Good Morning, I disagree with the idea that the definition of a problem cop is someone who causes the city to get sued & pay an award or settlement. Obviously a cop can be a problem - a thumper or cowboy or whatever else you'd like to call the cop - without getting sued. More so, I disagree with it over the complexities of a lawsuit and a settlement in these cases. They are not so black and white that if a suit is settled then the cop was guilty and if it wasn't, it was frivolous. There are practical reasons for settling a suit because it may be less expensive than fighting it in court. Or there can be political reasons for settling a lawsuit. If it is a civil matter, as these type of lawsuits are, then the burden of proof is lower than a crime. The plantiff does not have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt as to what occurred. And if the city is to fire police based on that, ask yourself what licensed peace officer in Minnesota will want to work for such a department? Giving the best and brightest officers in Minnesota one more reason to NOT work for Minnesota isn't going to help improve the department.
> They knew he was a problem cop. Any cop whose actions cause the city > to get sued and pay either a jury verdict or a settlement is a problem > cop. The city will never change the Police Department if it retains > problem cops on the payroll. Maybe Rybak and the Council would rather > talk about change than actually implement it. Further more, I'm troubled by the resignation of Stanek and the backlash that has ensued. Not so much for the incident itself. I question whether Pawlenty didn't find this politically expedient thing to do. By sacrificing one of the 3 controversial appointees, he may be helping to improve the chances of getting the other 2 in there. What I am troubled by is the idea that something done over a decade ago can carry so much weight. Obviously there are extreme actions such as murder that shouldn't be ignored. But what exactly did Stanek do 12 years ago? My understanding is that he admitted to using the N word when not at work & was alleged to have used it during the incident that was subject of the lawsuit. Since that incident, what else has he done wrong beside state that it's not okay for him to use such a term, even when not at work? The reason I ask that is because at some point, the incident should be put behind us and we move on. I personally do not care to live in a community where my neighbors dwell on every mistake that someone has made. And if Stanek has indeed grown ahs a person from that incident and changed ways, then Minneapolis should move on from there. The man has some skills and knowledge that he does bring to the table. If dealing with someone whom I don't agree with politically and who did a something dumb in his past is what I have to live with to benefit from those skills, I can live with that. And I'm glad to see that the mayor and the city council are willing to do the same. Sincerely, Allen Graetz Prospect 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
