161–170 of 606 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Which is what qualified immunity stands in the way of.
Just spitballing here... report it, and file a class action against the DA if they don't prosecute?
1. In general, it doesn't sound like the police were the ones forcing the bars to hire police; that was the city. Maybe there was some backroom deal happening where the police were paying off city officials to create that mandate, but if so the article doesn't allege it. As others have pointed out, there are valid (though debatable) reasons for why a city might want to force bars and public events to hire private security, and even some valid (but more questionable) reasons why they might want that security to be cops or former cops.
2. But then there's the racism angle, with the woman in the article claiming that the only reason her business was required by the city to hire private security was because "they’re racist and we’re Mexican". If it's true that's the reason her business was targeted then yes that's a problem that definitely needs to be dealt with; probably through a civil lawsuit and some serious public shaming. Though I'll note that would be the city's fault; not the police.
3. The article also makes a separate claim "some small business owners — particularly those owned by immigrants — have been led to believe they must hire MPD officers, or risk getting ghosted by police", which if true would be an actual protection racket that the feds should bring the hammer down hard on, though there doesn't seem to be any compelling evidence of that as of yet (as least, not as described in the article); just rumors and allegations so far.
4. And then there's the issue of some of the officers hired being really expensive and not good workers. IMO that's only an issue if the claims about a protection racket are true. Otherwise you could just fire the people who are being lazy and hire someone else, same as any other business. It might also be a good argument for why the city shouldn't be requiring officers in particular to be the ones hired (much more limited hiring pool).
5. Then there's the tax evasion issue, with some officers insisting on being paid in cash. That's the least important part of this in my opinion. Let the IRS deal with it if that's actually what's happening.
(I don't know why I wasted so much time writing this summary, but now that I have I might as well post it... hopefully some find it helpful.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Which is what qualified immunity stands in the way of.
IANAL, but doesn't that require good faith? Shakedowns carried out by off-duty cops don't seem to be acting in good faith.
I'm not here to shill for the police, but in my former city, it was not unusual for certain kinds of businesses which had a history of being the source of rowdy behavior to be required by the community board to take certain measures to prevent that. It didn't mean they had to hire former police, but they had to show preventative measures were taken above and beyond state level licenses requirements if the board, whic…
We have a bunch of off-duty police here in the southeast US that do traffic control for churches, HOAs, etc. Not the same as security, I guess, but tangentially related. I always wonder how this is legally allowed. The idea of using taxpayer vehicles, training, equipment, etc. to control traffic while also leveraging the power of the badge to hold authority seems legally questionable, but IANAL.
In the UK, I believe that if you organise a large event that needs police coverage, you pay the Police force to provide on-duty officers. This seems a lot less open to corruption because it would be based on a standard price list that was public, and the officers received the same as they would doing any other duties. I know that's how it worked at some events my Dad organised in the 90s. I can't find anything about…
Anyone can try to direct traffic, but cops are paid to do it because they get the car and flashing lights (and I assume the ability to ticket/arrest violations) while still collecting side money.
It'd sort of be like me using my company's laptop/servers for side work, I guess.
e: some random source I found -- of course the answer to the question is avoided, other than "it's for the officer's safety" https://www.al.com/on-the-road/2009/12/post_17.html
The problem in Minneapolis presently is that there are not enough police. There are statutory requirements for numbers that are nowhere being met. For that and perhaps other reasons they are not doing their jobs very effectively to the extent that I feel considerably less safe than I did ten years ago. With numbers and personal experiences to back it up.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Did you miss the part where the cops weren't requiring it for white ran nightclubs? That smells just a little bit like racism to me.
I saw the claim, I didn't see the evidence. The way the claim of racism was pulled way up front and the facts were buried deep makes me suspicious.
Is it really that far fetched that a bunch of corrupt cops are maybe racist too?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
IANAL, but doesn't that require good faith? Shakedowns carried out by off-duty cops don't seem to be acting in good faith.
Sort of, but not in a way you'd expect. It presupposes that they don't know what's good faith or not without explicit cases on the subject in that jurisdiction. So qualified immunity squashes new cases that haven't been exactly covered, but also typically doesn't create new case law on that subject meaning that police can continue doing that 'possibly' bad behavior.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, and that's where the crime angle to this comes into play. Are the businesses really the "source of rowdy behavior", or is it actually the people who frequent those particular establishments? And if the latter, shouldn't that be the city's responsibility to deal with those people to make sure they aren't able to continue to repeatedly act in a disruptive manner requiring a police response? Why are they making th…
There is a Walmart in my metro area that is responsible for like 80% of all police calls within their municipality. This is the same Walmart that leeches off society in other ways like paying sub-living wages so that employees need to rely on social safety nets to survive. I'm not sure if they have to hire private security, but this is a prime example of a business that should be securing itself or changing location.
https://fortune.com/2023/09/08/walmart-cuts-starting-wage-ne...
We have a bunch of off-duty police here in the southeast US that do traffic control for churches, HOAs, etc. Not the same as security, I guess, but tangentially related. I always wonder how this is legally allowed. The idea of using taxpayer vehicles, training, equipment, etc. to control traffic while also leveraging the power of the badge to hold authority seems legally questionable, but IANAL.
In the UK, I believe that if you organise a large event that needs police coverage, you pay the Police force to provide on-duty officers. This seems a lot less open to corruption because it would be based on a standard price list that was public, and the officers received the same as they would doing any other duties. I know that's how it worked at some events my Dad organised in the 90s. I can't find anything about…
https://www.reddit.com/r/Velo/comments/us0ciu/cost_to_put_on...