>From the Minneapolis City Charter, Chapter 6, Section 1 "Section 1 Powers of Mayor over Police--Chief. The mayor shall be vested with all the powers of said city connected with and incident to the establishment, maintenance, appointment, removal, discipline, control and supervision of its police force, subject to the limitations herein contained and the provisions of the civil service chapter of this Charter, and may make all needful rules and regulations for the efficiency and discipline, and promulgate and enforce general and special orders for the government of the same, and have the care and custody of all public property connected with the police department of the city. The executive committee shall, by and with the consent of a majority of all of the members of the city council, appoint for a term of three (3) years commencing January 2, 1980, some suitable person as chief of police, subject to removal upon the recommendation of the executive committee by a vote of a majority of all of the members of the city council. Such position shall be in the unclassified service." Carol Becker Longfellow > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: Multiple recipients of list <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Thursday, November 23, 2000 9:11 PM > Subject: Re: Proposal to discuss police conduct > > > > In a message dated 11/23/00 9:03:26 PM Central Standard Time, > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > > > << yes, it is definitely about time that we start challenging our > > out-of-control - or perhaps too-much-in-control police department. i > > think the FIVE KILLINGS IN THE PAST YEAR is a further manifestation of a > > police department that is not held accountable to our elected civilian > > government. >> > > > > It is a priori that police in Minneapolis are not held accountable to > > civilian government, given the absence of oversight by legislators. It > stands > > to reason that a congress that allows the trundleing of the most basic > human > > rights would do absolutely nothing against an armed agency. > > > > It is even more astounding that a beguiled public will continuously hold > onto > > the reins of malfeasance, even in the face of arrogant disdain for the > safety > > and welfare of citizens exhibited by public officials to date. It may be > the > > case that more wide spread attention should be generated to awaken the > > sensibilities of the general populace: atrocities are not reserved to > > specific incidence and so we are all subject. Nor is this indignation > limited > > to the police, even though their acts are the more lethal. > > > > An earlier post mentions redress of police conduct via city council. I > submit > > that their intervention would be minimal in scope and affect, even if they > > were inclined to act. Such an initiative requires strong leadership at the > > state level to mandate accountability through legislative effort, and due > > process that holds police accountable for the loss of life in its > > functioning. Contrary to some beliefs, this does not undermine the ability > of > > the police to protect the rights and lives of the citizenry; rather it > sets > > the tone for police response. > > > > I've experienced the anxiety of facing an eneny under fire therefore I > know > > that proper training and experience teaches one to be more aware of the > > response to a threat. So, when I hear the number of rounds expended in a > > subject, I know it to be a rookie facing action for the first time, or the > > calous response of an insensitive force "sending a message". Admittedly, > > police forces face a formidable foe: well armed, and seemingly disposed > to > > dispersing the obstacle. In and of itself, that does not give license for > > "termination with extreme prejudice". Any command that allows such action > is > > not fit to serve. > > > > Robert Anderson > > 8th Ward > > >
