Yes, disarming patrol was a straw man, the obvious choice is disbanding SWAT. The problem with SWAT seems to be the old "when you get a fancy new hammer every problem looks like a nail" SWAT with a no-knock gets used instead of investigation . . . why ask questions if you can kick in the door? How many calls does SWAT attend and how many are actually situations that would justify SWAT? Could they be handled in this day and age by . . . . quality police work? I am inclined to think so. Actually I'd run out on that limb, that bumping up standards and equipment for patrol would be more efficient AND negate the need for SWAT. You know, take that "every Marine is a rifleman" concept and put it to work. Cops seem to want to play military, lets let them, but not at the expense of their MOS. Every Marine is a rifleman, but not every Marine is a "0311".



Fubar

Your understanding is wrong. That may be how it is written someplace, it isn't how it is practiced.



and

How many of the people who would like to have their applications rejected? If the general public genereally doesn't want anything to do with law enforcement, the answer isn't to shrug your shoulders and go on with the day . . . the answer is, to ask "Why?" and then take steps to adress that. Yes, the lemonaid stands didn't work out very well because what would "sell" well in the suburbs doesn't in North Minneapolis. Now something that the people of a particular neighborhood can relate to & isn't being opperated like an observation post might get some traction. When it looks like the officers are running a lemonaid stand for the purpose of having an excuse to stand watch rather than build relationship, you can expect the results we have seen.



The guys do rely on their supervisors to provide them with lots of warrants merited and otherwise and to sweep things under the rug when they mess up. That is working out swell. Sure, in an ideal world we'd pin the tail on the brass, but it is hard to find the brass through all that whitewash. No, I wrote what I wrote very specifically. Line officers serving a warrant should not be asked to serve a warrant they aren't sure about. "My buddy told me maybe" isn't a good defense in any court . . . . imagine if Joe public tried that. "My buddy told me that the Caddy across the street was free & all I had to do was break a window to get in it and to "fix" the ignition . .. I didn't know it belonged to someone so it wasn't really grand theft auto" Um, yeah. . . How about we apply the same standards to cops as we do to Joe Public, if ya aren't sure it is okay you don't go in, cause if you are wrong you could serve time.

On my point #10, I am just suggesting that maybe we should hold police to the same standards that an out of state guy with a nationally accredited Bachelors degrees (in Crim Just or Law Enf) and relevant experience measures up to. There was a reason the complied statutes were on the book list for the bachelors degree, knowing the law is absolutely essential to enforcing it. Officers should know the complied statutes like a priest knows his Bible . . . . it is the book from which the job takes its form and establishes its legitimacy. A cop that doesn't know the law and a priest that doesn't know his Bible, smell like frauds and ooze unprofessionalism. Hey, if you pass the quiz, that is the end of it for another year. Why shouldn't failure to know the law result in remedial education?

I do like that though. Even though my "disarm patrol" was admittedly a straw man for "disband SWAT" I can see that move leading to revisions in the law that would be wholey and completely reasonable i.e. when, where, and how a loaded long gun can be carried in a vehicle.

Cops need to learn human relations, customer service and prioritization of tasks. They should probably be taught by good waiters and waitresses.

No, I'm not joking.

You mean the Lt. Dale Barsness, who "plead guilty in 1991 to a fifth degree domestic assault against his wife"? Magically, of course, a judge in Hennepin County used a little-known rule to set aside his guilty plea by demonstrating that the conviction created a "manifest injustice", since in Minnesota, without a gun, you cannot be a law enforcement officer.

Different rules, of course, for you and me.

And that from just one little trip to Google.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_h ... ntent;col1

There are, in truth, three kinds of drivers.

1. Reckless fools, speeding along far too fast for the conditions
2. Insecure idiots, creeping along far too slow for safety
3. Me.

(I am open to the possibility that there are a few other safe drivers out there, but since they are - by definition - driving the same speed I am, I never meet them.)

My 2 Cents:

The cops need to realize they serve us. Stop "jacking up" high school students. Stop the Gestapo/SS style intimidation tactics against people going about their legal business.

Enforce the laws and regulations against the LEOs with the same level of merciless brutality and tactics of intimidation that they enforce them with on us.

If they screw up (shoot up the wrong house, hire the wrong hooker, beat the wrong bartender, take the wrong bribe... you get the point... ), they lose 85% of their pension. No appeals, the money goes to the settlement towards the victims of the Police, "just doing their job".

Eliminate "priveleges" for Cops. No more right to carry than us "civilians" have. No "professional courtesy" for cops driving 30MPH over the limit. No blind eye to DUIs and other illegal conduct simply because the offender has a badge.

Most of all, above all else, get rid of this bullshit that cops aren't civllians. You're either in the military, or you're a civillian. If you think being a police officer is the same as being in the Military, maybe you should go clear a minefield, or storm a beach ala Normandy.

While Binky and I may not always agree, we certainly do on this issue.

A big +1 to all of that!

-Mark

I think one of the biggest problems of law enforcement is the demise of the beat cop. I do not know any of the officers in my precinct. I never see the same one long enough to remember him. Heck, I hardly ever see police on my street unless I called them.

A policeman that actually knows the community rather than just the dregs he is called to arrest would have a much harder time being an a3hole. People would recognize him. By the same token, knowing the community would make it easier for the officer to see things out of place and perhaps actually prevent some crime.

The thing is, with the things being the way they are, this is impossible. When the entire NE Minneapolis is covered overnight by 3, count'em, three patrols in cars, what sort of in-depth knowledge of the community can you expect? I think this is a huge part of why there is an us vs. them mentality.

A polar opposite of what we got here is Japan. Police there are required to know their precinct backwards and forwards. They do door to door surveys to know who lives where. Granted, that is entirely too intrusive, but there is a rational seed here.

Count your blessings.

Police are not protectors. They are investigators and detectives after a stereo is stolen, or your neighbor has already beaten his wife, or someone has panicked about the rifle you brought in from the car, etc.

If they are around with no crimes being committed, odds are they're looking for something to "police", or the city wants more of the fruits of your labor in the form of rolling stop tickets and behind-the-hedge radar guns.

Your safety is your own responsibility, and that of the neighborhood together. To tell you the truth, I get more on edge when I see a cruiser than when they are noticeably absent, because I'm wondering if they'll decide to "see something" that requires protecting me from myself, and proceed to ruin my day.

Police are not there to be your friends. I find it strange that every grade school kid is indoctrinated to believe otherwise.

With regards to property crime you give them entirely too much credit; they could be better described as a database data entry system. And they actually have an phone automated one of those for some property crimes.

Indeed. I stand corrected.
I don't think I've ever been so "less than enthusiastic" to have my point further emphasized.

Nice contribution.

Bingo. The most forward-looking agencies are actually looking backward, and resurrecting the foot patrol. The Flint PD tried it, with great results.

I'm going to have to agree with Macx, Binky and the others saying that the double standard that exists between crimes police commit and regular citizens is becoming unacceptable. A simple example, if I have to adhere to a speed limit or no right turns on red the cop needs to do to the same. If we give them a pass on that just like a kid or a dog they start testing for the limits and given the blue wall those limits are usually in a very different place then the ones for you and I.
I have yet to have a pleasant interaction with Minneapolis's finest. They are unfailingly rude and arrogant and as a citizen I find it offensive. I also don't buy the "oh but they only see the dregs" argument, if they can't manage to figure out the different responses to malum prohibitum and malum in se laws maybe they need a different line of work, one that doesn't involve the power of life and death.
Afterall that is in some respects what we give a police officer, the power to use violence up to and including deadly force in coercing someone to obey the laws we pass no matter how insignificant.

Dead. on. the money.
The history of SWAT literally sets the standard for the move away from proper community policing.

The concept of SWAT came about in Los Angeles after the Watts riots, largely in response to urban unrest. Obviously, there are a few things wrong with that reasoning, which should have been obvious then.

The riots were really powder keg reaction to poor public policy. So, in typical militarized, bureaucratic fashion, instead of using resources to address the policy problem, the disease, the city elected to employ greater force in order to beat down the symptoms. It set a standard that's been followed since then. It's why, I think, much of the public has a very bad opinion of police forces.

People, the public, want to feel that the police is part of the public, and vice versa, and things like SWAT and the ways it's glamorized (DALLAS SWAT, COPS) are moving society away from that mentality. It's in fact the opposite of community policing.

I say get police back on foot patrols (not all, just plenty) and keep the same guys and gals on the same beats for at least a year at time so they can know people. You know, be neighborly, force the understanding that we all live here and thus we all have the same stake in this place. We'll see a return to proactive crime fighting which, I think, is what people want. It's what I want. A lot of the crime reported, police should be able to see coming. And if you think about it, you'll probably agree that, no, it's not a lot to ask.

What's that old Jewish adage? "You won't learn anything if you never get out of the fucking car." My grandfather played that card a lot.

As an addition to my previous post, I might add, "Mandate TOTAL transparancy in law enforcement activities."

A publicly accessible archive of ALL police chatter and MDT traffic (perhaps on a 5-10 minute time delay to preserve a tactical edge), as well as any and all dashcam footage the officers in car camera records, to be compressed and uploaded to a read-only data base that a non-law enforcement agency oversees... not something that the officer can conveniently lose or destroy and claim a camera malfunction. Not something a person can delete off the network it's stored on simply to cover their tracks. Make carrying a cellphone while on patrol a fireable offense-skirt the transparency (or have the tools to do so in your posession) and forfeit a large ammount of your pension.

Probably not feasable, at least not the video part, but there ought to be a way to preserve the audio. Maybe force the public servants to have "hot" mics on at all times.

If they're doing nothing wrong they have nothing to be afraid of, right?

Why should having a cellphone be a terminable offense? I can remember needing to talk to officers off the air several times when I worked in law enforcement in Indiana in the early 90s. There were simply some things we didn't want on the radio - too sensitive.

b