One Correction to my last post. In describing the background of the community movement that led to the city council forming a Civilian Review Authority, I stated, > "The "straw that broke > the camel's back" was the police shooting in the back Tycel Nelson, a 17 > years old and unarmed.
This was incorrect. The shooting of Tycel Nelson occurred afterward. The actual "straw that broke the camel's back" was the police killing of Lloyd Smalley and Lillian Wiese, an elderly couple who were living in a unit of a building that was a suspected crack house. The notorious Mike Sauro ordered officers to throw a flash-bang grenade before raiding the building. It exploded and killed this elderly couple in their sleep. Jordan Kushner Ward 8 "Jordan S. Kushner" wrote: > > The Civilian Review Authority in Minneapolis was established in response > to an almost massive mobilization in the African American, Native > American, and progressive activist community in the late 1980s, in > response to an out-of-control police department. The "straw that broke > the camel's back" was the police shooting in the back Tycel Nelson, a 17 > years old and unarmed. The perpetrator, Dan May, was of course not > prosectued or disciplined. In fact, he was awarded a medal. I > participated in the Coalition's committee that drafted a proposal for a > civilian review board. Even though we modified our final proposal to > some degree to be "realistic," it was still very different from the city > council's greatly watered-down proposal. Although i did not save copies > of the proposal, it would be interesting to compare what community > activists though would be acceptable, to what actually occurred. > > I will list some of the weaknesses of the Minneapolis Civilian > Authority, but it is more important to realize that even a serious > civilian review board is not by any means a sufficient solution to the > structural problems that are behind the police oppression of certain > communities. > > Weaknesses of the Minneapolis Civilian Review Authority: > > ] - [the often-mentioned] lack of subpoena power. Witnesses to > incidents cannot be required to testify, which is a basic tool available > in most court or administrative proceedings. Therefore, witnesses > without a connection to the vicitm in the case or who might even be > partial toward the police, are unlikely to voluntarily testify against > the police. > > - the Civilian Review Authority (CRA) cannot discipline police > officers. It can only recommed to the police chief that an officer > should be disciplined. If the CRA does find a violation warranting > discipline, the CRA does not even recommend the level of discipline. > The chief is free to disregard the CRA's findings. Even if the chief > does discipline the officer, he has complete discretion over what kind > of discipline to impose, ranging from a reprimand to termination. Since > the CRA does not even recommend the actual discipline, there is no > record if the type of discipline is at variance with how serious the CRA > viewed the violation. > > - The Civilian Review Authority board members who hear the cases and > hire the executive director and staff, are appointed by the city > council. Since the Minneapolis city council has been mostly partial > toward the police point of view, they are more likely to appoint people > favorable to the police. They are very unlikely to appoint anyone who > has a real critical perspective about the police. The solutions include > electing a different city council, or having the voters elect the CRA > commissioners. > > - The CRA investigators are usually former police officers. If the > investigators are partial to the police, it is less likely that a case > will even be brought before the board for a hearing (most are not), or > vigorously prosecuted. > > - There is a lack of funding to conduct adequate investigations. > Adequate funding has usually been an issue for the CRA. Since a > thorough investigation of police misconduct usually requires a lot of > time and effort in trying to sort out the differing versions, a small > staff with a heavy caseload will be unable to do enough investigation to > find the "truth." For example, doing more detailed and follow up > interviews, searching for witnesses, testing physical evidence, etc. are > unlikely to occur. > > - Complainants are not entitled to a hearing. Most complainants never > get a hearing, or their "day in court." The executive director has the > discretion to determine whether their is "probable cause" to pursue any > action. The investigators and executive director can decide on their > own that they believe the police officer or do not believe the > complainant, and summarily dismiss the case. Although such a decision > can be appealed to the board, the only information available to the > board without a hearing is what is provided by the staff who decided not > to pursue the case. > > - The CRA does have any role in making the police department rules and > policies and pratices, but is confined to deciding whether a specific > case has any violation of existing policies. Therefore, even if a > police officer's action is wrong, nothing can be done unless it violates > a police department policy. The CRA cannot do anything to add or change > policies. It is not empowered to conduct any research or investigation > into underlying police practices, or how they could be improved. > > > Although a stronger CRA might have bring justice to some more > individual cases, and broader powers to review police department policie > could lead to broader reforms, the CRA cannot solve the following > problems: > > - The imbalance of skills and power prevents police misconduct from > being proven. The police officers are professional witnesses who are > trained on how to report and justify their actions. Most complainants > are not experienced in such matters. Since most incidents involve the > police officers' word against the complainant's and possibly their > friends or relatives, it is unlikely that any CRA will usually find > enough evidence to establish police misconduct in most cases. > > - A CRA cannot address the police role in society which, to paraphrase > former police chief Tony Bouza, consists of keeping the oppressed > classes down. Given the role that police are assigned, it is inevitable > that people will be abused discrminatorily. > > Jordan Kushner > Ward 8 > > Many Crows wrote: > > > > Maybe somebody out there, maybe Jordan or others knowledgeable about the > > > > civilian review board could give us all an overview of their > > powers...strengths, weakness, and any suggestions to a new city > > council..... > > It seems to me they do not have much power or authority. > > thanks in advance, > > > > Robert Yorga > > new3 > > > _______________________________________ > Minneapolis Issues Forum - A Civil City Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy > Post messages to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest option, and more: > http://e-democracy.org/mpls _______________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A Civil City Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest option, and more: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
