Police Abuse

St. Paul City Council Removes Police From Police-Civilian Review Commission

Authority to discipline cops still rests with police chief.

|

kristin and adam/flickr

The city council St. Paul, Minn., voted 5-2 yesterday to remove the two seats reserved for police representatives from the police-civilian review board, after residents complained about the process at a council meeting last month.

"This idea to change who's on the commission has never been about going after police," Kay Pranis told City Pages. "This is about balance, giving much-needed space in the process of reviewing misconduct complaints from a citizens-only perspective."

The Police-Civilian Review Commission was established 25 years ago and has nine members, including the two police representatives. It received 62 complaints last year. The commission can recommend disciplinary action be taken for a wide range of police misconduct, but only the police chief has the authority to impose discipline on cops, and is limited in part by the police contract, which requires discipline, up to dismissal, to be for just cause (which can be arbitrated) and to follow the concept of "progressive discipline," which calls for the use of the least severe method of discipline that would correct behavior.

The police union criticized the vote, saying in a statement that "making change for political reasons represents a complete and tragic disregard for our great officers who put their lives on the line every day," despite the panel's role in the process being completely advisory.

NEXT: Adam Schiff to Tucker Carlson: 'You're Carrying Water for the Kremlin'

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. The police union criticized the vote, saying in a statement that “making change for political reasons represents a complete and tragic disregard for our great officers who put their lives on the line every day,” despite the panel’s role in the process being completely advisory.

    It’s not a civilian review board if there are cops on it. End of discussion.

    1. “Are police not civilians?” He asked, with the barest hint of irony.

      1. “Are police not civilians?”

        Police are supposed to be standard citizens. In reality they are not. They are citizens++ with extra rights and immunities not afforded to the standard citizenry. Just ask one, they will let you know.

      2. Not for purposes of discussion, no.

    2. Clearly, if a police officer is on trial, a “jury of his peers” must include police as well.

      1. That must be why cops never go to trial.

        1. It’s why they never get convicted.

      2. By that logic, for a person standing trial for murder, should his “jury of his peers” not include convicted murderers?

        1. I don’t think so.

          Perhaps the jurors should be individuals who themselves were at some time on trial for murder, however.

  2. making change for political reasons represents a complete and tragic disregard for our great officers who put their lives on the line every day.

    Are there apolitical reasons for making changes to an oversight committee? I am genuinely curious.

    1. It’s the overwrought writing that you’d expect from a seventh grader that really sells it for me.

  3. Every day, life is on the line. Shoot everyone who moves weird, or they might not make it home to their families that night. Do you understand their struggle, their plight, their pleas?

    1. Two more cops randomly targeted and shot.

      If they keep this shit up there really will be a war on cops. It is sad that the cops have no idea why this is.

      1. The cops have plenty of idea – media lies and BLM lies.

        remember, respect for police is one point from an ALL TIME HIGH, and at a 40 yr high

        the VAST majority of the public respects police. poling data proves this (as I have been saying)

        and all the lies have backfired (as I said they would … and was laffed at. sorry, but I’ve been proven right) because given time, the public has seen they were lied to about Ferguson “hands up don’t shoot”, Baltimore, etc. etc.

        Ambush/execution type attacks on cops are up this past year (unsurprisingly) due to the FRINGE element of cop haters being that much more motivated.

        but again, when it comes to vast majority of people, they have rejected the Media/BLM narrative and are embracing us to an extent unseen over the last 40 yrs!

        ANd we greatly appreciate it!!! Thanks, American People!!

        If the cops fuck you over, SUE..has worked for me!!!!!!

        1. If the cops fuck you over, SUE..has worked for me!!!!!!

          Nothing teaches lessons like getting a third party to pay for your fuck-ups.

          1. The important thing to take away from all this is that even Dunphy’s fellow cops don’t like him.

        2. Too bad, you’re back. I was hoping you had been one of those “BLM shootings.” Oh well…

      2. I pulled into a Taco Bell drive through a few weeks ago and realized I was right behind a St. Anthony MN police car. They’re pretty hated after being involved in a racially motivated stop-and-murder a few months back, but it was one of those drive throughs that you’re stuck in once you get in line. My order either was mixed up with the cop in front of me or there was some unfortunate carryover. I couldn’t find it in myself to complain though and get some poor Taco Bell employee in trouble – their heart was in the right place.

        1. They make the taco bell drive throughs like that so that when the retard employees get your order wrong 6 times and you’ve been sitting there 20 minutes, you can’t get pissed and just drive off. They’d lose 90% of their business.

    2. I bet more used car salesmen are injured in the course of doing their jobs than police.

  4. I read the contract. Pretty decent one: Just cause and progressive discipline are both key…

    I am a firm believer in “civilian” oversight boards AS LONG AS the “civilians” have the proper training

    I’d expect the same in those who review attorney conduct, physician conduct, etc.

    Attendance at a citizen academy, qualification with firearm (including FATS and Simunition training) , qualification in Emergency Driving (Pit and EVOC), defensive tactics including pepper spray, baton and Taser (I’ve been pepper sprayed 4 times in training and tased twice – reviewers should also go through it) would give these people an understanding of the dynamics of UOF as well as the limitations (vs. getting their ideas from TJ Hooker or the media in general),

    Doing say, at least 80 hrs of ridealong in busy districts will give them an appreciation of what happens, from the angle of the street cop, which is essential if they are to rule on the appropriateness of a street cop’s actions in various situations.

    I was helped in civil suit against police misconduct by the work of a citizen police review board member.

    The review board members should BE “civilians”.. but with training in specific aspects of police work as mentioned above, to provide perspective and understanding

    1. Not today, man. Fuck you.

    2. You’ve only been pepper sprayed 4 times? It’s an annual requirement here. Unsurprisingly, our officers aren’t very quick to spray.

    3. FATS is fun stuff. Really great insight as to how you assess and lock on threats under stress. I wish it was more available and less expensive…

    4. I don’t think one needs special training to identify cops that are violating people’s rights.

    5. How far we’ve fallen from the Peelian principles.

    6. “The review board should be civilians. They should just be ones that agree with everything we do”

      Go the fuck away. I don’t care where it is so long as it isn’t here.

    7. “I am a firm believer in “civilian” oversight boards AS LONG AS the “civilians” have the proper training”

      And what would that be, Dumby? ‘Good shoot officer!’.

    8. I am a firm believer in “civilian” oversight boards AS LONG AS the “civilians” have the proper training

      Is that the training where we’re taught to see a perp lunging at the officer when we watch a video of an unarmed person lying prostrate on the ground 40′ away being shot in the back?

    9. I am a firm believer in “civilian” oversight boards AS LONG AS the “civilians” have the proper training

      When in doubt, remember that the police are never wrong.

      Training over!

  5. Charges Possible Over Video Of Black Student Eating Chicken
    http://pittsburgh.cbslocal.com…..g-chicken/

    “A teenager accused of producing a racist video of a black classmate eating chicken and posting it online could face criminal charges, a prosecutor said Wednesday.

    Northampton County District Attorney John Morganelli said he’s considering ethnic intimidation and harassment charges against a 14-year-old white student at Saucon Valley High School.

    The teenager recorded a 16-year-old black boy eating chicken wings and in narrating the video called the older boy the N-word and made references to “being broke and on welfare,” said Morganelli, who called the video “reprehensible” and “repulsive.”

    After seeing the video on social media, the black student attacked the white student at a football game, Morganelli said. Lower Saucon police charged the black student with assault and other offenses; the charges are pending in juvenile court.”

    Obviously the white student is an asshole, but since he didn’t physically assault the black student it is an assault on the first amendment to charge him.

    1. I looked up ethnic intimidation because I’ve never heard of such a law and it sounds blatantly unconstitutional. But it looks like it wouldn’t apply to the white student.

      “Ethnic intimidation refers to acts of malicious and intentional intimidation or harassment of another person because of that person’s race, color, religion, gender, or national origin. This conduct must also (a) cause physical contact with another person, (b) damage, destroy, or deface real or personal property, or (c) threaten to do any of the acts stated above, if there is reasonable cause to believe that such an act will occur.”

      1. a) Well, it DID cause the black dude to kick his ass, so….

    2. I’m sure that turning every teenaged spat into a criminal matter is going to work wonders for society…

      1. Probably about the same effect as arresting teen sexters and turning them into lifetime felons.

    3. Damn, it’s a good thing it was only chicken and not watermelon too!

      But here’s my question. What if the black student posted video of the white student drinking a soy latte and eating some lentil soup, would that be a hate crime also? I mean, no respectable black dudes would drink a soy latte, right?

    4. Teenagers Are Dumbasses, Film At 11

    5. From my prospective, nothing else should come from this. Yes, whitey is a major dick and got what he had coming, a good ass-kicking. The black student should not receive any punishment as his only crime was administering a well-deserved ass-whopping. But no, absolutely not, charges should be brought against white kid.

      1. This. The white kid engaged in protected speech and didn’t commit a crime. The black kid did something illegal, but no prosecutor worth his salt should bother bringing it in front of a jury.

      2. Just a few months ago a buddy of mine’s 15 year old son got Into a fight at school. It was over another guy pouring water into his football locker and getting his pads and cleats wet. He actually got arrested and charged with assault.

        I’m not that old. 29. Even just 15 years ago you could get Into a fight at school and not have the state involved.

    6. After seeing the video on social media, the black student attacked the white student at a football game, Morganelli said. Lower Saucon police charged the black student with assault and other offenses; the charges are pending in juvenile court.”

      Maybe we could just not charge anyone in this scenario and call it even?

  6. Loggers, fishermen and roofers put their lives on the line everyday to a greater extent than cops but they don’t constantly throw it in our faces as an excuse for bad behavior.

    1. BTW, if you want to talk gender gap 92% of work related deaths are men.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.