the anarchists and then things getting
very nasty and expensive.
My estimate of the likelihood of serious civic disruption is much increased and
some of the source and cure for this is close to home -
Mayor Coleman, City COuncil and SPPD need to make it clear to the officers, the
River Center, the RNC, Ron Paul people -- all of them --- that we take
protecting the 1st amendment more seriously than protecting the psychic comfort
of our guests at the RNC.
When they act to step on dissenters' rights, the City of St Paul should take
effective action to discipline the employees involved and to join demonstrators
in actions to confront in court or otherwise, the Rivercenter, RNC or SS, to
ensure 1st Amt lives in Minnesota.
How about an amendment to the city code to make it a misdemeanor to interfere
with exercise of 1st Amt. rights?
Tim Erickson <email obscured>> wrote: On Jun 7, 2008, at 11:08 PM, M
Charles Swope wrote:
> disciplinary action for what looks to me like a serious case of
> police overreaching.
I'm curious to hear from others in the forum, who have not already
posted on this topic, about their own opinions of this incident and
their expectations for the RNC convention.
With 35,000 people in attendance and (presumably) lots of
folks passing out flyers and leaf-lets, do you believe
that this incident says anything systematic about how
the police are likely to respond to demonstrators at
the RNC convention?
Are you satisfied with the police response to this incident?
Do you think that police handling of this incident
is a good or bad sign, for how things will play out
during the Republican National Convention?
Best wishes,
Tim Erickson
Hamline Midway
Tim Erickson
Hamline Midway
Info about Tim Erickson: http://forums.e-democracy.org/p/timerickson
This topic's messages may be viewed at:
http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/J5gHdFfmNDxvMWOyYgHcN
That's good.
The police protect the welfare of the rich? That's real nice.
Here we live in America, where you have the right to protest anything you may
like and not be arrested, killed, etc. And yet our police protect the welfare
of the rich?
Give me a break.
This was an incident that was not handled well, was corrected, ticket canceled,
apology and all that, and now there will be additional training for all the
SPPD officers.
And still there is yipping about the 1st amendment and free speech and yada,
yada, yada.
Cripes, if I didn't know any better, I'd think some people here believe we live
in some kind of Nazi State.
Get real.
I tend to agree with others on this thread that this is one cop's
problem, a stupid error precipitated by various folks and
circumstances making the SPPD appear as (yes, Gina) Nazis, and not
indicative of any systemic problem with the SPPD; unfortunately at
any given moment in time and in every police department, there are a
significant number of police officers on duty who have a limited
grasp of what their job truly is. While nearly every cop out there
has the 'get the bad guy and protect the innocent' mindset, some
police behavior can become aberrant as perception is guided by
something other than the job description, statutes, protocol, and a
perhaps a little common sense.
This incident, taken with the endorsement of Norm Coleman by the St.
Paul Police Federation, might suggest we've selective police
enforcement or harassment of certain groups based on the politics
going on. The perception of a sort of local Gestapo- or KGB-like SPPD
is unacceptable. I suppose I could demand, in the style of a certain
forum participant, that SPPF disavow such a lawless totalitarian
approach to stifle free speech, but I don't tell unions what to do; I
expect the SPPF to act in the interests of their members, but I can't
help but wonder what those interests actually are and how they jive
with my own. We expect and get much from our police, but political
action on police duty is stupid, unprofessional, and unacceptable.
City of St. Paul officials are to be commended in focusing on the
need for training, but another overarching need is to find a way to
remove recalcitrant or problematic officers; it is a problem for both
the union and government, so both the city and the union must have a
decisive role in dealing effectively with bad apples should training
solutions prove ineffective. Some cops are unaware of who the 'bad
guys' really are, especially when they work with them or see their
faces in the mirror every day; I suspect the majority of police
officers know exactly who these fellow lawless officers are, so are
complicit in their misconduct, i.e., an undesirable manifestation of
'the thin blue line' in which police stand not between the public
and lawless society, but solidly in the way of the free and open
society guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution.
What will happen at the time of the RNC is anyone's guess, but while
this convention of truly 'bad apples' is in town (just my opinion),
there are tremendous opportunities to make public statements in
effective ways that do not test the SPPD's ability to function
without curtailing free speech. I tend to think that with the
preparation going on now, that incidents like the recent one at the
Xcel Center do not foretell anything similar happening when the RNC
hits town. If St. Paul adopts a misdemeanor free speech violation
statute, will we see the SPPD arresting FBI, Secret Service, or other
cops at the RNC? Seems like a useless addition to the ordinances
unless we find that the U.S. Attorney does not prosecute civil rights
cases anymore or people don't sue with or without the help of the ACLU.
Frankly, I'm a little surprised at the broad generalizations that are being
painted about the police force, based upon one situation/mistake. An example,
which the police responded with speed and clarity.
I'm told that there were 35,000 at the Excel Center, of which 15,000 were
unable to get inside the center. While many assumptions are being made about
the fact one leafletter was temporarily detained and improperly cited, nothing
is being made of the very MANY people who did leaflet, undisturbed - or the
fact (I've heard) that this particular leafletter was back in the crowd
leafletting, shortly after his citation. What are we to learn, about all those
who rights to protest or express themselves were protected?
I expect, that with an event this size - MANY St. Paul Police officers were
involved. How would those in attendance evaluate their performance?
It seems to me, that anything other than perfect performance, set our police up
to criticisms and charges of abuse. It seems to me, that to expect NOTHING to
go wrong, is to set a standard that NO human institution or group is
realistically able to achieve. I do not fault anyone for their frustration that
mistakes were made - and calls for improvement. I do fault folks, for their
assumptions that an individual mistake somehow taints the entire department or
that this diminishes our ability to learn from the mistake and hold a
successful convention in St. Paul.
I (personally) will judge our police department and our capacity as a community
to handle the upcoming convention, NOT based upon individual incidents or
mistakes, but on how we respond when mistakes are made and on our overall
performance in dealing with large and/or complex events (looking at the whole
picture). I will try to put individual incidents into perspective and accept
that mistakes will be made AND that the most I can expect from us as a
community is that we respond to those mistakes with integrity and learn from
them.
I'd love to hear some thoughts on what standards other are likely to apply in
evaluating the performance of our police in managing large crowds and balancing
the need for public safety with our rights to express ourselves?
Some years ago I had a similar situation with an individual St. Paul Police
Officer.
I was collecting petition signatures on the sidewalk in front of the Grand
Ol' Creamery. It was a lovely warm evening and there were throngs of people
standing in line outside waiting to purchase their cones. I walked up and
down the row asking people if they were interested in signing the petition.
Many people signed a few said they were not interested and fewer still were
interested in talking about the issue at hand.
Out of nowhere a police officer arrived and demanded that I vacate the
sidewalk. She indicated that the owner of the Creamery had called 911 to
complain that I was harassing customers. No customers stepped forward to
say they had been harassed. The officer indicated that if I did not stop
immediately I would be arrested and charged. She did not say what I would
be charged with, but assured me that I would be taking a trip to jail. I
pointed out that I was on a public sidewalk and there was a small matter of
the 1st Amendment. The officer assured me that those details could be
worked out. Down Town.
Well, although I was not interested in being the cool head, but I was also
not interested in trying to call someone from jail to take care of my
animals, so, Constitution and tail between my legs, I crept away.
The next day I called and talked with St. Paul PD supervisory staff, I don't
recall who, and described the situation. I also consulted with fellow
spiffer Chucke the Pol Repke. All assured me that gathering petition
signatures on a public sidewalk WAS perfectly legal, and that choosing to
avoid jail was probably a wise choice. They recommended I not quote the
Constitution but rather city ordinance. "Police are used to enforcing city
ordinnace, not the Constitution. Don't carry a copy of the Constitution
with you, carry a copy of the relevant city ordinance," was the advice I
received.
I suspect all of us will benefit from the extra training officers will
receive on this issue prior to RNC. I think that it is quite interesting
that the problem in both cases started when the property owner demanded that
the police solve THEIR problem and police assumed that they needed to do
something to solve the proprietors problem, when, infact, the proper
solution was to tell the proprietor what the law says.
Jeanne Weigum
Enjoying a gorgeous day in Merriam Park
Tim would have us judge the police force by how many officers didn't get caught
trampling the constitutional rights of citizens rather than by the ones who
did. I suggest a better criterion would be how the force reacts to the
incident. How will the officers who filed the false charges be dealt with?
Dropping the charges and apologizing is all well and good but if the force is
serious about not seeing this behavior repeated, some disciplinary action needs
to take place.
Further, how is charging someone with "ticket scalping" for handing out a
leaflet a "mistake?" That sounds more like a willful falsehood to me.
Thanks for interesting discussion, with many thoughtful comments.
Thanks for your important post Jeanne - I agree that when petitioning,
which I also have done, it is important to have copy of city ordinance
permitting this with you. I sometimes have notified manager of store
outside what we were doing (this goes back to gathering signatures on
petition supporting grape boycott, which dates me).
Also, fyi I am copying some city officials but am not copying other
people's comments. I think it should be their right to decide if they
want to send their comments to people in the mayo'rs office
Tim, I agree with your points about overall what happened last Tuesday
night. Overall, I think the police did well.
I was disappointed to read about what happened with the one person who
was detained. It was good to learn that he was allowed to return and
that the city has apologized. In many places things could have gone
much worse for him - spending months. I am NOT defending action of the
police in this situation but think the city's reaction to their mistake
was non-defensive and very positive.
Just fyi - here is a note I posted last Tuesday night after returning
from the Obama event.
Very, very positive night for St. Paul city as a run up to RNC.
Protestors urging us to vote for no one were right across street from
xcel - loud, clear and certainly given opportunity to express their views.
Anti abortion advocates were on side walk right at xcel (7th and
Kellogg). People yelled at each other a little but police kept between
people.
After the speech the police wisely closed Kellogg and 7th street north
of Kellogg. This allowed the thousands of people to move out of the XCEL
quickly and easily.
We parked 3 blocks from xcel center and were home (in Highland) 15
minutes after leaving downtown. Very good crowd control - congrats to St
Paul city officials, police and others involved in this effort.
Joe Nathan
Highland Park resident
Great story, Jeanne. Reminds me of the time Chief Finney yelled at me
as he was jaywaking across Cedar. I passed him as I reached my
downtown speed (lower than posted or legal speed there) after leaving
the last signal and he yelled, "Slow down." Can I help it if those
big Ford Crown Victorias are a little noticeable when you press the
accelerator? It is a blue disease, accentuated by Chamber of Commerce
types, with a "cleaning up Dodge" fixation.
Charlie points out my error in describing the incident as a
"mistake;" it was obviously a crime, but one helluva mistake to boot.
Depending on the record and any pattern of abuse, I'd like this
officer to be a former SPPD employee.
Sorry, no one is going to be fired over this.
We have a personnel policy that responds to errors by instructing, teaching
and assisting the individual staffer and his or her colleagues to understand
how a situation should have been done differently.
I'd suggest that anyone calling for an officer's head on this start
remembering that our police force is made up of men and women who represent
our community and have the overwhelming support of the St. Paul public. We
expect them to do their best and we don't scapegoat or publically pillory
officers when they are second guessed. We respect them and we would trade
them for no other department in the country.
dave
ward 2
I am posting the following on behalf of Bruce Nestor, President of the National
Lawyers Guild-Minnesota Chapter, because he is not a member of this forum.
The arrest of Mic Kelly by St. Paul Police for leafletting outside the X-Cel
center is not merely a mistake but all too typical of how St. Paul Police
treat the exercise of free speech rights. Other incidents have already been
described by people in other posts. In November of 2006, the St. Paul Police
arrested five people who were peacefully picketing outside the Mexican
Consulate in St. Paul. They were charged with an ordinance violation of
obstructing sidewalks (based on an ordinance that sounds like it was written
in the 1800s and applies to street peddlers) and disorderly conduct. The
charges were groundless and dismissed without filing a formal complaint once
reviewed by the St. Paul City attorney. Not to the mention that the
so-called "apology" for Kelly's arrest wasn't really an apology, but a
justification/explanation about a "mistake" --- it was simply impossible to
be confused that leafletting is peddling.
Written by:
Bruce D. Nestor, Attorney
Minneapolis, MN
Posted by:
Gena Berglund
Attorney
Macalester Groveland
National Lawyers Guild Legal Observer Coordinator
www.nlgminnesota.org
While I sincerely appreciate Dave's comments and reasoning and while I have no
desire to see St. Paul get a black eye, I don't think this is the sort of thing
we should want to leave behind. I apologize for calling for an officer to be
"thrown off the force," but I don't apologize for suggesting that depending on
the findings of an open investigation, the officer should be disciplined up to
termination if appropriate. It is a very big deal for people in positions of
authority to make-up reasons to detain us. I applaud the City's decision to
develop additional training around these issues but, as has been pointed out,
this incident seems not to have been a mistake but rather an intentional abuse
of power. I find it hard to believe that our police are unaware that lying
about why they detain people is a no-no. My point being that training about
City ordinances is not a substitute for ensuring that officers don't choose to
violate other citizens' civil rights and consequences, including termination,
are presumably a legitimate route to than ensurance.
Councilmember Thune writes:
"We have a personnel policy that responds to errors by instructing, teaching
and assisting the individual staffer and his or her colleagues to understand
how a situation should have been done differently. ... We ... don't scapegoat
or publically [sic] pillory officers when they are second guessed. ..."
This sounds reasonable enough if the incident in question is an honest mistake.
However, it makes no sense if the incident in question is really a case of
misconduct. So, the question becomes does an officer's charging someone with
ticket scalping for handing out a leaflet constitute an honest mistake of
judgment or is it charging someone with an offense the officer knows did not
occur? If it's the latter some discipline would seem to be in order. Perhaps
not firing but at least a reprimand. If it's the former, shouldn't we have not
just an apology but some explanation as to how such a "mistake" could be made?
BS city ordinance used to trash the Bill of Rights and the Minnesota Constitution: (Define peddler) Peddler means any person who shall sell or offer for sale goods or wares, or other articles of value including event tickets The term "peddler" shall not apply to any person who may sell or peddle the products of the farm or garden occupied and cultivated by themselves or who sells at a stand at one (1) of the public markets. ........ (c) Peddling is prohibited within one hundred (100) feet of an entrance to an entertainment venue within three (3) hours of an event scheduled at that entertainment venue. ..... http://www.ci.stpaul.mn.us/web/CityCode/lc345.html ANY cop that truly believed handing leaflets out is covered by the above should have failed the police academy entrance exam. The officer either never made it past the 6th grade or, the officer knowingly violated Mr Kelly's right to free speech. Mr Thune, spinning it only makes it worse. Assuming the officer failed his/her 6th grade reading class: If ignorance of the law is no excuse, why should the officer(s) in question get a free pass for ignorantly enforcing the law?
Having gone back and read the media coverage of the situation, I
cannot find any information that says that the police CHARGED or
ACCUSED the leafletter with "ticket scalping" OR "peddling" rather
both articles (I found) state that some police and the Excel Center
Staff believed that distribution of leaflets was PROHIBITED UNDER AN
ordinance that was designed to prevent ticket scalping and peddling
near the convention center. (Does anyone have the text of this
ordinance?)
Has anyone ever seen any other laws or ordinances in our community
that cover more than the one behavior?
It seems to me that folks are overstating the charge, by accusing the
police of lying about the man's activities, when in fact this was
really only a dispute about whether or not the ordinance in question
covered the distribution of flyers. I can't see where anyone actually
accused the man of anything other than "distributing flyers." This, in
my opinion, does NOT appear to be a dispute about what the man was
doing, only a dispute about whether or not the ordinance prohibits the
distribution of flyers.
I don't find it all that hard to believe, that some folks MIGHT have
legitimately believed that an anti-peddling ordinance might also cover
leafletting, especially if they were told so, by other people who
appeared to know what they were talking about. This is NOT about
whether or not leafletting is the SAME as peddling, its about whether
or not the intent of the city council was to include leafletting ALONG
with peddling in this ordinance (I'm guessing, that no one had the
text in front of them to examine and that they were relying on
interpretation).
Clearly, the final determination was incorrect - but, it certainly
does not leave me to believe that their is any clear-cut case of lying
or abuse. In either case, the man in question was back on the street
distributing flyers, after a short time, and the police are seeking to
clarify the situation to prevent this confusion in the future.
Here are two quotes, that will hopefully help clarify the situation
(if anyone has other information, please feel free to share it here):
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
"Tom Walsh, a St. Paul police spokesman, said police
initially believed that Kelly's leaflet distribution
was in violation of an ordinance that prohibits
peddling within a certain distance of the Xcel Center."
http://www.startribune.com/local/stpaul/19586339.html?location_refer=St.%20Paul
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
"At issue was an ordinance amendment passed by the City
Council in December, effective February. The impetus
to restrict peddlers' activity around entertainment
venues was a state law enacted last August that
allowed ticket scalping, said Bob Kessler, director of
St. Paul's Department of Safety and Inspections.
The city ordinance was intended to keep scalpers and
others selling goods from blocking foot and vehicle
traffic, Kessler said.
As of Tuesday, the Xcel "interpreted the new ordinance
as saying you couldn't hand anything out," said Jack
Larson, the center's vice president and general manager.
On Thursday, Larson said the Xcel learned from the city
that the ordinance didn't apply to leafleting."
http://www.twincities.com/ci_9506888
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Best wishes,
Tim sed
> Having gone back and read the media coverage of the situation, I
> cannot find any information that says that the police CHARGED or
> ACCUSED the leafletter with "ticket scalping" OR "peddling" rather
> both articles (I found) state that some police and the Excel Center
> Staff believed that distribution of leaflets was PROHIBITED UNDER AN
> ordinance that was designed to prevent ticket scalping and peddling
> near the convention center. (Does anyone have the text of this
> ordinance?)
Tim, you are exactly correct. We clearly do not know all the details of
this incident, and I think it that those who want to tell us it was far
more than a minor event have the burden of presenting a more complete
picture. Right now, what I hear are accusations against our Police, not
facts.
For example, we know that this person was handing out leaflets. That does
not mean that he was "only" handing out leaflets. Did he say anything to
people as they went by? Was the speech of a protected kind, which is to
say "Register and Vote for Obama!" or was it not protected commercial
speech such as "Buy my T-shirts!"? What did the leaflets say, and was
their content protected or not?
I realize that some of you may have answers to these, and I'd welcome
them. I've held off waiting for someone to provide actual facts in this
case, since the papers had very little in the way of facts. To jump to
conclusions without facts is ridiculous, and I won't do it.
Is it possible that our Police screwed up bigtime? Sure, they're only
human. Is it possible that there was a minor misunderstanding? Offhand,
that's what I'm most likely to believe.
I trust our Police and want to think that they don't do really stupid
things (unlike in some nearby cities). However, it does happen and I
recognize that. I think that as a resident of this city and a resident of
the neighborhood 3 blocks from RNC-Zero I should not get excited one way
or the other and remain calm. I will wait for facts before passing
judgment, as per the great American tradition.
You have facts? Please, let me know. Accusations? I've heard those.
Thank you Tim, it certainly appears you are right. I misinterpreted what I had
heard and read about the incident. I regret that and appreciate the
correction. I do think this incident was worth discussing, just not as rashly
and immoderately as I did.
I think this all comes down to Monday morning quarterbacking.
Everybody has a story or has heard a story of someone being
"brutalized" by the police. OBVIOUSLY the police are the bad
guys...they just want to quash everyone's rights and be bullies.
What my impression is, based on the NEWSPAPER article (not anyone that
was actually present) was that the police were called by the arena and
in the interests of keeping the peace, the police responded. This is
probably the same thing that happened to Ms. Weigum. The police
received a complaint and they responded. Not every officer is a lawyer
or a constitutional scholar. While you and I may have our statutes
memorized and at total and instant recall, the same cannot always be
said of every officer. They are people just like the rest of us. The
have bad days, they get yelled at, spit on and beat up. And then they
are told they are supposed to have inhuman levels of patience and
legal recall.
This officer was responding to a complaint and tried to handle it as
best they could without causing a big scene. It did get handled (for
better or worse) and what's done is done.
How many other jobs have the general public calling for your head on a
plate on a daily basis. Whether the officer screwed up or not, he/she
was just doing their job - they weren't off on a cigarette break, they
weren't calling in sick when they really weren't. They didn't hit or
in any way hurt anyone and, from what I read, they were polite about
it.
Enforcing the law is a very difficult and stressful job. There is no
way I could do it. I trust the police and if they screw up, I have
faith that the situation will be rectified (such as it was in this
case).
Give these guys a break.
Chris Rybisky
Cathedral Hill
Hi folks,
I'd like to first thank the National Lawyers Guide, especially their New
York Branch, who represented, and are still representing, a large number of
protesters from four years ago. They have saved a large number of protesters
large sums of money, and have made some money for some of the protesters.
One aspect of what may be coming may again tax the resources of the local
branch. I've heard of fears from some segments of potential protestors of
the art of targeting.
It does involve activities breaking the law so that would be substantially
different that the leaflet distributor of recent conversations. But it is
non violent, and non threatening breaking of the law (yes, certainly subject
to interpretation and judgement). And certainly the type of law not
generally responded to by handcuffs or rubber bullets or other types of
missles. But still, maybe, legal to enforce.
My son was one helped by the New York branch. His police report noted, that
as part of a large group of bicyclers, he ran a red light and was
obstructing the right of way. He was arrested, booked, spent the night on
the island, and lost his bike. And he violating a law. The New York branch
represented him without requiring his presence and it cost him $115. We also
made a donation after the fact to the guild.
But he looks like a bum. He recycles everything, including patching his own
closes and utilizing trash for many constructive projects. And his friends
look like bums. And I'm envious of their ability to not use resources and to
convert unknown resources into productive things. Sometimes I'm envious of
being able to look like a bum.
But never the less there are fears of targeting along with the application
of enforcement dealing with generally minor offences with reactions that
appear to feed negative responses. What some may call an over-reaction in
light of other more severe possibilities that need to be protected from.
And along with that, there is also fear of targeting when no offense has
been committed.
Just some fears.
Another one is the presense of security that doesn't have the same community
involvement as our own police. They note stories of hired guns, so to speak,
for security on the streets, and these folks leave town after their done
with their assignment. I remember hearing about that a few months ago in the
forum, but have not since. Has that gone away? Or is it just accepted as
happening?
Just another fear.
To me, some of the stories I hear sound like exaggerations or things that
can't possible happen here. I remember being 20 in 1971 and hanging out here
and there listening and observing and participating. But for fairly
intelligent people including graduates with honors from Madison in history,
sciences, etc, I was saddened and angry to witness their continued fear of
even making these comments. Here, in St. Paul?
I certainly hope everyone stays cool, and let it stay at the level of just
protesting.
By the way, if you know of any hungry protesters send them by my house and
We'll preach Ghandi, King, Thoreau, and Lennon at them along with pop,
burgers, hot dogs, veggies and tofu. We have family experience in feeding
thousands down in Waveland, just down the road (missing then) from Gulfport
Mississippi a few years ago. Perhaps I can tap into that experience for some
guidance.
Damn, I just know there's a law somewhere that states I can't feed a certain
number of strangers in my back yard for free!
Pat Byrne wrote:
"One aspect of what may be coming may again tax the resources of the local
branch."
Donations to NLG-MN's legal defense fund are needed. If you wish to donate
visit:
www.nlgminnesota.org
Gena Berglund
National Lawyers Guild - Minnesota Chapter, Legal Observer Coordinator
Macalester Groveland
Pat,
There is a simple way to ease all your fears. DON'T PROTEST OUTSIDE THE LAW!
The police didn't arrest any of those inside the convention for the rally. I am
pretty sure the police will not be arresting any of those inside the convention
in September. I am also pretty sure the police will not be arresting any
delegates inside the convention in Denver.
Others, like your son, have chosen and are choosing a negative way to voice
their opinions. They are intentionally pressing the law to draw any attention
away from those using legal means of expression.
You say your son chooses to look like a bum. There is no reason why he and the
others can't put on a suit and tie and raise the millions of dollars to rent
the Excel Center the week after the Republican convention. Then thay say what
ever they want to say. Of course they wouldn't get much coverage because no one
really wants to hear what they have to say. They are just a bunch of whiners.
And don't dare tell me it can't be done. Or the oppressive republican, rich,
Bush buddies won't allow it. Five years ago O' Bama was an unknown nobody in
local politics. Last week he preempted the RNC in their own 'house' to claim
the nomination from the supposedly anointed queen of the Democratic Party. I
didn't see any police trying to arrest him. In fact, he is now one of the "rich
folk the police are hired to protect" against the leafleters. O'Bama got
standing room only crowds as well as national and international audiences to
hear his ideas. He was by far more constructive and helpful than any protesters
will be as they get carted off to jail.
Of course the O'Bama route is a lot of hard work and determination. It is much
easier to look like a bum, break a few windows, shout a bunch of obsentaties,
and try to squelch the others man's freedom of speech.
Protesters do us all a favor. Spare us the cost and embarrassment. Stop your
pouting and just stay home. That way you will have no fear of the police!
Dean Sheldon,
SA Park
----- Original Message -----
From: Pat
To: 'St. Paul Issues Forum'
Sent: Monday, June 09, 2008 6:24 PM
Subject: Re: [SPIF] RNC and the Police
Hi folks,
I'd like to first thank the National Lawyers Guide, especially their New
York Branch,
Most Americans do just stay home....like years ago in American history the
'American Rebels' were looking to be winning over The Brits and the rebels
became the staus quo and the supporters of the Brits went scurring like rats
onto boats and into Canada. Loyalists and the opposition (i.e. rebels) define
American Revolution, pro and con define a debate free speech define democracy
and the voices from where ever that want to shut down the conversation, the
debate, the free speech are promoting rebellion and more....so whose promoting
violence and actually using violence to protect and serve? The SPPD chief is
being disingenuous promoting non violence for the rest of us while over
looking & justifying it in his department. HMMMMMMMM....another citizen opinion
to review!
I won a case once, on appeal, where building owners (like Excell) and managers
instructed SPPD police by memo and letter on how what and when they want a
police response and in this case SPPD applied the law wrongly the citizens be
dammed.
Thanks for the illustration. There are of course a number of personal
reactions that I sigh at and shake my head, as much as others, in a personal
reaction, do the same reading my original. Stay home and you have nothing to
fear? Equating speaking your mind to a large audience as whining? Expression
as a negative way to voice their opinions? Assume obscenities and broken
windows are part of the process? (What actually is obscene has always made
for interesting conversation - I've always enjoyed the rant from the movie
Bullworth).put on a tie and suit? In the art of targeting, I suppose
appearing like a bum would be easier to change that appearing like a
minority. Looking like a bum is the same as being a bum? (Hey, now that I've
used it, what is a bum?).
As an ordinary citizen, I'll take this one bum appearing person instead of
ten wall street types (yes, it's a bad sterotype there too) when I compare
what they do in the way of positive actions AND non negative actions. As a
father the ratio is much much different.
But again, I'm taking an opportunity and either thank you or apologize to
you, for exercising it.
But the points or questions gets reinforced. Will our local law enforcement
have the same predispositions? Are laws meant for one situation going to be
applied in this situation, one, because they can, and two, because the
targets appear to be someone that aren't defendable? Or as valued? Will they
also be saying 'stay within the law, and you have nothing to worry about,
especially if they add ALL the laws? When you know the logistics of 1000's
and 1000's, of varying backgrounds, expressing themselves at these unique
opportunities, isn't going to let that (All ...) happen. Will it be
Minnesota judgement used? And will non local law enforcement be less
tolerant or caring of the negative reinforcement possible with not using the
type of judgement you expect from a local cop?
I'd still say remember this is Minnesota, or remember this is St. Paul, and
stay cool out there.
P.S. Say, when did Obama turn Irish?
P.P.S. You don't need to send just the bums; hungry is good enough.
IMO, posters ought to educate themselves at a rudimentary level about the law and constitution before ranting uncontrollably...or be embarrassed. Here is a start from a "law enforcement" perspective ... However, there are OTHER perspectives ... The first amendment is not entirely settled law. From http://www.lectlaw.com/files/con10.htm by DANIEL L. SCHOFIELD, S.J.D., Nov. 1994. [Special Agent Schofield is the Unit Chief of the Legal Instruction Unit at the FBI Academy.] The Supreme Court has indicated that in the context of protests, parades, and picketing in such public places as streets and parks, "...citizens must tolerate insulting, and even outrageous, speech in order to provide adequate breathing space to the freedoms protected by the First Amendment."1 Police face difficult constitutional and operational issues when tasked with the dual responsibility of maintaining public order and protecting the first amendment rights of protestors and marchers. This article discusses recent court decisions concerning the constitutionality of permit requirements and injunction-based restrictions that limit the time, place, and manner of expressive activity in public places. Three general first amendment principles guide departmental decisionmaking in controlling public protest. First, political speech in traditional public forums, such as streets and parks, is afforded a very high level of first amendment protection, and blanket prohibitions of such speech are generally unconstitutional. Second, reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions on such speech are permissible if they are content-neutral, narrowly tailored to serve substantial government interests, and leave ample alternative ways for the speech to occur. Third, speech or expressive conduct can be restricted because of its relationship to unlawful conduct, such as disorderly conduct or trespass. Content-Neutral Permit Requirements The first amendment permits the government to impose a permit requirement for those wishing to engage in expressive activity on public property, such as streets, sidewalks, and parks.2 Any such permit scheme controlling the time, place, and manner of speech must not be based on the content of the message, must be narrowly tailored to serve a significant governmental interest, and must leave open ample alternatives for communication.3 The Supreme Court has held that any permit regulation that allows arbitrary application is "...inherently inconsistent with a valid time, place, and manner regulation because such discretion has the potential for becoming a means of suppressing a particular point of view."4 The Supreme Court has ruled unconstitutional permit schemes that vest government decision-makers with uncontrolled discre-tion in deciding whether to issue a particular permit. ... and much more here: http://www.lectlaw.com/files/con10.htm I don't have first hand information, but based on the news reports, the ordinance the leafletter was probably charged under is here: http://www.stpaul.gov/web/CityCode/lc345.html#sec345.01. It is long. But the definitions that potentially relate to the unlawful arrest are below: Peddler means any person who shall sell or offer for sale goods or wares, or other articles of value including event tickets The term "peddler" shall not apply to any person who may sell or peddle the products of the farm or garden occupied and cultivated by themselves or who sells at a stand at one (1) of the public markets. Solicitor means any person traveling either by foot, motor vehicle, or any other type of conveyance from place to place, house to house, or street to street, taking or attempting to take orders for sale of goods, wares, merchandise, for future delivery, whether or not such individual carries or exposes for sale a sample of the subject of such sale; provided, however, that this chapter shall apply only to solicitors who demand, accept or receive payment or deposit of money in advance of final delivery, and provided that he is not a transient merchant or peddler as defined herein. Transient merchant means any person, individual, copartnership and corporation, both as principal and agent, who engages in, does or transacts any temporary and transient business in this state, either in one (1) locality or in traveling from place to place in this state, selling goods, wares and merchandise, and who, for the purpose of carrying on such business, hires, leases, occupies or uses a building, structure, vacant lot or railroad car for the exhibition and sale of such goods, wares and merchandise.
Does anyone have a digital copy of the offending leaflet? If it's about truth
and stuff, we could put it on True Blue Tube. Then no one can confiscate it or
silence the message.
Do the offending police officers live in Saint Paul? One of the things Matt
Bostrom and I totally agree on goes something like this: "We live here and have
to live with the aftermath, so we don't want to do anything stupid." I'm sure
he feels as let down as I do. Some cops don't seem very "connected" to the
soul of Saint Paul, and maybe their prowlers need to be flyered with "Trust Me"
lit.
As a licensed peddler myself, I can tell you firsthand that the XEC is not
particularly peddler-friendly and no doubt played a role in this. I cannot
sell Cubes freely around there like in all other parts of town and they don't
make exceptions. They wouldn't even let me sell them at the Millard Fillmore
Dinner exhibition (inside; sort of like a "CivicFest"). That's their
prerogative, I guess, but come on. Where's the harm? Where's the malice?
Aren't I part-owner anyway?
Was this incident captured on video? Photo?
Do the police know people like Sarah Martin? She is the nicest lady you'd ever
want to meet and is hardly "the enemy." She should feel like she's being
protected and served, not worried about unruly cops. Which brings up the Guest
Police - we should probably flyer their cars, too.
You can send any messages and other material for True Blue Tube ("Reforming
Media") directly to me. It's kind of a "first in, first on" type of
programming hierarchy, but all material must pass muster (truthfulness,
cleverness, vulgarity issues, legibility, creativity, funny, horrifying, ...)
The sooner you submit, the better your chances.
Also, if you have a stimulus package burning a hole in your American-made
pocket, send that, too, please. "TBM" I will match you dollar-for-dollar up to
$600. (For a fun stimulus package rap, Google "She Wants My Stimulus Package
video BarelyPolitical")
Wait until you see the cartoons and art and TV shows and movies and news and
interviews and ...
A Hine
West Seventh
www.truebluemn.com
The attached "Please Explain Yourself" print is by Nomadic Press, Stryker &
Annapolis, Saint Paul, Minnesota, USA, Earth
The following file was added to this topic:
Tim wrote, "This is NOT about whether or not leafletting is the SAME as
peddling, its about whether or not the intent of the city council was to
include leafletting ALONG with peddling in this ordinance (I'm guessing, that
no one had the text in front of them to examine and that they were relying on
interpretation)."
Tim is wrong. This is not about the intent of the city council or any other
government. This is about the liberty of the people, each individual. All
powers of the government come from the people--each individual. The people
cannot just "give up" their rights and do not give up their fundamental rights
(within reason) to participate in large events. This is the American
Experiment, the framers' democracy, a government "by the people, and of the
people," a first principle of the American democracy. The FIRST right is the
right of free speech. It can't be taken away wholesale by a city council or any
other level of government. As a first principle of democracy, every citizen
should know--and those required to take the citizenship test must know--the
primacy of individual rights as the foundation of our government. Our
government does not rule us, we (the electorate) rule the government.
Now, we had a discussion about the pros and cons of hosting a national
political convention. A review of the New York and Los Angeles experience
clearly showed that the costs far outweighed the benefits when the court costs
of those arguing that their first amendment rights were violated by the
government (police) are included. As noted by others in this thread, some of
these cases are still in the courts, costing local taxpayers today.
While I believe our people in blue are St. Paul's best (I love the Chief) and I
believe that hosting the convention can be a boost to our community, it has to
be done right. The rights of the protesters, like everyone else, must be
respected. One would think that the New York/LA experience and other recent
events in St. Paul would have made all police officers, all public officials,
and anyone involved with hosting the convention highly sensitive about first
amendment rights. One would think that police officers would have brushed up on
the first amendment and not be waiting for training just before the August
convention; that the opinion of Xcel personnel would not be assumed to trump
the first principle of democracy; and that public servants would be putting
everyone on notice that we need a "perfect" convention experience.
No, I do not know all the facts in this case. No, I am not an expert on the
ordinance. No, I do not believe everything I read in the paper. No, I do not
believe the two police officers "acted like Nazis." Nevertheless, this incident
gives the St. Paul police a black eye. It calls into question the judgment of
public officials responsible for our hosting the convention, and the planning
for the event. We, the people, should be putting them on notice that we are
watching how this incident is handled as an indicator of how the convention
will be handled, how much we can expect citizen rights to be respected, and how
much cost or benefit the convention will bring St. Paul. Our voting support
depends upon their job performance.
Are we ready for the August Republicans? Public officials say, No, we have to
train our police in the first principles of democracy, as quoted in the media.
I am concerned by that response and certainly hope that our public servants are
paying attention.
Douglas Petty
MacGroveland
Let's be intellectually honest. These protesters are nothing more than whining
anarchists whose goal is to stomp on the free speech rights of others. As
Obama has shown by example, they could rent the Excel Center and say whatever
they want for as long as they want. Absolutely nothing stops them. So there is
no argument regarding their lack of freedom of speech. However, there are
several reasons why they won't do this. First, it is much harder. Second, no
one would listen. Third, their main intent is not to be heard but rather to
silence the opposition.
The protesters could hold a march most any other place on the streets of St.
Paul most any other time. But no, they have to go where the other guy has spent
a lot of effort and money to gather a crowd and the media. They have chosen
this time and place in order to steal somebody else's free speech right. Their
whole point is to divert as much attention away from the RNC as possible. They
don't want an intellectual debate. They don't want to hold a press conference
on the other side of the Excel. They want to be right in the face of the
convention so the media looks at them not other guy. They want to shout louder
so the other guy can't be heard. Their main focus is to shut the other side
down. They are hiding behind the first amendment in order to steal that right
from others.
Just because they have a right to free speech does not mean we have to be
forced to listen. If the press would recognize that, they would completely
ignore these protesters..... not one word in print nor take one picture
...totally ignore them. Wouldn't that be refreshing?
The protesters have had their free speech. We have listened, assessed,
discarded, and moved on. They should also.
Dean Sheldon, SA Park
I have different concern about this reported incident - it appears that the
officer was taking orders from the XCEL staff, should this have gone through
police management? Then the officer would have immediately have known that the
law was being applied incorrectly and then if it was law breaking, it could be
handled appropriately in priority.
Now since the mantra of Obama people includes "respect", it was about the
nicest crowd that one can get. I as a citizen journalist could have been
immediately on the convention floor. Instead I choose to go through the line
with my friends. I was taking pictures and observing. The biggest impact is
that we heard that all the sandwich shops were running out of food. The
wierdest stuff was the Minnesota wave going throughout the lines. Basically
political volunteers handled most of the organizing work, although the police
determined where the lines went. I took pictures and documented what people
were working the line.
Vendors - not campaign official, just normal vendors selling buttons and
t-shirts
Voter Registration - register to vote
Volunteer - volunteer on the Obama campaign
Protest - a very nice gentleman asking people to protest the RNC
Contribute - a man in a wheelchair asking for donations to a non-profit
Religion - always someone assuming that they are the only ones with beliefs and
religion
Line cutters - yep, always a few who don't think people notice
None of these people were in any way bothersome, so one would not even think
about asking about bringing in the police. With nearly every person carrying a
phone, it would have been very easy to call the police. I thought the police
were there for traffic and high level security. The horse patrol had the best
presence, because people just like the horses and I am sure the horse patrol
could both see well and respond well.
So given this experience, here are my concerns
1) Why did the officer listen to XCEL staff instead of going through police
management?
2) What is the policy on enforcing laws and rules that are not normally
enforced? Basically when rules and laws are unequally enforced and when most St
Paul citizens would not have even complained, we have to really question
policy.
3) The police response should be appropriate to level of alleged lawbreaking.
Even if the officer thought that the person was scalping, then shouldn't the
officer have taken ID and written a ticket? My understanding is that only a
missing ID requires a ride downtown.
So while I totally agree with Council Member Thune about not picking AN
incident or AN officer, still I am asking the whole city council and police
management, are there layers of problems here that really require a policy
review and a policy re-training?
Grace Kelly nicknamed Kelly
Curmudgeon in Merriam Park
I am posting a message written by "Michelle Gross" of Communities United
Against Police Brutality at <email obscured>. She is not a member of the
forum.
It needs to be pointed out that Mickey Kelly was not "detained"
(which involves keeping a person in the same location briefly to
allow investigation of a crime) but was, in fact, arrested and taken
10 blocks away before being released. This illegal arrest was far
worse than a mere inconvenience as it represents a gross violation of
his rights. The 10 block distance is significant as St. Paul police
are well aware that they severely fractured Mic's foot in a previous
incident at a demonstration at the capitol. They meant to make it
difficult for him to return to the Excel Center and to practice his
First Amendment rights. An apology after the fact will not suffice
since those rights, once taken, cannot be regained.
It is ludicrous to think this is a "teachable moment" for the
officers involved, who are supposed to be familiar with the laws they
are charged to enforce. Further, falsification of police reports and
filing false charges are both crimes and need to be punished as
such. Failure to do so validates the practice and encourages it to continue.
The excuse that police were doing what Excel staff asked them to do
is also ridiculous. Since when do police take their marching orders
from business owners? Laws need to be applied across the board and
police cannot be allowed to manufacture arrests and twist laws to
fulfill the agendas of business owners, politicians and other elites
of society.
Written by Michelle Gross
CUAPB
Minneapolis
Posted by Gena Berglund
National Lawyers Guild Legal Observer Coordinator
www.nlgminnesota.org
Macalester Groveland
On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 11:39 AM, Gena Berglund <email obscured>> wrote: > I am posting a message written by "Michelle Gross" of Communities United Against Police Brutality at <email obscured>. She is not a member of the forum. "Since when do police take their marching orders > from business owners?..." > Written by Michelle Gross > CUAPB > Minneapolis > > Posted by Gena Berglund > National Lawyers Guild Legal Observer Coordinator > www.nlgminnesota.org > Macalester Groveland > > > Gena Berglund > Macalester Groveland, Saint Paul > Info about Gena Berglund: http://forums.e-democracy.org/p/genaberglund Since when? REALLY? Since...the dawn of time...I'm thinking. Sometimes it's hard to figure out when people are being sarcastic in writing, but...come on. Business has been and continues to dictate the law of the land. We could go on and on with examples (copyright, private property, the whole concept of corporations being codified as law). Let us NOT be naive. This event was about as complete of a success as anyone can ask for. We do not live in a perfect place. Problems exist. But, when you look at how smoothly things went, on the whole...Based on that experience (I was there, looking for the end of the line) I have hope that the RNC convention will NOT be a Seattle redux. I have concerns about the city's plans for crowd control, but if the Obama rally is ANY measure to go by, well, I think we may just survive. My biggest concern is the out-of-towners that are coming here looking to stir the pot. Oh, and just for the record, I consider myself an anarchist but that is a long story. Chris Rybisky Cathedral Hill
Congratulations to Dean Sheldon on a brilliant piece of satire.
Carrying the arguments of the anti-free-speech folks to their logical
extreme is a great way to get people to think. The argument that you
can have free speech if you are willing to spend thousands on a venue
like the Xcel Center is a particularly effective use of parody. I
suspect Dean had attended the media reform conference last weekend
and had been thinking about corporate control of what we hear and
read. Now he was using rental fees for the Xcel Center as a metaphor
to asset that we really do not have free speech; we have expensive
speech. He was arguing not only for democratizing access to the
airwaves but almost certainly also for campaign finance reform.
Thanks, Dean, for your ability to fight repression with humor. You
are a model for us all.
On Jun 12, 2008, at 8:18 AM, Dean Sheldon wrote:
> Let's be intellectually honest. These protesters are nothing more
> than whining anarchists whose goal is to stomp on the free speech
> rights of others. As Obama has shown by example, they could rent
> the Excel Center and say whatever they want for as long as they
> want. Absolutely nothing stops them.
Chip Peterson
Mac Groveland
Since I was a kid I have known that it is better to be arrested in St.Paul
than in Minneapolis, if one is to be arrested at all, and don't ask how I
know. I also think that, in general, we have a fine police department, tho I
would not casually say I wouldn't trade them for any other, economics being
equal. But if it is true that the police were acquainted with Kelly let
alone knew about his foot, and also that they removed him ten blocks, I can
feel my soul turning on this issue, and agree it calls for more than an
apology. It at least calls for a non-secret recitation of just what lessons
the department is learning.
Al Uhl, Downtown
To all you avowed anarchist,
Be cautious of what you have and what you wish for. It is our constitutional
government that defines and therefore protects your freedom of speech and
assembly. Someday another anarchist down the line may elevated herself to
dictator and you will loose those freedoms along with all the others.
Dean Sheldon, SA Park
----- Original Message -----
From: David Shove
To: Dean Sheldon
Cc: Pat ; <email obscured>
Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2008 5:44 PM
Subject: Re: [SPIF] RNC and the Police
Another whining anarchist for freedom of speech and freedom of assembly.
-David Shove
OK, police power is the power that has to be used most carefully in a
Democracy. So most of us, see that the health of a society as portrayed by how
little force the police need to use and how courteous the policy can be in
using force. Even incompetent doctors have figured out that if one is nice, one
is less likely to be sued (really studies prove this). So for the benefit of of
NOT being sued, we really would like the minimum power used with the most
courtesy possible under the circumstances. Especially since we are talking
about non-violent crime here, even if the person was "selling" something
illegally. I believe this is the same ordinance under which we can arrest
little kids selling lemonade.
Remember the flip side of lawsuits is that the lawsuits are protecting normal
people from people who have authority, like police, from mis-using that
authority.
People like living here in an urban area because it is interesting. One might
be asked to sign a petition, or volunteer or buy buttons while waiting in a
long line. People who don't like anything interesting, generally go live in
some remote area of suburbia.
And finally this previous statement "Someday another anarchist down the line
may elevated herself to
dictator and you will loose those freedoms along with all the others." Since
the Republicans are in charge and are the ones taking away our freedoms, are
you finally admitting that the anarchists and Republicans are truly one and the
same? Hmmmm?
And I guess as a person who does political persuasion, and because I might run
into the SINGLE police officer who needs re-training, I will walk around with a
copy of this in my pocket:
Sec. 345.02. License required.
It is unlawful for any peddler, transient merchant or solicitor, other than a
solicitor doing business by appointment, to engage in any such business within
the City of Saint Paul without first obtaining a license therefor in compliance
with the provisions of the chapter. In addition to the license required under
this section, any person who shall sell edible products must also obtain the
applicable food license under the provisions of Chapter 331, and any person
applying to do business as a transient merchant within the city shall file
proof of possession of the license required by Minnesota Statutes, Section
329.11. Such filing shall include an affidavit in which the applicant states
compliance with Minnesota Statutes, Sections 329.099 to 329.17. No license
shall be issued by the city without such proof being presented at the time
application is made to the inspector for a transient merchant license.
(Ord. No. 17708, § 1, 1-23-90)
Sec. 345.03. Exemptions.
The provisions of this chapter shall not apply to any canvassing or soliciting
for a charitable, religious, political or educational organization if such
organization is registered with the Secretary of State pursuant to the
provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Section 309.52 as a charitable organization
or is exempted therefor pursuant to the provisions of Section 309.515, nor to
solicitations of orders for future door-to-door delivery of newspapers.
(Ord. No. 17708, § 1, 1-23-90)
Thank you Gina for "training" and "instructing" me!
Grace Kelly nicknamed Kelly
Curmudgeon from Merriam Park
Of course, the general style, tone and direction of most of these postings
would lead the casual reader to understand that this was/is just a singular
isolated incident…just a teensy-weensy widdle mistake in judgment on the part
of one single police officer. Let’s just issue an apology and forget the whole
damm thing….and let’s all go down and order up a nice, double sized stack of
pancakes….shall we? This way, we don’t have to deal with reality and we can be
just the way we want to be….fat, dumb and happy!
Do you all live on fantasy island here?
I would try to inform you of your totally mistaken notions of how the cops
ACTUALLY work. Based on experience, I would refrain because half of you
wouldn’t believe it and the other half wouldn’t understand it! I sometimes
wonder that if you really knew what actually happens in real life, and you had
some guts, you would scoop up your M.P.P.A. permits and overthrow the police
department!
All you seem to what to know is what you are expected to believe which is fed
to you by the departments’ propaganda machine.
This “incident” was only brought to light because it stood in the magnificent
shadow of a major convention.
It’s amazing to me that all of you “informed citizens” look at this “leaflet”
incident and don’t realize that cops violate and cheapen the civil and
constitutional rights of citizens in this city ALL THE TIME and if it makes you
feel any better, it’s done in Minneapolis too.
The old timey phase that comes to mind is a uniformed cop mentality, but that’s
too old fashioned. The modern term is: “Pro-active Policing”. Don’t let the
nomenclature fool ya as it’s just about the same tactics and attitudes used by
the Gestapo of war time Germany. Only the terms used to describe it has been
modernized.
No…they don’t say: “Papers, please.” Today they just demand your I.D. …then the
questions that they have NO RIGHT to ask a United States Citizen… begin.
If you think that you have the right to remain silent, you will in the back of
squad car before you know it and then the fun REALLY begins.
Am I being too educational for ya’all? I wouldn’t want to make you up-chuck
your pancakes.
Rowdy Russ Hanson.
The Truth in St. Paul.
Russ Hanson wrote:
> It¹s amazing to me that all of you ³informed citizens² look at this ³leaflet²
> incident and don¹t realize that cops violate and cheapen the civil and
> constitutional rights of citizens in this city ALL THE TIME and if it makes
> you
> feel any better, it¹s done in Minneapolis too.
>
> The old timey phase that comes to mind is a uniformed cop mentality, but
> that¹s
> too old fashioned. The modern term is: ³Pro-active Policing². Don¹t let the
> nomenclature fool ya as it¹s just about the same tactics and attitudes used
by
> the Gestapo of war time Germany. Only the terms used to describe it has been
> modernized.
>
> Nothey don¹t say: ³Papers, please.² Today they just demand your I.D. then
> the
> questions that they have NO RIGHT to ask a United States Citizen begin.
> If you think that you have the right to remain silent, you will in the back
of
> squad car before you know it and then the fun REALLY begins.
Mr Hanson asserts that:
1. The St. Paul and Minneapolis Police Departments engage in proactive
policing;
2. Proactive policing is a euphemism for the "tactics and attitudes" used by
the Geheime Staatspolizei ("Gestapo") in Nazi Germany (1933), or the
Sicherheitspolizei ("Sipo" - 1936), or the Reichssicherheitshauptamt
("RSHA" - 1939) branch of the Sicherheitsdienst ("SD");
3. The Geheime Staatspolizei existed in name after the commencement of
hostilities in 1939;
4. By using the "tactics and attitudes" of the Geheime Staatspolizei or its
successor organizations, the St. Paul and Minneapolis Police:
A. Are members of the Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei or its
American equivalent; or
B. Transports and detains political prisoners in concentration camps; or
C. Organizes pogroms against Jews; or
D. Arrests people based solely upon their religious belief; or
E. Arranges for the deportation and genocide of Jews; or
F. Infiltrates society in order to create a system of files to indicate what
inhabitants should be placed under surveillance, deprived of passports, or
murdered; or
G. Operate mobile killing squads; or
H. Murders Jews, Gypsies, and political opponents; or
I. Engages in widespread arrests of the civilian population; or
J. Imprisons many persons under inhumane conditions; or
K. Subjects prisoners to brutal third degree methods or torture; or
L. Is involved in the shooting of hostages, the imprisonment of relatives;
or
M. Executes of persons charged as terrorists and saboteurs without trial; or
N. Enforces "Night and Fog" decrees under which persons charged an offense
were either executed within a week or secretly transported without being
permitted to communicate with their family and friends; or
O. Is involved in the administration of slave labor; and
P. Commits any of the foregoing singularly; or
Q. Commits any of the foregoing in combination.
It is the responsibility of Mr. Hanson to either provide documented proof or
an explanation of his assertions, or offer a public retraction.
Neal Krasnoff
Minneapolis
Does cililian review fit into this discussion? Cause if it does it is worthless
whitewashing by police and civilians on the board. These fellow travelers with
civilians essentially insiders approved by Police Federation, retired police
associations, and God knows it's not a review board it's a rubberstamp for
internal affairs that essentially does the investigations,the chief and
essentially the mayor, sorry Chris Colemen, you appoint these people and my
exsperienced view is,as others have stated I.E. that violations occour and
whitewashers dare you to take on civil and criminal action against police,in my
exsperience, excessive force cases. The voting public's adoration of police
endorsements, police valor, which is indeed evident,but the institution is only
as good as it's lowest operatives. for example... from my personal exsperience
undercover police act the craziest over play the sterotypes they are trying to
blend inro and could most easily act out their own political bent/vent in
situations they are or could be perps,(provoatours) as well as intelligent
gathers. These double agents had best be not 'unstable' or politically jaded,
or most importantly unknowing of civilian rights. Our St. Paul police Police
acting as agents for people that do not live in our fair city of St. Paul, CIA,
FBI, Homeland Security,Treasury,et.al... These forces, I mention,acting in
union, far out weight obviously one citizens rights.
A few observations that deserve mention:
(1) The discussion started because a police officer, and a staff
member of our Xcel Center screwed up implementing what I understand
was a pretty new law.
(2) As with any large organization, there will be other people who
screw up. The stakes of police work are inherently higher as they
deal with the law, they will get greater scrutiny because they are in
the pubic eye, and the decisions they make are often far more
difficult, quick decisions. If other professions (judges, for
example) had to make similarly consequential decisions in such short
order, the results probably wouldn't be especially pretty. It's much
easier to judge their actions with the benefit of time and hindsight.
(3) Any mistakes should be dealt with, and in some cases discipline is
appropriate. Yet it should be our goal as a city to foster a climate
that allows officers an appropriate degree of mutual trust and respect
to learn from their honest mistakes, rather than project our worst
fears about officers or the department in general onto an officer's
misjudgement, even as clear cases of misconduct are dealt with.
(4) All of us in this City should be smartly prepared to do our best
to avoid a confrontation between police and leafleter/demonstrator/
activists at any time, especially this year. I don't think a
confrontation serves anyone's interests.
(5) From the experiences I've had and have been related to me, I think
the St. Paul Police do generally excellent work, and they have earned
my clear respect.
Bob's list of stuff not withstanding, I think Tom has a good question. I guess it depends on whether the Mayor or the Chief referred the matter to the group Tom brings up. Here's their ordinance: http://www.ci.stpaul.mn.us/web/CityCode/ac102.html It would probably take a while for them to come back with something anyways, but with the cloud of litigation hovering over the Xcel incident, I would not hold my breath waiting. It might seem superfluous at this point, since the city has already found itself, at least, in error; but I think given what we've read in this thread about Mic Kelley's foot and his treatment, a referral to the Police-Civilian Internal Affairs Review Commission should really have happened. Anyone know if it did and if so, was there a finding and/or advice?
I just found an interesting part of the referenced ordinance:
"Minnesota Boar of Peace Officers Standards and Training"
Does anyone know this boar?
Bob instructs us that: "The discussion started because a police officer, and a
staff member of our Xcel Center screwed up implementing what I understand was a
pretty new law."
This sort of assumes the conclusion doesn't it? Was it a simple
misinterpretation, was it a deliberate attempt to silence a known activist or
was it the police doing the Xcel's bidding regardless of the law? I don't have
the answer but it seems to me that some kind of explanation of the facts ought
to be forthcoming from the city, not a pollyannaish "they're good guys, give
them the benefit of the doubt' statement.
A few facts and questions to consider: there was more than one officer involved
and at least one was a sergeant, the person involved was put in a squad car and
driven to a police station, then given a citation without being taken into the
station. That sounds a bit out of the ordinary to me. There were other people
in the same kind of area handing out flyers and, by some reports actually
selling buttons and such. So, why was this particular individual singled out?
Whatever the explanation, there can be no doubt that this was a violation,
inadvertent or not, of an important constitutional right. It deserves to be
taken seriously. The city does deserve some credit for seeing this incident as
reason to institute more training in the area for the force.
One final question. The original Pioneer Press article in which the ACLU head
stated that the citation was for ticket scalping seems to have been removed
from the paper's web site. That article had a fuller statement of the facts
than any of the subsequent articles. It can no longer be found using the
original cite. Why is that?
I don't see the police as an out-of-control bunch of thugs with badges. My few
experiences with them have been overwhelmingly positive. I've dealt with them
twice, once over a stolen car and once over some minor vandalism. They were
attentive, prompt to respond and entirely professional. I have no axe to grind
when it comes to them. However, when incidents like the Xcel Center one occur,
I want them investigated and the results reported.
"Minnesota Boar of Peace Officers Standards" Da!!!!
Well...Mr Hanson ALSO asserts that he is impressed with post. I'm impressed
with the length that people will go to, in order to make an argument ...when
they don't have an argument to make.
Rowdy Russ Hanson
The Truth in ST. Paul.
Mr Hanson asserts that:
1. The St. Paul and Minneapolis Police Departments engage in proactive
policing;
2. Proactive policing is a euphemism for the "tactics and attitudes" used by
the Geheime Staatspolizei ("Gestapo") in Nazi Germany (1933), or the
Sicherheitspolizei ("Sipo" - 1936), or the Reichssicherheitshauptamt
("RSHA" - 1939) branch of the Sicherheitsdienst ("SD");
3. The Geheime Staatspolizei existed in name after the commencement of
hostilities in 1939;
4. By using the "tactics and attitudes" of the Geheime Staatspolizei or its
successor organizations, the St. Paul and Minneapolis Police:
A. Are members of the Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei or its
American equivalent; or
B. Transports and detains political prisoners in concentration camps; or
C. Organizes pogroms against Jews; or
D. Arrests people based solely upon their religious belief; or
E. Arranges for the deportation and genocide of Jews; or
F. Infiltrates society in order to create a system of files to indicate what
inhabitants should be placed under surveillance, deprived of passports, or
murdered; or
G. Operate mobile killing squads; or
H. Murders Jews, Gypsies, and political opponents; or
I. Engages in widespread arrests of the civilian population; or
J. Imprisons many persons under inhumane conditions; or
K. Subjects prisoners to brutal third degree methods or torture; or
L. Is involved in the shooting of hostages, the imprisonment of relatives;
or
M. Executes of persons charged as terrorists and saboteurs without trial; or
N. Enforces "Night and Fog" decrees under which persons charged an offense
were either executed within a week or secretly transported without being
permitted to communicate with their family and friends; or
O. Is involved in the administration of slave labor; and
P. Commits any of the foregoing singularly; or
Q. Commits any of the foregoing in combination.
It is the responsibility of Mr. Hanson to either provide documented proof or
an explanation of his assertions, or offer a public retraction.
Neal Krasnoff
Minneapolis
Now if any of you informed citizens would like to know how to bring the cops to
heel...try this on for size:
ESSENTIAL CRIMINAL-JUSTICE REFORMS:
A SIMPLE 35-STEP PROGRAM TO CURE OUR POLICE
Most educated observers of the criminal-justice system are warning
that a number of reforms are urgently required.
COPWATCH.COM has conducted an exhaustive analysis of all the available
literature, and found that the following reforms are consistently
cited as the most essential:
1. EFFECTIVE CITIZEN REVIEW BOARDS ("CRBs")
Create paid Citizen Review Boards, ("CRB's"), to review all
allegations of police misconduct. To ensure that the actions of the
Boards are effective, unbiased, and thorough, they must be endowed
with the following characteristics:
(A) members must be elected, rather than appointed, and the elections
must be by district, not at-large;
(B) they must be empowered to issue subpoenas to the police department;
(C) they must be empowered to impose punishments upon malfeasant
officers, up to and including termination of employment without benefits;
(D) they must be authorized to offer rewards, (including vacation time
and bonuses), to officers who report wrongdoing in the ranks;
(E) they must be empowered to direct the actions of the Integrity
Testing Units (see item 6, below);
(F) Board members must be extended the same degree of civil immunity
as enjoyed by police officers;
(G) Board members must be totally insulated from the police department
and police personnel;
(H) ex-parte contact between Board members and the parties must be
strictly prohibited;
(I) no more than 20% of the members of any CRB can be current or
former employees of any law enforcement agency or municipal
government, or be related by marriage or first-degree blood to anyone
who is;
(J) they must be fully funded and staffed, and include an independent
attorney and private investigator;
(K) they must be completely outside the departmental chain of command;
(L) the Chairman of any Board cannot be a current or former employee
of any law enforcement agency or municipal government, or be related
by marriage or first-degree blood to anyone who is;
(M) the Board's meetings, agenda and notes must comply with the
applicable state Sunshine Laws.
(Work toward this objective on the local level).
2. PREVENT EVASION OF SERVICE
Police officers often take advantage of their status and/or their
co-workers and partners (i.e. accomplices and co-conspirators) , to
evade service of legal process and subpoenas. To prevent this from
occurring, service must be permitted upon the department, rather than
individual officers. The duty-desk of any police precinct must accept
service of process for all police personnel employed by the jurisdiction.
(Work toward this objective on the federal and state levels).
3. OPEN ACCESSIBILITY OF PERSONNEL RECORDS
(A) Implement a system providing for the independent custody and
permanent retention of complaints filed against police officers, as
well as personnel files in general.
(B) These records must be freely accessible by citizens, without the
necessity of going through a public disclosure request.
(C) The records may not be held by a police department.
(D) At least two copies of each complaint must be retained, one of
which shall be available only to authorized non-police-affiliat ed
personnel (to ensure that no documents are "lost".)
(E) The CRB's shall have custody and control of these records.
(Work toward this objective on the local level).
4. STRICT DRUG AND ALCOHOL TESTING
(A) Require all prospective police officers to pass a comprehensive
drug test before being hired.
(B) Require all police officers to undergo a random urinalysis on a
quarterly basis.
(C) Require that police officers who are the subject of a complaint
undergo a urinalysis within 1 week of the filing of the complaint.
(D) Require that all police officers involved in a use-of-force
incident undergo a urinalysis within 24 hours of the event.
(E) Require that all police officers involved in an accident undergo a
urinalysis and blood-alcohol test within 3 hours of the accident.
(F) The CRB's shall have custody and control of these records.
(Work toward this objective on the local and state level).
5. MANDATORY PSYCHOLOGICAL EVALUATIONS
(A) Require all prospective police officers to pass an exhaustive
independent psychological evaluation before being hired, and
(B) pass an exhaustive independent psychological evaluation on an
annual basis.
(C) Failure to achieve an acceptable evaluation shall constitute
immediate and mandatory grounds for termination.
(D) The records of all exams shall be retained in perpetuity, but will
be publicly accessible only via legal discovery.
(E) The CRB's shall have custody and control of these records.
(Work toward this objective on the local and state level).
6. MANDATORY BACKGROUND CHECKS
(A) Require all prospective police officers to pass a rigorous
cross-jurisdictiona l background check before being hired. This
background check must encompass all of the following aspects: (a)
criminal records; (b) credit reports; (c) employment history,
including verification of employment and interviews of employers and
co-workers; (d) credential verification, including educational and
training claims; (e) residence checks, including interviews with
former landlords and roommates; (f) civil court record checks, with
particular emphasis on domestic disputes.
(B) The elected citizens panel shall have custody and control of these
records.
(Work toward this objective on the local and state level).
7. OPEN ACKNOWLEDGEMENT THAT POLICE ARE PUBLIC OFFICIALS
A public statement must be issued, signed by the municipal attorney,
municipal executive, or police chief, acknowledging that police
officers are public officials and that the public has the right to
know the name, rank and badge number of every police officer in that
jurisdiction at any time.
(Work toward this objective on the federal, state, and local levels).
8. CONSTANT UTILIZATION OF INTEGRITY TESTING
(A) Create special departmental units, fully funded and staffed, to
conduct both random and targeted integrity testing of police officers.
(B) The CRB's (see item 1, above), are to be empowered to direct the
actions of the testing units.
(Work toward this objective on the state, and local levels).
9. THE RIGHT TO VIOLENTLY RESIST FALSE ARREST
(A) Formally reaffirm the traditional right of citizens to use
proportional force, (up to and including deadly force), to resist
false or unlawful arrest. While this long-recognized common-law right
is still available in some states, in others it has been removed by
judicial fiat or by legislatures which are controlled by police-state
pawns.
(B) Most of the courts which have disallowed this right, (and many
other important common-law rights as well), are composed of judges who
subscribe to the "judicial activist" philosophy, which holds that (a)
judges are de facto legislators rather than impartial arbiters, and
(b) that the Constitution is a "living, breathing document" that does
not contain any objective meaning, and is therefore amenable to
bizarre, authoritarian, pro-government interpretations which are
wholly unfounded in logic, rationality, history, fact, or law. Judges
whose decisions reflect this treasonous philosophy should never be
re-elected or re-appointed, since they pose a tremendous threat to our
rights and freedoms, which are legally guaranteed only by the
self-same Constitution that they claim contains no definitive meaning.
(Work toward these objectives on the local, state, and federal levels).
10. LEGALIZE CITIZEN MONITORS
In those states which currently prohibit such activity, pass
legislation specifically allowing citizens to record their interaction
with police officers and all other government officials employed in
their official capacity. Citizens must be free to record all such
governmental representatives both overtly and covertly. This exemption
shall not apply in reverse (i.e. police officers in such states shall
still be required to obtain court approval to surreptitiously record
citizens).
(Work toward this objective on the state and federal level)
11. FULLY INFORM ALL JURORS
Increase public awareness of the importance of jury service, and of
the rights of jurors.
(Work toward this objective on the local level).
12. PROMULGATE CLEAR EXPECTATIONS AND STANDARDS
Require all jurisdictions to post, (on the Internet), complete,
searchable copies of their local rules governing police conduct (e.g.
the local police manual, policy handbook, procedure guide, etc).
(Work toward this objective on the local level).
\13. LEGALIZE MARIJUANA, COCAINE, AND VIRTUALLY ALL OTHER DRUGS
Drugs may or may not be evil, but the Government unquestionably is,
judging by the immoral, unlawful, invasive, militaristic actions it
has taken in enacting and enforcing "Prohibition II". The "Drug War"
is a total failure, and has morphed into a War on Constitutional
Rights. To reestablish our Constitutional rights, the tyrannical drug
policies must be dismantled. While progress has been made, (e.g., many
states have already passed laws allowing the medical use of marijuana,
and other states have decriminalized marijuana altogether), much more
remains to be done.
[Copwatch.com actively discourages the use of any "recreational" drugs
other than alcohol, nicotine, or caffeine by anyone under the age of
20, and does not recommend the use of any "recreational" drugs by
anyone of any age.]
(Work toward this objective on the federal and state level).
14. LEGALIZE VICTIMLESS "CRIMES"
Legalize prostitution and other victimless "crimes", and get the cops
out of the morality business, for which they are particularly
ill-suited. The "world's oldest profession" is not going to be
eliminated by confiscating via forfeiture, (i.e. stealing), the
automobiles of johns, or by publishing their photos in the weekly
paper, or by jailing one or both of the willing participants. Neither
is the spread of AIDS and other STD's going to be hindered by refusing
to license and test the prostitutes.
(Work toward this objective on the state and local level).
15. PROHIBIT THE TRANSFER OF MILITARY EQUIPMENT TO THE POLICE
More and more frequently, police departments are the recipients of
"surplus", reduced price, or tax-subsidized military equipment,
including machine guns, sniper rifles, specialized military
ammunition, armored personnel carriers, bayonets, sophisticated
surveillance technologies, high explosives, and other materiel which
is totally unsuited for domestic use. Military equipment was not
designed or intended for police officers to use on the domestic
population, but rather was intended to increase national security in
the global arena against actual or potential enemies, primarily by
conferring the ability to kill in the most effective manner possible.
It is entirely inappropriate, and exceedingly dangerous, for police
departments to be given access to military supplies.
(Work toward this objective on the federal, state, and local level).
16. PROHIBIT POLICE FROM CROSS-TRAINING WITH THE MILITARY
Military training and police training should never be allowed to take
place concurrently, because of the danger that military values and
attitudes could be further adopted by the police. The basic function
of the military is to kill the enemies of the state, with no regard to
such domestic niceties as "innocent until proven guilty", "the 5th
Amendment", "freedom of assembly" or any other Constitutional
safeguards. On the other hand, the raison d'�tre of the police is to
"keep the peace" (though they've long-since abandoned any pretense
that this is indeed their primary function). Cops should never be
intentionally placed in any situation which encourages the further
adoption of military concepts like "collateral damage", "acceptable
loss of life", "war of attrition", and other similarly martial
concepts, or which encourages the perception that citizens are "the
enemy".
(Work toward this objective on the federal, state, and local level).
17. PROHIBIT THE DEPLOYMENT OF DOMESTIC POLICE AS INTERNATIONAL
"PEACEKEEPERS"
Police officers should be prohibited from serving as "international
peacekeepers" for any military organization, including the U.N.
Serving in such a capacity merely encourages the adoption of military
attitudes, which are entirely incompatible with domestic policing.
When cops who serve in such a capacity return to domestic duty, they
invariably retain the attitudes and perspectives which they developed
while patrolling in a foreign country, and thus view their fellow
citizens as "the enemy" to an even greater extent than normal.
(Work toward this objective on the federal, state, and local level).
18. REMOVE THE PROFIT MOTIVE FROM LAW ENFORCEMENT
(A) Prohibit all governmental entities from utilizing law-enforcement
activities, (including but not limited to the issuance of speeding
tickets and parking tickets), as a source of revenue (i.e. the revenue
generated by law enforcement may not exceed the cost of law
enforcement) . The "cost of law enforcement" cannot be defined to
include prosecutorial entities or the judiciary.
(B) Prohibit all police entities from receiving any revenue generated
by any law-enforcement activities.
(C) Prohibit all police entities from receiving any funds which are
calculated as a percentage or multiple of the revenue generated by
law-enforcement activities.
(Work toward this objective on the local, state, and federal level).
19. PENALIZE MALICIOUS PROSECUTION
If a citizen is charged with either a civil or criminal offense by a
prosecuting authority or its agent, and those charges are ultimately
defeated or dismissed, then the prosecuting authority is required to
reimburse the defendant for all legal expenses arising from the
institution of those charges.
(Work toward this objective on the state and federal level).
20. PROHIBIT PROSECUTORIAL WITNESS TAMPERING, BRIBERY, AND BLACKMAIL
Prohibit all prosecuting authorities from coercing testimony from
potential witnesses in exchange for reduced sentences.
(Work toward this objective on the state and federal level).
21. PROHIBIT OFF-DUTY OFFICERS FROM SELLING THEIR LAW-ENFORCEMENT
SERVICES TO THE HIGHEST BIDDER, AND FROM USING PUBLICLY-OWNED
EQUIPMENT FOR PERSONAL BENEFIT
(A) Off-duty cops often moonlight as private-sector employees. For
example, they work as security guards, traffic-directors,
funeral-procession escorts, bouncers, gate-checkers, etc. In most
cases, the cops use government-owned, taxpayer-financed equipment on
such jobs. In addition, some cops are allowed to use police vehicles
to commute to and from their homes. All of the costs associated with
such private, for-profit use of public equipment are passed on to the
taxpayer. Clearly, cops should be prohibited from using any
publicly-owned equipment for personal gain.
(B) On a closely related note, police officers should be prohibited
from selling their law-enforcement services to private entities.
Private entities should not be permitted to hire and direct the
actions of armed governmental actors who have the legal authority to
detain, arrest, jail, or shoot those who the hiring entity may
dislike. At the very least, the public should be able to readily
determine whether an officer is on-duty or off-duty, (and, if
off-duty, who he is working for), in order to more easily ascertain if
the officer is engaging in biased/selective/ targeted/ arbitrary/ unequal
law enforcement designed primarily to benefit his employer. Officers
should be prohibited from wearing their official uniforms, or any
facsimile thereof, in an off-duty capacity, and should instead be
required to don attire which clearly identifies the private entity
which hired them.
(Work toward these objectives on the state and local level).
22. DISCOURAGE CORRUPTION BY PROHIBITING CIVIL FORFIETURES
(A) Prohibit all police entities from receiving any property or
proceeds generated by any civil forfeitures.
(B) Repeal all civil forfeiture laws.
(Work toward these objectives on the state and federal level).
23. PROHIBIT THE ENACTMENT AND ENFORCEMENT OF ARBITRARY SPEED LIMITS
Require that all posted speed limits be set at the actual,
independently surveyed 85th percentile. Each stretch of roadway must
be re-surveyed if it is widened or otherwise improved.
(Work toward this objective on the local, state, and federal level).
24. DEMOLISH THE "BLUE WALL OF SILENCE"
Police officers are well-known for sticking together "through thick
and thin." Unfortunately, that predisposition extends to protecting
their fellow officers from the consequences of criminal conduct.
Commonly known as the "blue wall of silence", this pervasive
conspiracy can take many forms: falsely testifying regarding the
criminal conduct of fellow police officers; actively covering up the
criminal conduct of fellow police officers; or simply failing to
report the criminal conduct of fellow police officers. Any officer who
fails to adhere to the strictures of this notorious "code of silence"
is quickly made to suffer the consequences, (of which ostracization is
the least severe). For all intents and purposes, this unwritten code,
which is inextricably embedded in police culture, duplicates the
infamous Mafia code of "omerta"- but the consequences for society are
much worse. To effectively deter the police from enabling their fellow
officers to perpetrate criminal conduct with impunity, severe
sanctions must be imposed on those with unrevealed knowledge. New laws
must be passed which make it a felony, punishable by at least two
years in prison, for a police officer to fail to report, at the first
possible opportunity, any misconduct of which he has personal or
hearsay knowledge. Furthermore, engaging in any act which helps to
conceal or enable criminal conduct must be categorized as a felony
punishable by at least five years in prison. In either case, the
transgressing officer must also be charged as an accomplice to the
criminal conduct which he failed to disclose (i.e. he must, in
addition to being charged with failure to disclose, face the same
charges and punishment as the officer who actually engaged in the
criminal conduct).
(Work toward this objective on the local, state, and federal level).
25. REQUIRE AN OBJECTIVELY REASONABLE BASIS FOR THE USE OF FORCE
In many states, police officers are legally authorized to use force,
(up to and including deadly force), if they feel afraid for their
safety. Unbelievably enough, this is true regardless of whether or not
the basis of their fear is reasonable. In other words, it is perfectly
legal for a police officer to kill you based solely on his own
subjective perceptions, no matter how unreasonable those perceptions
may be. Such a nebulous and variable standard encourages a wanton
disregard for human life, and gives the police virtual carte blanche
to kill civilians. To remedy this extremely dangerous state of
affairs, we must replace the "subjectively reasonable" standard with
the "objectively reasonable" standard. Police authority to kill
civilians must exist only under objectively reasonable circumstances.
In other words, a policeman should be authorized to use deadly force
only if a reasonable person, under the same circumstances, would have
been in justifiable fear of their life. In the absence of such
justification, any intentional death caused by the police must be
charged as murder.
(Work toward this objective on the local, state, and federal level).
26. CONSISTANT AND EQUAL ENFORCEMENT OF CRIMINAL LAW
A police officer who commits a crime is frequently treated with much
greater leniency than anyone else. Prosecutors are often reluctant to
even charge a transgressing officer, let alone seek the maximum charge
or the harshest sentence. And on those occasions when a case is
prosecuted, judges are similarly hesitant to impose a sentence that is
consistent with the sentences imposed upon private citizens for
identical crimes. This is patently unfair, and encourages misconduct
by buttressing the commonly-held police perception that cops are
"above the law". Therefore, in cases where there is minimally credible
evidence that a police officer has committed a crime, the prosecutor
must have no discretion as to whether or not charges are pressed.
Also, to ensure that judges impose suitable punishments, a
comprehensive sentence schedule must be developed, (by a nationwide
coalition of CRB's), delineating severely punitive "mandatory
minimums" for all the crimes which are commonly committed by police.
(Work toward this objective on the local, state, and federal level).
27. RIGOROUS PHYSICAL CONDITIONING
Require that all prospective police officers pass a rigorous physical
test prior to being hired, and annually thereafter. No adjustment of
these standards will be allowed for any applicant or officer,
including women or handicapped individuals, since weak or otherwise
unfit individuals are more likely to resort to deadly force.
28. USE-OF-FORCE DOCUMENTATION
(A) Require that each police officer who uses any type of force, or
who witnesses the use of any type of force by a fellow police officer,
file a written report.
(B) Require that each police officer who unholsters his gun, or who
witnesses a fellow police officer unholster his gun, file a written
report.
(C) Any police officer whose use-of-force rate exceeds the most recent
6-month use-of-force rate average of fellow officers in the state in
which he is employed would be subject to thorough investigation,
evaluation, and potential termination.
(D) Any police officer who fails to file a required use-of-force
report would be terminated.
29. PROHIBIT THE ABDICATION OF GOVERNMENTAL OVERSIGHT
Prohibit the inclusion of any clause in police-union contracts which
grants the police union any control over the discipline and
termination of officers.
30. REQUIRE CONSISTANCY OF BENEFITS AND BURDENS UNDER CRIMINAL LAW
A police officer, simply by virtue of his position, is often accorded
special protections under criminal law. For example, in some states,
any "unwanted touching" of a police officer, no matter how slight that
touch may be, constitutes a felony offense (a high-degree assault or
battery, which is sure to be prosecuted to the maximum extent).
However, a civilian touching another civilian in exactly the same
manner constitutes merely a misdemeanor (and the transgression is
unlikely to be charged or prosecuted). It's an open question as to
whether such special treatment for police officers is warranted. But
clearly, if the police are going to receive the benefits of heightened
protection, they should also be held to heightened standards of
conduct. To give but one example: if a police officer engages in any
crime which can possibly be construed as an abuse of authority, (e.g.
having sex with a prisoner, whether consensual or not), that crime
should be charged as a high-level felony, regardless of how it would
be charged if the perpetrator were a civilian. In other words, all
criminal laws must be revised to impose harsher charges and
punishments on police who break those laws. Further justification for
this change in the law arises from public-policy considerations, in that:
(A) unlike civilians, police officers have sworn a formal solemn oath
to obey and uphold the law;
(B) the public has a clear and compelling right to expect police
officers to be honest and law-abiding, and relies on that expectation
in convicting many individuals based solely on the testimony of police
officers;
(C) the police have the lawful ability to deprive citizens of life,
liberty, and property, and if they are not held to the highest
standards of honesty and exemplary conduct, public welfare is gravely
endangered.
(Work toward this objective on the local, state, and federal level).
31. REQUIRE ANNUAL POLYGRAPH TESTING
Require all police officers to undergo annual polygraph tests,
(administered by an independent expert selected by the CRB), in order
to determine if the officer has committed any wrongdoing, or is
cognizant of any wrongdoing in the ranks.
32. INSTITUTE HIGHER STANDARDS FOR NEW APPLICANTS
(A) Reject all applicants who fail any aspect of police-academy training.
(B) Increase the minimum age of applicants to 25.
(C) Increase the minimum educational requirement of applicants to a
2-year college degree, including 50 credits of psychology and 50
credits of constitutional law, with a minimum cumulative GPA of 3.0,
AND an SAT score of at least 1000.
(D) Abolish all affirmative action programs, and rely instead on
outreach programs, if necessary.
33. CONDUCT ANNUAL ANTI-CORRUPTION AUDITS OF ALL OFFICERS
Conduct an annual credit check on each police officer, to ascertain
(a) if the officer has established a credit limit exceeding the
statistical average of an individual in his income bracket; or (b) if
the officer has accumulated an unreasonable debt load, (since the
demands of such a debt load could tempt him to generate revenue
through illegal means). In the absence of a verified explanation, any
officer found to have a credit limit which exceeds by 10% the average
credit limit of individuals in that income bracket would be subject to
an independent audit and investigation. In the absence of a verified
source of non-salary funds, any officer who accumulated a debt load
which exceeded by 15% the average debt load of individuals in that
same income bracket would receive credit counseling and ordered to
reduce his debt load to average within one year, or face termination
without benefits.
34. THE USE OF SO-CALLED LESS-LETHAL WEAPONS
(A) Prohibit the use of all so-called less-lethal weapons which have
been banned under the Geneva Convention, or which are reasonably
suspected to contain carcinogens.
(B) Increase the availability of weapons which are proven to be
non-lethal.
(C) Provide intensive training in the proper use of such weapons.
(D) Revise policies regarding the use of traditional firearms to
discourage the unnecessary taking of human life.
35. IMPROVE AND EXPAND POLICE TRAINING
Provide substantial training in community relations, psychology,
interpersonal skills, and constitutional law.
Rowdy Russ Hanson.
The Truth in St. Paul.
Russ Hanson wrote:
> Well...Mr Hanson ALSO asserts that he is impressed with post. I'm impressed
> with the length that people will go to, in order to make an argument ...when
> they don't have an argument to make.
Mr. Hanson, YOU were the party arguing that St. Paul and Minneapolis police
officers engage in the "same tactics and attitudes used by the Gestapo of
war time Germany". I presented objective historical fact to show the
absurdity of your argument.
Either cite evidence of your claims, or retract.
Neal Krasnoff
Minneapolis
Dear Mr. Kransnoff....
Pro-active policing is what the Gestapo did. You may call it what you want and
use era appropriate phrasing and nomanclature. However, actions ,then, as now,
have always spoken louder than words.
When cops are suspicious of people just because they happen to "not look
right" for the area they happen to be in, that makes the tactics the same. If
you don't have the "correct" answers to their questions, they can and do place
a "police hold" on you.
This should not be allowed in country that prides itself on bill of rights for
it's citizens.
Rowdy Russ Hanson.
The Truth in St. Paul.
Russ Hanson wrote:
<plonk>
Neal Krasnoff
Minneapolis
Need help? Please contact technical support. Follow us on Facebook or Twitter.
Hosted by E-Democracy.Org. Powered by OnlineGroups.Net using GroupServer.