Minneapolis police investigating video that appears to show officer threatening suspect

The Minneapolis Police are investigating … the Minneapolis Police. “An internal affairs investigation has been launched into a profanity-laced video that appears to show a local police officer threatening to break the legs of a suspect if he attempted to escape,” reports the Star Tribune’s Libor Jany. “The incident, which allegedly happened sometime last month in south Minneapolis, was recorded on a camera phone by one of the young men being arrested. … In the video, the unidentified officer can be heard telling the suspect: ‘Plain and simple, if you (expletive) with me, I’m gonna break your legs before you get a chance to run.’ It was not immediately clear what led to the arrest, but at one point the youth is heard asking the officer why he was being taken into custody, to which the policeman responds: ‘Because I feel like arresting you.’ … Department spokesman John Elder … cautioned against making assumptions about the case before the facts are known.” 

Not your everyday commute to Plymouth. KSTP-TV’s Cassie Hart reports on the police chase on I-494 during Thursday night’s commute: “A crash that closed down Interstate 494 eastbound/south in Plymouth Thursday started with a police chase following a robbery, according to an officer at the scene. The crash happened between the Rockford Road and Bass Lake Road exits around 6:15 p.m. The Minnesota Department of Transportation traffic management cameras showed a number of emergency vehicles on the scene. Police on the scene said officers were chasing a car involved in a robbery and the people inside were throwing items out of the window. According to the state patrol the suspect car hit several cars in the right lane before it rolled. Witnesses who drove by the scene captured a photo of a person getting out of the vehicle after the crash.”

Minnesota farmers are telling Gov. Mark Dayton what he can do with his buffer, MPR’s Mark Steil reports: “Southwest Minnesota farmers Thursday told Gov. Mark Dayton his plan to curb farmland runoff was simplistic and burdensome. … Dayton recently called for farmers to keep a 50-foot vegetative buffer along all streams and lakes in the state, a step he says is urgently needed. State law already requires a 50-foot buffer, but enforcement is spotty across the state. The governor’s plan would give state officials power to enforce the provision uniformly across Minnesota. At a meeting in Worthington Thursday, farmers said they want to help solve the problem. But many told Dayton his plan goes too far and would take too many acres of cropland out of production. ‘I foresee this as a land grab,’ said Tim Waibel of New Ulm, Minn. ‘When you start taking 50 feet of my ditch slopes away, it hurts you in the back pocket.’”

Long overdue. Lawmakers are considering upping cash grants for low-income families for the first time in 30 years, the AP reports: “A family of three receives about $532 per month. Democratic Gov. Mark Dayton and some lawmakers in both parties want to increase the grants by $100 to help the nearly 33,000 families in the program deal with rising housing and transportation costs. The proposal could stall in the state House, where leaders want to slim health and human services spending. House Health and Human Services Finance Committee chairman Rep. Matt Dean, R-Dellwood, says he and other legislators have ‘tough decisions’ ahead about what to fund. Increased funding for the Minnesota Family Investment Program would siphon money from other services.” 

St. Louis Park settles. “The family of Abdullahi Charif, a 12-year-old boy who drowned during a swim class at St. Louis Park Middle School, said Thursday it reached a $3 million settlement with the district,” according to MPR. “Abdullahi was a seventh-grader in February 2014 when he went under while students were playing a game of ‘king of the hill’ where they pushed one another off an inflatable raft. Abdullahi was known to be a poor swimmer, and the long flotation device he had been using drifted away, according to a classmate. He was pulled from the water by the gym teacher. Two days later, Abdullahi was removed from life support.”

Nobody knows it better. The Star Tribune’s Dennis Anderson parses the latest DNR budget proposed by Gov. Mark Dayton: “DNR would use available Game and Fish Fund money to improve fisheries population surveys, create forest wildlife habitat, expand grassland and prairie habitat, improve monitoring and management of wildlife populations and create more outdoor opportunities for kids and families. Dayton’s DNR budget seeks $5.4 million in fiscal year 2016, which begins July 1, and $5.1 million in fiscal 2017.  Those expenditures would trigger reimbursements from the federal government of $6.1 million, reducing the state’s two-year, $10.5 million cost to $4.4 million. No money would come from the state’s general fund. The federal reimbursements are appropriated to states based on excise taxes gained from gun and ammunition sales and the sale of certain other outdoor equipment..”

Insert joke here about winter and road construction in Minnesota. MPR’s Catharine Richert looks at MnDot’s 2015 road projects, which kick off this week: “Minnesota Department of Transportation Commissioner Charlie Zelle said Thursday that slate of projects is valued at $1 billion. Most of the work will be to replace worn parts of the system. ‘We’re doing this strong construction program to keep our roadways and our bridges and our systems safe, and to maintain a reliable system throughout the state,’ Zelle said. MnDOT will also be working on new bridges and a new MnPASS lane on Interstate 35E. And there’s some good news: Zelle said there aren’t as many potholes this year as there were last year, largely because of the weather. But Zelle also said that there may be fewer road projects in the future and legislators can’t come to agreement on a long-term transportation funding package.”

Sad day for Poppin’ Fresh. The Chicago Tribune has a story about the guy who created the Pillsbury Doughboy: “Rudolph R. Perz, a Chicago ad man most famous for creating the Pillsbury Doughboy, has died. He was 89. Perz, of Glenview and formerly of Wilmette, developed the iconic spokesboy in his early years at Chicago advertising agency Leo Burnett. The Pillsbury Doughboy, otherwise known as Poppin’ Fresh, was created in 1965 and is still used in commercials. A 1977 Chicago Tribune article called it ‘a cute little anthropomorphic embodiment of fresh dough.’ Perz said at the time that early incarnations of the doughboy, originally animated, too closely resembled Casper the Ghost, which led to the development of the three-dimensional character. The doughboy was filmed using stop-motion.”

You can also learn about all our free newsletter options.

Comments (39)

  1. Submitted by Todd Hintz on 04/03/2015 - 07:20 am.

    Buffer Zone

    ‘I foresee this as a land grab,’ said Tim Waibel of New Ulm, Minn. ‘When you start taking 50 feet of my ditch slopes away, it hurts you in the back pocket.’”

    So much for the line we’ve been fed that farmers are good stewards of the environment. For years they’ve said they would never do anything to hurt the environment and, as people who are close to the land, they follow best practices. Now we find that compliance is spotty at best, just like every other voluntary rule that’s ever been created.

    Now, rather than do what’s right for the state’s and nation’s waterways, they complain it might cost a couple of bucks.

    Color me not impressed.

    • Submitted by Joe Smithers on 04/03/2015 - 03:21 pm.

      not impressed either

      I’m not impressed with the proposal either. Don’t get me wrong, I think farmers have a ways to go. All you need to do is look at the dirt blowing yesterday, the ditches filled with dirt from this winter, and read the nutrient reduction strategy to see they have a lot of work to do. That said, the proposal is not a good one at all. First, this would not be able to be any more enforced than current land use issues in court (a small fine and no requirement to correct the issue). Secondly, the idea that this is the result of current buffer requirements being non-compliant is a flat out lie. I have personally seen the maps in the county I live in and this county was told it was one of the worst. This is a complete lie by the environmental groups that Dayton met with to come up with this proposal. Dayton is at fault for listening to unsubstantiated claims without talking to people with actual knowledge of the situation. Third, the 50 feet would in reality do very little. Without including tile drainage you capture little to no nutrient runoff from fields. Have you even considered the fact that most drainage ditches slope away back into the field and that usually there is a side inlet (large tile intake) nearby as well that would let surface runoff directly into the water? Obviously Dayton has not considered that or much of anything else other than appeasing a couple of environmental groups. Another poster here has calculated it would cost ~4k per mile of buffer. When considering how many miles would be buffered that could add up to a lot for each farmer seriously hurting the ability for them to operate. I also believe you will not get farmers to comply with this one bit without a decent payment per acre for leaving these areas idle. That is why so much land has gone back into production in the past 10 years to start with. Payments dropped making it more attractive to raise crops than leave it idle. Reverse that and more buffers will be added.

    • Submitted by Paul Udstrand on 04/06/2015 - 11:33 am.


      Seems to me they’ve had over 100 years to demonstrate their effective stewardship and we’ve ended up with a region where none of the lakes, rivers, or streams are fishable or swimable. They had their chance didn’t they?

      • Submitted by Joe Smithers on 04/07/2015 - 11:39 am.

        fishable and swimable

        Look at the lakes, rivers and streams in that region and tell me how high quality they were before. A once size fits all approach is not effective and pretty ill advised.

  2. Submitted by Anthony Walsh on 04/03/2015 - 07:20 am.

    Here’s An Idea:

    If you don’t like the heavy hand of government telling you what to do with your land, farmer Waibel, I’ve got a great idea:

    You, and people just like you, are creating the problem. YOU fix it.

    You’ve known about it, or should have, for a very long time. You fix it, and then you won’t have to worry about the state getting involved and enforcing existing laws. You fix it, and we won’t have to listen to the whining when the grown-ups come around to fix it for you.

    The grown-ups have been talking about the problem for years now. You’ve had plenty of warning.

    • Submitted by Todd Hintz on 04/03/2015 - 11:57 am.


      We haven’t been talking about this problem for yeas, but rather decades. I remember this being a huge problem back in the ’80s when people complained that the Minnesota River was an open sewer, polluted with run-off from cities and farms. The action we took then was to install or upgrade better sewage treatment plants in the towns along the river.

      Now it’s time for farmers to step up to the plate and do what’s right for the environment instead of flushing their pollutants downriver for someone else to deal with. This is the law. Follow it instead of picking and choosing the ones you like.

  3. Submitted by Ray Schoch on 04/03/2015 - 07:49 am.

    Ditch slopes

    Farmers, like many another business owner, would like to socialize costs while keeping profits private (Target Field and the new football palace come immediately to mind). My own suggestion is that, if enforcing an existing law in an effort to maintain some minimal water quality is felt by farmers to be too burdensome, the Governor’s response should perhaps be an annual water pollution fee sufficient to pay for treatment of the runoff from those farms.

  4. Submitted by Frank Phelan on 04/03/2015 - 07:52 am.


    Perhaps when MPLS PD spokesman John Elder cautions us against making assumptions before facts are known, he should also advise the officers to take the same advice.

  5. Submitted by Thomas Swift on 04/03/2015 - 08:26 am.

    After all the coppers that have been recorded breaking the law and violating the constitution, cops that make statements like that should be fired for stupidity. What he is saying is that he’s running a scenario in his head, and is looking for an opportunity to play it out.

  6. Submitted by Harris Goldstein on 04/03/2015 - 09:01 am.


    The article quotes one opponent of the plan: “I would really prefer that we as farmers could work hand in hand with soil conservation and do it our way, the right way, instead of being told how to do it,”

    But that is, in effect, the status quo that resulted in the problem we have today.

    • Submitted by Joe Smithers on 04/03/2015 - 11:16 am.

      explain please

      Why do you think that working with the SWCD led to this problem? Careful analysis has shown that for the most part the currently required buffers are in place already and the environmental groups Dayton listened to told a few white lies to get him on their side. There was no large buffer compliance issue at play here. I’ve personally seen the maps.

      • Submitted by Pat Berg on 04/03/2015 - 01:51 pm.

        Explain, please

        Where all the farm chemicals and sediment in streams, wetlands and lakes as referenced in the article comes from?

        • Submitted by Joe Smithers on 04/03/2015 - 03:40 pm.


          Nobody is saying those didn’t come from farms. The problem is Dayton listened to environmental groups and jumped to a conclusion without looking at the facts first then crafted a plan that is not workable from either side.

        • Submitted by Joe Smithers on 04/03/2015 - 04:28 pm.

          sediment and chemicals

          Nobody said those did not come from farms. It just was not a result of a lack of buffer compliance. I know for a fact the lack of buffer compliance was blown way out of proportion.

          • Submitted by Paul Udstrand on 04/06/2015 - 11:36 am.

            Then explain…

            Joe, if buffer compliance isn’t an issue, why are farmers resisting it’s enforcement?

            • Submitted by Joe Smithers on 04/07/2015 - 11:41 am.


              They aren’t. They are resisting a once size fits all increase in buffers. The lack of buffer compliance was way overstated.

      • Submitted by Todd Hintz on 04/03/2015 - 02:14 pm.


        I guess the farmers have absolutely nothing to complain about if they’re already complying with the law. It makes me wonder then why the guy quoted in the article is so up in arms about following a law that’s already been on the books for many years. Maybe he’s one of the few who thinks the law only applies to other people.

        • Submitted by Joe Smithers on 04/03/2015 - 03:38 pm.

          I think your confused

          There have been laws requiring buffers on perennial waters for years not what Dayton is proposing. Dayton wants to buffer waters that do not run perennially (drainage ditches, etc.). It is a silly notion to think that would have any effect when the land next to most of those slope away from them and there are tile inlets (not buffered) to allow surface water in. Most farmers are complying with the law. The county I live in was rated as one of the worst and it is a complete lie. I viewed the maps and only 1 stream was marked as being non-compliant. This stream is not a natural stream and has been altered so is not required to have a buffer but the environmental groups told Dayton what he wanted to hear and got their way. Dayton should have listened to someone with knowledge of the buffers before he jumped to conclusions.

  7. Submitted by Dan Bosch on 04/03/2015 - 11:16 am.

    At a local “Town Hall” meeting

    out here last Saturday with our State Rep and Senator, almost all in attendance were farmer/landowners who were quite adamant in their disgust with Dayton’s proposal. Another topic brought up was a proposed wind farm in the area, and many of the same, not all, expressed that they were against the project for, “aesthetic, environmental, and health concerns.” (as reported by the local paper)

    • Submitted by Joe Smithers on 04/03/2015 - 03:44 pm.

      could say the same about the others

      You could say the same about the other side so what is your point? The other side wants the buffers for their environmental concerns but wants to put up a wind farm. It all depends on how you (and the media slant) look at it.

  8. Submitted by Susan Maricle on 04/03/2015 - 12:39 pm.

    Land grab

    Then there’s the farmer who has grabbed a chunk of Wildlife Management Area land and uses it for his own crops and his own private gain. I wonder how widespread this practice is.

  9. Submitted by richard owens on 04/03/2015 - 02:22 pm.

    Riperian ag land

    is sometimes under water when it’s time to plant.

    The assessor never cares what you made off it.

    There is no perfect way to legislate a good buffer for every field.

    Generally, I don’t see why 50 feet of filter strip hurts too much financially, but I have not seen the farm or the waterway in question.

    • Submitted by Todd Hintz on 04/03/2015 - 03:33 pm.


      You’re never going to find a single solution that will perfectly solve any given problem. That does not mean you shouldn’t try to work towards something that will work in most cases, then refine the process to take care of the exceptions.

      • Submitted by richard owens on 04/03/2015 - 04:38 pm.


        Working toward a solution is good policy.

      • Submitted by Joe Smithers on 04/06/2015 - 10:11 am.

        I’d agree

        We should be working towards a solution since there is an obvious need. The main problem is that Dayton felt the best solution was something he and a couple of environmental groups came up with without consulting anyone from agriculture or any actual knowledge. A one size fits all approach is totally wrong and won’t work. Buffers can be effective in some areas but not all so it is not appropriate to force it on everyone. Agriculture at the same time should not be so resistant and just say no either. Agriculture should be coming up with solutions to this issue on their own and offer those ideas as an alternative. When agriculture says no to a proposal without any alternative ideas they make themselves look bad and unwilling to even try to correct the issue.

        • Submitted by Paul Udstrand on 04/06/2015 - 11:39 am.

          Consulting agriculture?

          Yeah, get your solutions from the people who created the problem. So what are you saying, agriculture knows how to solve this problem but just isn’t doing it? They’ve been promising to solve the problem voluntarily for decades and they’ve made it worse. None of this Dayton’s fault.

          • Submitted by Joe Smithers on 04/07/2015 - 11:42 am.


            What I am saying is Dayton has no clue what he is doing and makes stuff up as he goes based on the first people he talks to. He did not listen to agriculture at all before coming up with a one size fits all approach that won’t work and won’t be enforceable.

            • Submitted by Jonathan Ecklund on 04/07/2015 - 01:00 pm.

              90% seem to think it will work…

              “At least six counties have already used existing state law to enforce buffer regulations. Using satellite photos, they identified areas where the 50-foot vegetation zone appeared to be lacking, then contacted those farmers. Dayton said that more than 90 percent of the landowners eventually agreed to install a buffer.”


              • Submitted by Joe Smithers on 04/07/2015 - 02:33 pm.


                Good for them. You can see they are willing to work with everyone else so is there really a need to increase buffers to other areas not currently required? As stated previously my county was rated as one of the worst though and looking at the maps it is clear whoever rated this county either doesn’t know what they are looking at or is lying through their teeth. It is a poor job of PR on Daytons part to ignore the affected parties before making the proposal.

                • Submitted by Jonathan Ecklund on 04/07/2015 - 03:12 pm.

                  The affected parties are ALL the citizens of Minnesota, current and future. He’s not ignoring all the affected parties, he’s considering all the affected parties.

                  • Submitted by Joe Smithers on 04/08/2015 - 10:00 am.

                    affected parties

                    Dayton had a meeting with two environmental groups and included zero agricultural groups and government agencies (the affected parties) and then proposed the regulation. I think that qualifies as ignoring. He consulted zero experts or counties to verify buffer compliance either before his proposal and if he had he would have seen that buffer compliance is not as lacking as the environmental groups suggest. It is a complete lack of thinking on his part to listen to the extremist environmental groups and not check the facts from the people that have them before proposing this.

                    • Submitted by Paul Udstrand on 04/09/2015 - 09:03 am.

                      Agriculture is well represented in this state

                      Why does agriculture feel entitled to be at EVERY meeting Dayton has? So he had some meetings without them, big deal. Are you telling us agriculture has no voice at the Capital? Seriously?

                    • Submitted by Joe Smithers on 04/09/2015 - 11:05 am.


                      Why have the two environmental groups have been allowed to push their agenda? I don’t think it would have been to much to ask to have consulted with ag groups or county/SWCD agencies prior to the proposal. The county/SWCD agencies would have more knowledge on the buffers than most others yet they were not consulted with at all but two environmental groups that have zero knowledge of the buffers were. That’s a problem. This will directly affect agriculture so I think they are entitled to be at the meeting or be consulted. At no point did Dayton say “hey you are doing a bad job on the buffering and we’d like to see better compliance because it will improve water quality x amount and if you don’t we may force you through legislation”. What you did hear from Dayton was “hey you are doing a bad job on the buffers so to punish you we are going to push legislation through that will force you to have even more buffers than previous rules”. Did you not expect some to be upset with this? It’s a stupid idea to start with and was handled by Dayton even more poorly.

                    • Submitted by jason myron on 04/10/2015 - 05:09 pm.

                      Aren’t all enviromental groups

                      “extremist” in your view? It’s been a recurring theme in virtually all of your posts. Yet you accuse everyone that doesn’t agree with your one-sided description, of a lack of foresight and cognitive thought. Pot…meet kettle.

  10. Submitted by Rachel Kahler on 04/06/2015 - 09:42 am.

    Dear Lord

    When an officer is asked why an arrest is being made, the answer should NEVER be “because I feel like it.” It should be a legitimate and LEGAL reason or no answer at all. While the officer is not required to give the reason during the arrest, there must still be probable cause. And even if there is, why in the WORLD would you make it appear as though the officer is doing it for giggles?

  11. Submitted by Paul Udstrand on 04/09/2015 - 08:58 am.

    The problem with Joe…

    Not Joe per se, but the position that somehow Dayton doesn’t know what he’s doing and isn’t talking to farmers etc. misses the mark. It”s redirection pretending to be expertise.

    If the problem were starting TODAY you might be able to make some of these claims. As it is, the question isn’t what Dayton knows, it’s why the people who are claiming to be the experts, given full and unregulated freedom to deploy their expertise… created the problem in the first place and then made it worse? You see the problem? Farmers can’t declare expertise and credibility and magnify and create the problem at the same time, these are mutually exclusive claims. And we didn’t stumble upon this issue, we’ve known about it for decades.

    The obvious fact is that while farmers may be experts at growing crops, they’re not environmental experts, and they clearly don’t know how to protect the water supply. Either that or they know but refuse to do it for some reason. At any rate it’s clear that someone else needs to get involved. This isn’t the first time something like this has happened, remember, farmers created the dust bowl.

    • Submitted by Joe Smithers on 04/09/2015 - 04:08 pm.


      That’s a pretty dim view of agriculture you have there. I never claimed the farmers were the experts on anything. I think you have misconstrued my comments. My problem was that Dayton never consulted anyone who actually knew how much buffer compliance there really was and then came up with an arbitrary amount of buffer based on nothing. How much reduction in nitrogen and phosphorus will we see with the buffer? I’m sure both you and Dayton don’t have a clue. Dayton could have done a little more to discover the real facts but instead chose to listen to a couple of environmental groups that skewed the data to make it look worse than it really was. Dayton could have easily consulted with MPCA, county officials, SWCD etc. but he chose not to and came up with a plan that is not only unworkable but unenforceable. It also doesn’t take too much expertise to see that a buffer on land that slopes back into the field isn’t going to have much of an effect but that was too much thinking for Dayton. I’m really not sure why this is so difficult for you to understand. The simple fact that Dayton only met with two environmental groups before announcing his plan is incredibly concerning to me.

      • Submitted by Paul Udstrand on 04/10/2015 - 08:42 am.

        Expertise and false claims

        Two things,

        First, Joe asks:

        “Why have the two environmental groups have been allowed to push their agenda?”

        Apparently you would prefer that Agriculture be the only ones who are “allowed” to push an agenda, but we live in a democracy where many voices are “allowed”.

        Second, you keep making this claim that Dayton based this policy on some alleged meeting with two environmental groups, and that claim is simply false. The policy emerged from the DNR, several state agencies, and at least two recent studies on water quality and the impact of farming. Not to mention the fact that Dayton scheduled public meeting in Worthington and Austin to discuss this policy with farmers themselves. Here’s link that describes the policy initiative, it’s origins, and it’s BI-PARTISAN legislative suport:


        • Submitted by Joe Smithers on 04/13/2015 - 10:26 am.


          First, It was you that asked why agriculture should be allowed to be at every meeting. I never indicated they should be at every meeting only that Dayton should have met with someone other than the environmental groups before making his proposal and only replied to you by asking why the environmental groups were allowed to push their agenda and no one else.

          Second, it is not a false claim that Dayton came up with this proposal after meeting with the environmental groups. He did not seek input from any other agency at all. If he had based his proposal on any study he would have been able to state how much of a reduction they expect to gain from the buffers. He based his policy on misinformation given to him from the environmental groups about buffer compliance and did not seek to find out the truth. Of course the press release would never admit to that because they know from a PR perspective how bad it looks. The meetings in Worthington and Austin were only held after Dayton made his proposal public and were an attempt to smooth the waters.

Leave a Reply