Tamir Nolley wrote:
WM: I've spoken to this before, but this kind of sweeping statement is unfair to everyone involved; citizens, victims of brutality, sworn officers, everyone loses here. Researchers always claim that bad apples amount to about 10%. Since, in all the various policing functions candidates are people who have been minimally screened for their psychological make-up and then only in rather narrow areas, and since people with "issues" around dominance and control are often attracted to the field, I'd be willing, for the sake of argument, to say 20% of polices got their heads screwed on wrong or are not the people who should be cops. Among the other presumed 80% all have issues with something important like race, class, gender, yadda, yadda, yadda. So have we all. It cannot take fewer than five or ten generations to break down all those barriers without erecting replacements and that's only true if every single person on the planet is working on it with vigor. Lovely daydream, ain't it?Olin Moore now has the endorsement of the Police Federation. To me, this means that Moore is the endorsed candidate of a group of thugs and bullies A group that defends the reprehensible behavior that included harassing and sometimes killing innocent people who are metally ill, have dark skin, speak different languages, have long hair, spiked hair.
The impetus behind community-based policing is about breaking down barriers so that police and citizenry do not remain warring factions.
This in no way negates the fact, intensity, and longevity of brutality in police departments.
But, in a "democracy" that gives lip service, pun intended, to free speech and it's consequences, if you're going to paint them with one big brush, how can you rail against them for doing the same? The only difference, a big one, is that they have been given the power to act on their suspicions. Now there's a conundrum.
Enter Officer X. He's a new recruit. He's young, strong, good eyesight, can run a mile, scrabble over a fence, whatever. He's from a tiny town up by the Canadian Border, say. "Officer," says the chief, deputy chief, inspector, lieutenant, and sergeant, "We want you to watch people and pick out those who look suspicious." Officer X grew up in a town so small that everyone now living is the progeny of immigrant Danes four generations ago. Who "looks suspicious" in that circumstance? Does anybody at the corner of Franklin and Park NOT look suspicious?
WM: I'm not sure of that at all.I'm sure of Christopher Burns (the man who was most recently murdered by out of control cops, the case was even ruled a homicide by police in court) could were still with us he would empthetically plea with us not to elect anyone supported by the police federation ever!
The police federation does have the right to endorse a candidate, and since the jobs of council people and police department are inter-related, it could mean a lot to them right in the paycheck. Of course they're going to state their preference, damn straight.
Unions have learned to be very sophisticated about negotiating wages, benefits, and working conditions. For most union members, that's all they're asking the union to do. My clan has survived in this country because of union wages. We came here in 1843, 1887, and the 1890s to escape the famine. It is a national achievement that Americans gained better lives through the work of unionizing labor.
Some of the police officers--and some of the worst thugs available at the time, were Irishmen trying to survive. (I think it goes a fair way to explain why Irish St. Paul has a different relationship with the police than does Minneapolis. It also makes a difference that the early blacks who settled in St. Paul. were refugees who heard the Emancipation Proclamation and were prepared with boats to get here. The leader of one of the first groups was a man named Battle. The Battles kith and kin still live in St. Paul--that's an impressive difference as well.)
Still, Don Samuels' Nixonesque "Tough on crime andWM: There's more to the issue of drugs than any police department can contend with. Tons of cocaine and heroine are brought into the country annually. These drugs are outrageously expensive, as well as human-corrosive, and they support the Wall Street economy nicely, thank you very much. The population not whacked on drugs, alcohol, and whatever sins flesh is heir to want peace and quiet. The police are supposed to be fighting drugs at the grass roots level. The Bush Admin. budget has established a phenomenal number of new prison cells. Since we already incarcerate more humans than anyone else, guess what the federal admin. is preparing to do about drugs?
drugs" rhetoric is very disturbing to me as I believe
that drug addiction can not be solved even by
responsible law enforcement. This is purely a
medical, psychological problem and to some extent the
result of a desperate economy.
The police are not responsible for the fact of drugs, but they are responsible for keeping the peace. I'd call that stuck between a rock and a hard place. (Geez, and we were doing so well with just alcohol and poor diet.)
The only thing lawWM: With stone cold killers laced among the drug dealing unfortunates who live among us, the police are dancing on eggs every day. The value of having them out of their cars on the street is that they get to know who can be trusted not to shoot them or stab them or get in they way while they identify weapons and players from among those in the immediate area.
enforcement can contribute to solving the drug problem
is to drive it further underground and make the
violence that goes along with drugs worse.
Samuels' solution, to "get the cops out of thier cars
and in to the neighborhoods" will only increase police
harassment of youth and people of color.
I will say that, from my observation at what feels like a million demonstrations, melees, and only one riot, when people are packed in together, the cops come in swinging and devil take the hindmost.
I personally don't want cops getting out of their carsWM: It is the bull in a china shop approach, isn't it? Personally, I have found it offensive. I've had to empty my pockets for the cops when I had not committed any crime. I also find it offense when cops start swinging, or shooting. I think it's in my self-interest to allow them to know that I'm harmless and that I have sense enough to get out of their way and I won't shoot them or even trip them if I can avoid it. I also want to know which of them is trustworthy, which to be avoided, which ones to watch. The ones I don't trust are the ones who tell me they'll give me a ticket for observing their interactions with citizens.
to "get to know me better." I just want people to be
able to go to the grocery store without getting
harassed twice a week because they "look suspicious."
Now, if I could only get them not to bunch up at parties, I'll think I'm making my own progress, at least.
This in no way is an apology for cops who behave abusively or homicidally.
WizardMarks, Central
Tamir Nolley
Holland Ward 3
Jonathan Palmer wrote:
Again reflecting on Britt's piece on the 3rd ward, and
the need to be specific on the issues, I thought I'd post another
section from Don Samuels' campaign platform posted on his website (<A
HREF="www.donsamuels.org">www.donsamuels.org</A>).
Again, I wanted to write my opinions contrasting Don
and Olin's positions, but I continue to be unable to find Olin's
platform......
Don Samuels on:
INSPECTIONS
"City Inspections must work with residents to preserve
our fragile, valuable housing stock and create quality neighborhoods."
- Ensure sufficient staff to work with residents on
enforcing community standards. Partner with neighborhoods on clean-sweep
efforts and preventive education. - Institute a system of public accountability where
inspection goals are tracked and reported on a regular basis.
- Work with the courts to ensure consequences for
poorly maintained properties. Coordinate resources on chronic offenders.
- Balance increased enforcement with appropriate
resources targeted to property owners. Partner with neighborhood groups to
promote property improvement incentives.
--part1_12e.2092c453.2b5a0122_boundary
Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
<HTML><FONT FACE=arial,helvetica><FONT SIZE=2
FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0">Again
reflecting on Britt's piece on the 3rd ward, and the
need to be specific on the issues, I thought I'd post
another section from Don Samuels' campaign platform
posted on his website (<A
HREF="www.donsamuels.org">www.donsamuels.org</A>).
<BR>
<BR>
Again, I wanted to write my opinions contrasting Don
and Olin's positions, but I continue to be unable to
find Olin's platform......<BR>
<BR>
Don Samuels on:<BR>
<BR>
INSPECTIONS<BR>
"City Inspections must work with residents to preserve
our fragile, valuable housing stock and create quality
neighborhoods."<BR>
<BR>
- Ensure sufficient staff to work with residents on
enforcing community standards. Partner with
neighborhoods on clean-sweep efforts and preventive
education. <BR>
- Institute a system of public accountability where
inspection goals are tracked and reported on a regular
basis.<BR>
- Work with the courts to ensure consequences for
poorly maintained properties. Coordinate resources on
chronic offenders. <BR>
- Balance increased enforcement with appropriate
resources targeted to property owners. Partner with
neighborhood groups to promote property improvement
incentives.</FONT></HTML>
--part1_12e.2092c453.2b5a0122_boundary--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com
_______________________________________
Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy
Post messages to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest, and more: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
_______________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest, and more: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
