Paul Weir says: "I'm no lawyer, but I suspect one
of the reasons these cops remain beyond reach is that the city's
contract with the Police Federation requires much more stringent
proof of culpable behavior than the courts require for determining
liability."
The Minneapolis Civilian Police Review Authority (where I'm a board member)
sustains a complaint brought against a police officer if it meets the
standard used in civil prosecutions: preponderance of evidence. This means
that more than half of the evidence supports the allegation against the
officer. This standard is relatively easy for the complainant to meet, and
it means that the officer has to work pretty hard to disprove the
allegation. I imagine that the city seems willing to settle civil claims
because they face more of a crap shoot in court reaching evidence
standards. Settling also allows the city to better control the amount paid
out in damages, which would otherwise be dictated by the court. I think
police officers should be held accountable for misconduct. But I can also
see the fiscal and legal wisdom in settling a case out of court instead of
using taxpayer money to fund the legal battle and the damages that might
subsequently be paid out.
Paul Weir says: "We're also assured by the same authorities that only a
tiny number of cops engage in brutality. Now, why is it so easy for
most of us to accept the former, and so difficult for some of us to
accept the latter?"
I've repeatedly heard Civilian Review Authority staff observe that they
hear the same officers named again and again in complaints. There are
anomalies, of course, but at least anectdotally, the "authorities" seem to
be correct.
As for why the city can't simply fire officers who repeatedly act up, MPD
disciplinary procedures are governed by the contract the police federation
has with the city. Unlike the corporate world, where HR rules are less
bureaucratic, the contract requires repeated, escalating discipline for all
but the most extreme acts of misconduct. Also, it's important to remember
that there's a big difference between an allegation of misconduct and
complaint that has actually been sustained. An officer could have had a
dozen complaints in the past, but if none of them were proven true there
can be no disciplinary action.
Michael P. Weinbeck (Also not a lawyer!)
Audobon Park
REMINDERS:
1. Think a member has violated the rules? Email the list manager at [EMAIL PROTECTED]
before continuing it on the list.
2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait.
For state and national discussions see: http://e-democracy.org/discuss.html
For external forums, see: http://e-democracy.org/mninteract
________________________________
Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy
Post messages to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
