Systemic racism in the Minneapolis Police Department

[Rockfish1]

The Minneapolis police systematically discriminate against black people in the use of force:

Video of George Floyd’s last conscious moments horrified the nation, spurring protests that have led to curfews and National Guard interventions in many large cities.

But for the black community in Minneapolis — where Mr. Floyd died after an officer pressed a knee into his neck for 8 minutes 46 seconds — seeing the police use some measure of force is disturbingly common.

About 20 percent of Minneapolis’s population of 430,000 is black. But when the police get physical — with kicks, neck holds, punches, shoves, takedowns, Mace, Tasers or other forms of muscle — nearly 60 percent of the time the person subject to that force is black. And that is according to the city’s own figures.

. . . Community leaders say the frequency with which the police use force against black residents helps explain a fury in the city that goes beyond Mr. Floyd’s death, which the medical examiner ruled a homicide.

Since 2015, the Minneapolis police have documented using force about 11,500 times. For at least 6,650 acts of force, the subject of that force was black.

By comparison, the police have used force about 2,750 times against white people, who make up about 60 percent of the population.

All of that means that the police in Minneapolis used force against black people at a rate at least seven times that of white people during the past five years.

. . . The disparities in the use of force in Minneapolis parallel large racial gaps in vital measures in the city, like income, education and unemployment, said David Schultz, a professor at Hamline University in St. Paul who has studied local police tactics for two decades.

. . . When he taught a course years ago on potential liability officers face in the line of duty, Mr. Schultz said, he would describe Minneapolis as “a living laboratory on everything you shouldn’t do when it comes to police use of force.”

Mr. Schultz credits the current police chief, Medaria Arradondo, for seeking improvements but said that in a lot of respects the department still operates like it did decades ago.

“We have a pattern that goes back at least a generation,” Mr. Schultz said.​

 

[StelioKantos]

Definitely some variables left out of the equation

 

[Courtsensetwo]

All officers now charged and the primary has been upcharged.

Took too long, but right calls.

Looting and assault excuses going to be harder to come by now.

 

[Bowlmania]

The mayor and police chief should both be gone, imo.

 

[JamieDimonsBalls]

Since 2015, the Minneapolis police have documented using force about 11,500 times. For at least 6,650 acts of force, the subject of that force was black.

By comparison, the police have used force about 2,750 times against white people, who make up about 60 percent of the population.

All of that means that the police in Minneapolis used force against black people at a rate at least seven times that of white people during the past five years.

Talk about misleading stats... are you simply going to ignore the criminal offense stats by race?

 

[JamieDimonsBalls]

All officers now charged and the primary has been upcharged.

Took too long, but right calls.

Looting and assault excuses going to be harder to come by now.

Serious question for the legal guys... is this the right call? Do they need to prove intent now or what are the key differences between 2nd and 3rd degree?

Wasn't 2nd against Zimmerman (Martin case) and Anthony part of the reason they were not convicted?

 

[StelioKantos]

Talk about misleading stats... are you simply going to ignore the criminal offense stats by race?

that was my earlier point

 

[ulrey]

Talk about misleading stats... are you simply going to ignore the criminal offense stats by race?

nope..

 

[Courtsensetwo]

Serious question for the legal guys... is this the right call? Do they need to prove intent now or what are the key differences between 2nd and 3rd degree?

Wasn't 2nd against Zimmerman (Martin case) and Anthony part of the reason they were not convicted?

I am not a practicing attny anymore so others can chime in, but yes it changes the obligation for the PA/state. It goes from Indifference and negligence which were going to be simple to prove to intent to kill. A lot tougher in my mind but I know others here are litigators and I never was.

This plays better on Main St but i am not sure it was the best move.

 

[mcmurtry66]

I am not a practicing attny anymore so others can chime in, but yes it changes the obligation for the PA/state. It goes from Indifference and negligence which were going to be simple to prove to intent to kill. A lot tougher in my mind but I know others here are litigators and I never was.

This plays better on Main St but i am not sure it was the best move.

They have an unintended 2nd degree subdivision in their stat.

 

[outside shooter]

....are you simply going to ignore the criminal offense stats by race?

that is also heavily affected by policing

In a hypothetic example,

say that my African American roommate and I celebrate the darkest day in Ohio state history one Saturday in the fall of 1987. Perhaps some cannibis products are involved.

Perhaps later we drive, separately, and each encounter a police roadblock. I'm a white guy and so I get waved through with a smile. My roommate does not have it so easy, though. The cop then notices an odor.

At the end of the night, only one criminal offense has occurred, officially.

Clear?

 

[StelioKantos]

that is also heavily affected by policing

In a hypothetic example,

say that my African American roommate and I celebrate the darkest day in Ohio state history one Saturday in the fall of 1987. Perhaps some cannibis products are involved.

Perhaps later we drive, separately, and each encounter a police roadblock. I'm a white guy and so I get waved through with a smile. My roommate does not have it so easy, though. The cop then notices an odor.

At the end of the night, only one criminal offense has occurred, officially.

Clear?

what? Dude did you splooge when you typed that

it was pretty funny to read cause I could just see your eyes lighting up like you were making some fantastic point

 

[mcmurtry66]

that is also heavily affected by policing

In a hypothetic example,

say that my African American roommate and I celebrate the darkest day in Ohio state history one Saturday in the fall of 1987. Perhaps some cannibis products are involved.

Perhaps later we drive, separately, and each encounter a police roadblock. I'm a white guy and so I get waved through with a smile. My roommate does not have it so easy, though. The cop then notices an odor.

At the end of the night, only one criminal offense has occurred, officially.

Clear?

Not clear at all. People are just saying they want to see the comparative stats by race for a specific offense. Then it would be meaningful. Maybe black offenses involved more armed or more serious matters. Etc.

 

[outside shooter]

Not clear at all. People are just saying they want to see the comparative stats by race for a specific offense. Then it would be meaningful.

And in my example, the comparative stats by race for a specific offense was 100% black, 0% white, only because of the inherent biases of Bloomington's finest*.

It is a sample size of two possible offenders, I know. Tiny. But not at all unusual.

*at least as of 1987; maybe they've improved.

 

[mcmurtry66]

Not clear at all. People are just saying they want to see the comparative stats by race for a specific offense. Then it would be meaningful.

And in my example, the comparative stats by race for a specific offense was 100% black, 0% white, only because of the inherent biases of Bloomington's finest*.

*at least as of 1987; maybe they've improved.

yours made zero sense. We’re talking about Minnesota. We want to see the following by way of example:

Arrested on possession 35g or less.
2755 black
1877 white
Of these cases which ones involved force.

Then we could have a meaningful analysis.

 

[mcmurtry66]

And in my example, the comparative stats by race for a specific offense was 100% black, 0% white, only because of the inherent biases of Bloomington's finest*.

It is a sample size of two possible offenders, I know. Tiny. But not at all unusual.

*at least as of 1987; maybe they've improved.

My apologies. I understand what you’re getting at.

For purposes of the article we still need more specific data.

 

[Spartans9312]

All officers now charged and the primary has been upcharged.

Took too long, but right calls.

Looting and assault excuses going to be harder to come by now.

Obviously, it's not good enough.

 

[JamieDimonsBalls]

that is also heavily affected by policing

In a hypothetic example,

say that my African American roommate and I celebrate the darkest day in Ohio state history one Saturday in the fall of 1987. Perhaps some cannibis products are involved.

Perhaps later we drive, separately, and each encounter a police roadblock. I'm a white guy and so I get waved through with a smile. My roommate does not have it so easy, though. The cop then notices an odor.

At the end of the night, only one criminal offense has occurred, officially.

Clear?

Not quite.

https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2017/crime-in-the-u.s.-2017/tables/table-43

 

[T.M.P.]

Talk about misleading stats... are you simply going to ignore the criminal offense stats by race?

lol ...

When they take over you'll be treated just like they are. < that's what you're afraid of. Same with women.

Maybe you should be more upset at the whites being brutalized also. Maybe focus on that because your obvious bias does not allow you to think about this critically.

Poor people commit more crime, DERP. Doesn't mean they should be brutalized.

 

[Ladoga]

They have an unintended 2nd degree subdivision in their stat.

That's true in Minnesota and 1st degree there would require proving premeditation. One thing that surely wouldn't help is to over charge an offense to an extent rendering it unprovable and get a not guilty verdict.

 

[Rockfish1]

that is also heavily affected by policing

In a hypothetic example,

say that my African American roommate and I celebrate the darkest day in Ohio state history one Saturday in the fall of 1987. Perhaps some cannibis products are involved.

Perhaps later we drive, separately, and each encounter a police roadblock. I'm a white guy and so I get waved through with a smile. My roommate does not have it so easy, though. The cop then notices an odor.

At the end of the night, only one criminal offense has occurred, officially.

Clear?

Yes. When police disproportionately look for crime by black people this skews the numbers. But these numbers go to the disproportionate use of force and not to disproportionate stops or arrests.

 

[Rockfish1]

Not clear at all. People are just saying they want to see the comparative stats by race for a specific offense. Then it would be meaningful. Maybe black offenses involved more armed or more serious matters. Etc.

If people “want to see it” they can look it up. What’s going on here is people not wanting to see it.

 

[Rockfish1]

The mayor and police chief should both be gone, imo.

I don’t think the problem flows from the mayor and the police chief.

 

[T.M.P.]

I don’t think the problem flows from the mayor and the police chief.

It doesn't at least not the core problem. Mayors and chiefs and executive staff change constantly and the problem remains. Of course competence in leadership can go a long way.

 

[mcmurtry66]

If people “want to see it” they can look it up. What’s going on here is people not wanting to see it.

Here’s a link with more info. A bit dated but interesting. Doesn’t sound like Andy Griffith was running the show. Just the outmoded tactics alone give one pause.

https://m.startribune.com/minneapolis-police-post-data-on-use-of-force/457520783/

 

[Courtsensetwo]

that is also heavily affected by policing

In a hypothetic example,

say that my African American roommate and I celebrate the darkest day in Ohio state history one Saturday in the fall of 1987. Perhaps some cannibis products are involved.

Perhaps later we drive, separately, and each encounter a police roadblock. I'm a white guy and so I get waved through with a smile. My roommate does not have it so easy, though. The cop then notices an odor.

At the end of the night, only one criminal offense has occurred, officially.

Clear?

Now, why were you waived through? Was this a black guy roadblock? Weird.

 

[Rockfish1]

The criminal justice system discriminates against black people in every way. Black people are disproportionately likely to be stopped, disproportionately likely to be searched, disproportionately likely to be roughed up or killed in the process, disproportionately likely to be charged, disproportionately likely to be convicted, and disproportionately likely to be given harsh sentences.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/news/opinions/wp/2018/09/18/theres-overwhelming-evidence-that-the-criminal-justice-system-is-racist-heres-the-proof/?outputType=amp

Yes, black people have disproportionate representation in crime statistics, but the system disproportionately looks for crimes by black people, so the numbers are skewed.

Also, these are the numbers generated by the systemically racist system. There’s every reason to believe that the official numbers understate the problem.

 

[Courtsensetwo]

Not clear at all. People are just saying they want to see the comparative stats by race for a specific offense. Then it would be meaningful. Maybe black offenses involved more armed or more serious matters. Etc.

That is going to be heavily impacted by poverty levels within the community. There are more black citizens living in low income areas which drives crime. IMO higher crime rates among black people is driven by income levels, food deserts, alcohol, drugs etc and not by skin color.

For me it is about over policing and brutality which is a tougher thing to quantify

 

[mcmurtry66]

That is going to be heavily impacted by poverty levels within the community. There are more black citizens living in low income areas which drives crime. IMO higher crime rates among black people is driven by income levels, food deserts, alcohol, drugs etc and not by skin color.

For me it is about over policing and brutality which is a tougher thing to quantify

There is for sure an economic element. Black guy has money, wears a nice suit, hires a good lawyer, will likely be treated differently in court. Hell there’s judicial prejudice I suspect in just having a confined docket. Showing up to court cuffed and in orange sitting in the jury box with the rest of the confined accused probably has a prejudicial impact. Being able to bond out and wear a suit and avoid the confined docket makes a difference. That said none of this is mutually exclusive. And I don’t mean to imply you’re suggesting otherwise. I suspect the reality is that racism and classism both exist.

 

[Courtsensetwo]

Obama just spoke and i missed it. Hopefully he used his influence to try to encourage peaceful protests and condemn the violence and murder in the streets.

 

[Jg48]

Serious question for the legal guys... is this the right call? Do they need to prove intent now or what are the key differences between 2nd and 3rd degree?

Wasn't 2nd against Zimmerman (Martin case) and Anthony part of the reason they were not convicted?

My understanding is that 3rd degree murder in Minnesota is equivalent to Manslaughter....death case by reckless behavior. You may not have intended to kill the person but, your reckless behavior caused it. 2nd degree murder does involve intent. You intended to the outcome. It may involve a reasonable person standard. That is, a reasonable person would have known or should have known that his actions would have resulted in the person's death. I didn't practice criminal law but, from what I heard on the news that is my impression of the distinction between the two. And yes, if my analysis is correct, I think it's the right charge.

 

[mcmurtry66]

My understanding is that 3rd degree murder in Minnesota is equivalent to Manslaughter....death case by reckless behavior. You may not have intended to kill the person but, your reckless behavior caused it. 2nd degree murder does involve intent. You intended to the outcome. It may involve a reasonable person standard. That is, a reasonable person would have known or should have known that his actions would have resulted in the person's death. I didn't practice criminal law but, from what I heard on the news that is my impression of the distinction between the two. And yes, if my analysis is correct, I think it's the right charge.

No it’s weird there is a subdivision of 2nd degree that doesn’t require intent. I looked at the statute.

 

[brianiu]

I don’t think the problem flows from the mayor and the police chief.

I agree. In the case of Minneapolis, I think the union leader, Bob Kroll is a big part of the problem. He has defended all four officers involved in George Floyd’s death and said they will fight to get them reinstated! He called Floyd a “violent criminal” and the protests part of a “terrorize movement”

He has been involved in three officer involved shootings in his own career, none of which, he claims, bother him in the least. He has a history of complaints for excessive use of force and for making bigoted and racist statements. He called Black Lives Matters a “terrorist organization” and then congressman Keith Ellison a terrorist. He is a member of City Heat, a police motorcycle group. Some members of this group have been seen wearing white supremacist patches and Kroll has also been accused of this.

What can possibly change if this is who officers in Minnesota choose to lead their union?


https://theintercept.com/2020/06/02...oalk8CYTi4d3F8KRAeG_OcfUEGV9Gecpzh6WSqjywUvec

 

[Jg48]

No it’s weird there is a subdivision of 2nd degree that doesn’t require intent. I looked at the statute.

It's not weird. The statue is divided into two parts:

1. Intention to effect the death of a person w/o premeditation;
or a drive-by shooting

2. During commission of a felony;
or doing bodily harm which results in death to a person protected by a restraining order.( i.e., you were restrained from going near a person. You did, and inflicted injuries which killed them.)

Sec 1. applies to this case.

 

[mashnut]

I agree. In the case of Minneapolis, I think the union leader, Bob Kroll is a big part of the problem. He has defended all four officers involved in George Floyd’s death and said they will fight to get them reinstated! He called Floyd a “violent criminal” and the protests part of a “terrorize movement”

He has been involved in three officer involved shootings in his own career, none of which, he claims, bother him in the least. He has a history of complaints for excessive use of force and for making bigoted and racist statements. He called Black Lives Matters a “terrorist organization” and then congressman Keith Ellison a terrorist. He is a member of City Heat, a police motorcycle group. Some members of this group have been seen wearing white supremacist patches and Kroll has also been accused of this.

What can possibly change if this is who officers in Minnesota choose to lead their union?


https://theintercept.com/2020/06/02...oalk8CYTi4d3F8KRAeG_OcfUEGV9Gecpzh6WSqjywUvec

Everything you list there is a major problem for the police in Minneapolis. It's also a reminder that much of policing policy is set (de facto or de sure) by police unions. Those are organizations that are not accountable to the governments or the people they serve, and should absolutely not be in the position to drive policy or practice.

 

[Courtsensetwo]

I am not a practicing attny anymore so others can chime in, but yes it changes the obligation for the PA/state. It goes from Indifference and negligence which were going to be simple to prove to intent to kill. A lot tougher in my mind but I know others here are litigators and I never was.

This plays better on Main St but i am not sure it was the best move.

OK I did just a bit more research and it appears to me that MN law allows for a M2 conviction based not only on intent but also based on "in commission of a felony". So...the burden becomes proving that the officer was comitting a felony while kneeling on his neck for the time he did.

Just my opinion, but I think they can get that done.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Yes, black people have disproportionate representation in crime statistics, but the system disproportionately looks for crimes by black people, so the numbers are skewed.

Are you suggesting these homicide statistics, showing black males offend well in excess of thier share of the population , are skewed because the cops look harder for homicides committed by blacks? That makes no sense.

Are you also saying this study is fraudulent?

You should post links to support your claims.

Edited for mistake.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

OK I did just a bit more research and it appears to me that MN law allows for a M2 conviction based not only on intent but also based on "in commission of a felony". So...the burden becomes proving that the officer was comitting a felony while kneeling on his neck for the time he did.

Just my opinion, but I think they can get that done.

That's sounds like the felony murder rule. Not so sure it apples to Chauvin, but maybe to the others. They haven't been charged with that though.

In a criminal case, each element of the crime must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. The charge of murder 2 might be a bridge too far. Murder 2 requires a specific intent to kill. Lots of room for reasonable doubt on that charge for a number of reasons.

 

[mcmurtry66]

That's sounds like the felony murder rule. Not so sure it apples to Chauvin, but maybe to the others. They haven't been charged with that though.

In a criminal case, each element of the crime must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. The charge of murder 2 might be a bridge too far. Murder 2 requires a specific intent to kill. Lots of room for reasonable doubt on that charge for a number of reasons.

Coh read the statute. It specifically says without the intent to kill. Subdivision 2 unintentional. Are you saying he had to have the intent to commit a felony?

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Coh read the statute. It specifically says without the intent to kill. Subdivision 2 unintentional. Are you saying he had to have the intent to commit a felony?

I'm not up to date on what you all are arguing in this and other threads re: the charges, but I just want to point out - and this seems like a fine place to do it - that Minnesota operates under some rather arcane homicide statutes. They are one of the few states that hasn't really amended their laws to fall in line with the mode penal code at all, and so you should take with five heavy grains of salt anyone who isn't a criminal attorney from Minnesota who purports to have any sort of opinion on the matter.