All posts in the topic Sheriff Bob Fletcher must go (Short link)
Summary
- There are 7 posts — by 7 authors — in this topic.
- Latest post made by Neal Krasnoff at Sep 10 04:19 UTC
Having only about three deep breaths since the RNC left town, I have already
reached several conclusions. Others may disagree; feel free.
My first conclusion is that Sheriff Bob Fletcher is a threat to public safety.
Sending his deputies out to do preemptive raids with guns drawn on literally a
couple of hundred people or more (several of whom I have spoken to personally)
is not just evidence of a police state and an affront to civil liberties. This
stuff is dangerous. Stopping random strangers in their cars or bikes and
pulling weapons puts all of us in a situation of real physical danger. All
evidence points to Bob Fletcher as the one organizing these raids, in fact
pushing the most confrontational aspects of the entire week in St Paul. He has
got to go before he gets people killed. It is remarkable that we apparently
got through last week without fatalities.
My second conclusion is that Mayor Chris Coleman must go also. If he wasn't
complicit in turning St Paul into a garrison city, then he was and is so
ineffective that he does not deserve to be mayor.
My third conclusion is that Matt Bostrom should be fired. I listened to his
reassurances time after time last fall: that police would patrol in their
normal uniforms, that police officers would be clearly identified as to unit
and as to personal identity, that there would not be infiltration of
non-violent groups, that there would be absolutely NO sweeps and that only
those who broke the law would be arrested, that police operations during the
convention would be under the total control of the St Paul police department.
I heard him make statements like saying that the entire reason he got up in the
morning every day was to protect civil liberties. When asked last fall at a
public meeting in St Thomas if control slipped from St Paul PD, would he
resign? He thought a long moment and then said that he would in fact resign.
Well, Bostom hasn't resigned. He lied. Now it is time for him to get fired.
So I want to use this forum for an organizing tool, and I think it is a
completely legitimate venue for electronic democracy. But I have a full-time
job, a previously active participation in peace activism and politics, and I
live in Minneapolis. I need some people with a lot more expertise than I have,
so I am asking mostly questions here.
Question 1: What is the mechanism for getting rid of Fletcher? When was he
elected? How long is his term? Are there legal mechanisms for recall? Is
there a way to rid ourselves of him through some accreditation, like state or
national certification or professional requirements that he must uphold the law
himself? (Something like disbarring an attorney whose public job is dependent
of being a member of the Bar.)
Question #2: What are the politics that got him elected and that might be
involved in keeping him in power? For example, did he have a political party
endorsement and, if so, what would that look like now? Did he have union
endorsements, particularly from law enforcement unions, and if so, what would
be the current status of that support? Who was his opponent and what groups
were allied behind the opponent?
Question #3: What is the current state of criminal prosecution against
deputies in his office and is there any chance that Fletcher himself may have
been involved in any of these felonies? Will further legal actions against his
cronies likely keep any attention on his department in general, particularly
from the news media?
Question #4: Who could replace him? Who has the law enforcement background
and political support to actually do at least an adequate job in the sheriff's
office?
Question #5: Fletcher seems to be getting at least lukewarm support from both
Mayor Chris Coleman and from city attorney John Choi. Why is that, do you
think? Are they afraid of him, either physically or politically? Is it
possible they actually share Fletcher's Wild West values and really want the
sort of police state we saw last week, or are they just covering their
derrieres?
Let me be very clear about my own values here. I am a Gandhian pacifist, so I
can imagine many situations where civil disobedience might be used, but I
believe in doing it openly and in accepting the consequences. I do not condone
violence against anyone, no matter who does it or who it is against. So I do
not want police officers or Republicans hurt any more than I want protesters
hurt. I do not support or condone even destruction of property, although I
consider property less valuable than people's lives. So I am not supporting
any window-breaking or whatnot.
Let me also be very clear about my own actions last week. I worked as a street
medic all week, finding a position near the action, but neither involved as a
protester nor involved as one trying to stop protesters. I stationed myself in
situations where I might provide first aid to anyone who might need it. I saw
a lot of bad stuff happening, and I think we as citizens need to find
democratic and legal remedies.
If you believe in democracy and in peaceful change rather than political
bullying, I am asking for your help. A bully needs to be stopped. Can you
help?
I am going to try to answer some of Charlie's question relative to Sheriff Fletcher. Some others may have more specific information. Question 1: What is the mechanism for getting rid of Fletcher? He can be recalled. However, the number of signatures to required to even start a recall election is greater than the number of votes he received to get elected. When was he elected? 2007 How long is his term? four years. Are there legal mechanisms for recall? I believe you need to get enough signature on a recall petition to generate a recall election. The number of required signatures is set by state law and I believe that the requirement is higher than the number of votes he received in the last election. Is there a way to rid ourselves of him through some accreditation, like state or national certification or professional requirements that he must uphold the law himself? (Something like disbarring an attorney whose public job is dependent of being a member of the Bar.) This is an elected position. The answer is no. Question #2: What are the politics that got him elected and that might be involved in keeping him in power? For example, did he have a political party endorsement and, if so, what would that look like now? He is a professional politician. He ran for City Council, Mayor to name two positions prior to running to Sheriff. He was, I believe endorsed by the Republican party. Did he have union endorsements, particularly from law enforcement unions, and if so, what would be the current status of that support? He was endorsed by law enforcement unions. I would think his support hsa greatly improved after the RNC. Who was his opponent and what groups were allied behind the opponent? His recent opponent was William (Corky) Finney. Someone else can identify who were his major supporters. Question #3: What is the current state of criminal prosecution against deputies in his office and is there any chance that Fletcher himself may have been involved in any of these felonies? Will further legal actions against his cronies likely keep any attention on his department in general, particularly from the news media? I can't answer the first question. Look at the most recent article regarding the conviction of his friends for a hint. Only time will tell what the answers to the rest of these questions will be. Question #4: Who could replace him? Right now, only licensed Law Enforcement officers who live in Ramsey County can run against him. Based on what he did to the careers of Sheriff's deputies who ran against him, I doubt anyone from the department will run against him This, I believe, leaves on St. Paul police officers. Who has the law enforcement background and political support to actually do at least an adequate job in the sheriff's office? No one that I am aware of, except maybe Matt Bostrom. Question #5: Fletcher seems to be getting at least lukewarm support from both Mayor Chris Coleman and from city attorney John Choi. Why is that, do you think? Based on information we know, Sheriff Fletcher and his Deputies did a great job in preventing serious damage to property and individuals. I think its only fair to see what information comes out as everyone involved debriefs about what went right and what went wrong. I am sure they have more information than we have. and Based on what I have seen, I can't fault the Sheriff or other law enforcement agencies for conducting the raids. As much as you question the need for drawn guns, I can only offer you world wide examples of raids where responses are violent. We have to expect anyone will take appropriate precautions based on intelligence. Are they afraid of him, either physically or politically? This question is ridiculous and unworthy of answering. Is it possible they actually share Fletcher's Wild West values and really want the sort of police state we saw last week, or are they just covering their derrieres? I don't, for one, think Sheriff Fletcher has Wild West values. He was doing the job we elected him to do in a situtation that he didn't ask for. Finally, based on information that we all should know, people responsible for protecting us and our visitors were tasked with preventing people who came to St. Paul with the specific intent to fire bomb the Xcel Center and who knows what else, to injure and/kill police officers. and to shut down the Twin Cities. I am also aware of information from more than one source that there were credible intelligence related to the potential of the discharge of at least one dirty bomb. I would bet that even if the Sheriff was appointed he woudn't be replaced. I think, overall, our police did an outstanding job given the situation they were in. Yes, we will find that some over reacted. We will find that they operated under the attitude of arrest everyone and anyone and sort it out later. Mike Fratto Payne Phalen Please help those who don't get enough to eat. http://oyh.org http://hungersolutions.org The future depends more on what we do between now and then Than what we did in the past.
I would agree that Fletcher and the rest of the law enforcement types did a
good job of protecting the RNC, its facilities, delegates and others connected
with it. And for that, I'm sure Fletcher and the police in general will be
given high marks from the general public. If a poll were taken, their favorable
ratings would be quite high, no doubt.
However, people connected to the RNC are not the only ones with rights. It
appears to me that law enforcement did a far less admirable job protecting the
civil rights of ordinary citizens. A good part of the problem was not the
actions of individual officers. It was the result of the security arrangements
themselves. Allowing protesters to peacefully march around the Xcel Center so
long as they were funneled through an eight foot tall metal cage is NOT
protecting the rights of free speech and assembly. Establishing a no-go
security zone preventing protesters from peacefully assembling anywhere near
the site which was the object of their protest is not protecting these rights
either. Establishing "free speech zones" means, does it not, that free speech
is not allowed outside those zones. How is that compatible with a free and open
society?
Now, it will be argued that the small amount of damage and disruption
perpetrated by a few people bent on mayhem proves that the security measures
were necessary. It does not. Those people could have been controlled even
better, I believe, if the vast bulk of the police were not employed in
restricting the freedoms of ordinary citizens. If the police had focused on the
people causing the trouble (they were easily identifiable) and had used a much
friendlier approach less trouble would have occurred. Most of the demonstrators
would have been only too happy to help the police control the trouble makers.
The mayhem that did occur certainly points up the need for some security
measures but doesn't justify the particular security measures that were used.
Can e-democracy set up an invitation only list - or would they - so while it
can all be read not everyone can post?
We got crapped on, not just horses in the streets; we got crapped on by police,
military, party. We need to clean it up, so a discussion forum where we can do
so without Neal Whatzisname dropping 1500 words on how we're idiots would be
nice.
In the city of Saint Paul, the issue is - a week of police state for more
Google hits. Was it worth it or not? If you fall on the 'yes' side, you've just
failed my newest litmus test.
It's tough, as politicans like to get along with the cops, but they were used
to brutalize people, and that's just not right.
Mayor Coleman could, possibly, salvage his reputation if he immediately
disavowed Fletcher and started calling for serious review.
Why just Fletcher? Harrington was using Republican talking points in his
official capacity as police chief. Remember him saying that he hoped the
protesters (most of whom were quite peaceful despite his implications to the
contrary) would tone it down out of respect for thos on the gulf coast? That
was the Republican theme for the day. He used the Republican play book in his
official capacity as police chief in an attempt to stifle lawful free speech.
I suspect that most of us would face firing if we went to work and spouted
political party nonsense in order to make our fellow citizens shut up and sit
down. It's not within his province to act in a political manner when on duty.
He's not an elected official and his private views shouldn't affect his
performance on the job.
I'd like to correct a few misrepresentations here. Charlie asks Question 1: What is the mechanism for getting rid of Fletcher? Mike incorrectly answered that Sheriff Fletcher was last elected in 2007, but the election was in 2006 and the term expired in 2011. In the 2006 election, about 180,000 votes were cast in the nonpartisan ballot for the office of Sheriff. Fletcher defeated former St. Paul Police Chief, Bill Finney by about 1,130 votes. Are there legal mechanisms for recall? Minnesota's Recall process is specified in the Constitution http://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/cco/rules/mncon/Article8.htm and states that a recall petition must be based on "serious malfeasance or nonfeasance" (certified by the Supreme Court) and be signed by "not less than 25 percent of the number of votes cast for the office at the most recent general election"-- that would be about 65,000 signatures from eligible Ramsey County voters. No officer in Minnesota has ever been recalled. However, the Ramsey County Home Rule Charter http://www.co.ramsey.mn.us/NR/rdonlyres/D75BABDF-F80D-4336-B0B5-499B250C7BD6/385/CharterChapters.pdf states that the petition needs signatures equal to the number of, "Ten per cent of those who voted in the county for the office of President of the United States in the last general election," which would be a little over 27,000 signatures. Question #4: Who could replace him? Candidates running for County Sheriff must be "licensed peace officers in Minnesota" and residents of Ramsey County. Many posts on e-democracy seem to indicate that the Sheriff oversaw the mobile police force (riot police) that arrested protesters and others during the RNC. The mobile force was apparently organized through the St. Paul Police Department, but each jurisdiction had command of the force that was acting in their jurisdiction. As far as I know, the Sheriff Fletcher was only involved in (was the muscle for) the Friday and Saturday house raids, which appear to have be based on intelligence gathered by national services. The raids appear to have netted evidence sufficient to charge about 30 people with felonies, and some of the actions of some protesters on Monday would seem to confirm that a group was conspiring to do damage to the city, its citizens, and to those involved with the convention. If law enforcement officers have reason to believe they are in danger while performing their duty, they have every right to move in with a show of force. Those charged will need to show that the Sheriff made unreasonable judgments based on the intelligence or acted unlawfully. This will be very difficult. Moreover, associating the Sheriff with the mobile police force only gives the impression that the Sheriff was responsible for protecting the city/county/metro. The Sheriff's office appears to be a much smaller piece of the puzzle that is getting too much of the credit for limiting what could have been a very bad situation for downtown St. Paul.
John Slade wrote:
> Can e-democracy set up an invitation only list - or would they - so
> while it can all be read not everyone can post?
>
> We got crapped on, not just horses in the streets; we got crapped on
> by police, military, party. We need to clean it up, so a discussion
> forum where we can do so without Neal Whatzisname dropping 1500 words
> on how we're idiots would be nice.
Do you not value diversity? /sarcasm
Sheriff Fletcher protected our fellow citizens who are Republicans to
exercise their political rights without interference. I would expect no
less for the DFL, Green, Independence or Constitution Parties. The
Leftist and Anarchist street thugs - with material and moral support
from the "progressive" left in Minnesota - utterly failed in their
attempt to abrogate the democratic process, just as they tried in
Denver.
You are on the wrong side of history. Lick your wounds and go home.
Neal Krasnoff
Minneapolis