Gov. Tim Walz implored Republicans who control Minnesota’s Senate to hold hearings on police accountability legislation after former officer Kim Potter killed Daunte Wright in Brooklyn Center on Sunday.
On Tuesday afternoon, GOPers responded, announcing hearings aimed at “fact-finding” rather than approving any specific bills, said Senate Majority Leader Paul Gazelka, R-East Gull Lake. “I’m not promising that we’re going to do more reform, I’m promising to listen to see if something is warranted,” Gazelka told reporters.
Republicans have been hesitant to consider new changes to policing standards and regulations after enacting a set of reforms following the police killing of George Floyd last year. GOP lawmakers have touted those reforms, which include raising the bar on use of deadly force standards and restricting neck restraints and chokeholds, as substantial. They have also said some policing bills supported by majority House Democrats could be onerous for law enforcement or put officers at risk.
But Republicans have also come under increasing pressure to consider additional DFL-backed reforms in the wake of Wright’s killing. Body camera footage showed Potter, a 26-year veteran of the department, shooting Wright after shouting “taser, taser, taser” while holding an outstretched gun. She then said: “Oh shit, I just shot him.” Wright was pulled over for expired car tabs, according to police, who then tried to arrest him for a gross misdemeanor warrant.
On Tuesday, both Brooklyn Center Police Chief Tim Gannon and Potter resigned from the department. In a letter, Potter said her departure was, “in the best interest of the community, the department, and my fellow officers.”
At a press conference, Gazelka said that while some people viewed their 2020 police legislation as “not far enough,” others thought the measures went “too far.” He said Republicans were willing to hold hearings now at the urging of those calling for new police accountability laws in a tense “powder keg” environment in Minnesota.
[image_caption]Senate Majority Leader Paul Gazelka[/image_caption]
Gazelka said the main priority for Republicans at the Legislature was still enacting a budget. He said the hearings would take place in two committees related to public safety and transportation and focus on “hearing where are people at on these issues.”
He didn’t endorse any particular legislation and said he still had concerns with some Democratic bills. Republicans say police from other states have been wary of providing mutual aid in Minnesota, for instance, because of the state’s new use-of-deadly-force standard. “We want to start the process and honor the governor and the (House) Speaker,” Gazelka said. “This is meant to be a goodwill gesture to say look we think this is important too.”
Gazelka said Minnesotans don’t want to defund the police, but want “the bad apples picked out.” He said Wright’s killing was an “unjustifiable tragedy” but also said people should be “as respectful as possible” when pulled over to avoid confrontation.
DFLers have a lengthy list of police reform proposals, from enacting new regulations on crowd control and restricting no-knock warrants to banning officers from affiliating with or supporting white supremacist groups or ideologies.
Before the GOP news conference, a group of Black, People of Color and Indigenous lawmakers pushed again for new police accountability measures in a remote video call with reporters. State Rep. Cedrick Frazier, a New Hope DFLer who is vice chairman of the House’s Public Safety and Criminal Justice Reform Finance and Policy Committee, said the Legislature’s bills last year were “watered down” by the GOP. He urged lawmakers to take another look at making use-of-force standards tougher and increasing oversight of the state’s police licensing board.
[image_caption]State Rep. Jamie Becker-Finn[/image_caption]
Frazier said any hearings in the GOP-controlled Senate were welcome and urged Republicans to pass legislation “that truly shows that Black Lives Matter.”
Yet Democrats have not always been on the same page over police reform. Some more conservative DFLers have balked at tougher policing standards, and Walz on Tuesday described a heated conversation he had that morning with House Speaker Melissa Hortman, DFL-Brooklyn Park, over how he characterized the work of the Legislature on police reforms. Hortman, he said, was displeased with the governor lumping her DFL House caucus with the Senate GOP caucus.
“I’m gonna demand that the Legislature finally hold some hearings on some of these reforms that have passed in other states and proven to make a difference,” Walz said during a briefing Monday. There are issues that have agreement by police groups and community activists but “that will not happen if we don’t at least hold hearings on these things. If we don’t at least get ourselves into an uncomfortable position and do what this democracy is supposed to do and debate the hard things.”
[image_credit]REUTERS/Lucas Jackson[/image_credit][image_caption]Gov. Tim Walz[/image_caption]
He attributed his general condemnation of the Legislature because “I did not want to inflame partisan politics” but clarified Tuesday that his words were aimed at the Senate GOP majority.
Walz said he was hopeful after his call with Hortman and Gazelka that there would be an agreement that they all need to work together. While Walz and Lt. Gov. Peggy Flanagan were calling for hearings in the Senate, reporters at an event for the new FEMA vaccination site at the state fairgrounds informed the pair that Gazelka had just announced that there would be hearings.
“That’s fantastic. I’m glad he’s having them,” Flanagan said. “It was a good conversation.”
In a statement after the GOP press conference, Hortman was more circumspect: “Hearings can be pretty meaningless lip service or pretty meaningful pathways to action. We’ll see what kind they are. We need action.”
MinnPost reporter Peter Callaghan contributed additional reporting to this story.
It takes some great legs to get out in front on this issue.
Do people even recognize the danger the police face? Watch Frontline on PBS.
Scared people shouldn’t become cops.
There is a new issue now in policing. Right wing terrorists are selectively sniping and shooting police officers. Watch Frontline on PBS. We will have a more automated police force someday soon. Drones will be deployed.
While I may agree with you there may be certain genetic traits(stoicism, endurance, night vision) that work in some police actions. There are other traits that may work in new policing ( ability to use tech, nimble learning, injury resistance)….. We have greatly increased monitoring of social spaces and vehicle identification and forensics with tech. This may free up time for responding to other emergencies such as breaking and entering, domestic disputes, extra bodies where needed.
Ian, I agree farming, fishing, night cashier, are more dangerous. I grew up on a farm and in many ways it is much safer now than it was. Access to rural health care can be a problem but we do have jet helicopters. But if we go back on public safety funding levels their work and our cities become more dangerous. I know you will disagree with me. And yes if fishing and cashiering was unionized their jobs would be safer.
Legislation can only do so much given it is on a macro level. Police departments, with the assistance of professionals-especially those who have done the work(think of some of the state’s witnesses in the Chauvin trial) are needed to examine daily practices especially when force is used. For example, how to identify lower risk stops that maybe can be resolved in a follow up visit to the home vs in a moment that is at risk of turning into a crisis situation. You also need a fully funded force so officers are not spread thin and so they don’t get into a mode of rushing interactions or feeling a need to take action immediately. Add to it a need for more simulated training. Too often policy makers pass legislation that makes them feel good and that they can tout as action, but then it fails to have much of an effect or is just not logistical. Surely both parties can come to their senses and find a way to guide local departments.
Good points and I read them once before by a Minnpost reader. The police are spread too thin and in order to operate in a less rushed safer way would take more money.
Rather than making enforcement of vehicle infractions illegal, why not just eliminate the infractions? Seems easier. Mpls. doesn’t bother to enforce equipment issues and the county attorney won’t prosecute marijuana crimes, but just making more crimes legal is the simplest option, and I’m sure quite popular.
I agree Tom. Remember when car theft didn’t involve beating the driver but involved hot wiring a car or jumping in an idling vehicle in the Winter. Mpls probably needs twice as many cops as it has now to get on top of violent crime and handgun violence.
I’m all for them getting rid of the requirement to have license plate tabs. I will save a ton of money that way. I mean, why pay to register your vehicle if there aren’t any consequences?
Since so many people are working to fix the symptom and not the problem, can we eliminate speeding laws too while we’re at it? I heard those disproportionately affect the people who speed and it would be nice to blast to work at 120mph.
Banning officers from affiliating with or supporting “certain groups” is going to be problematic. Becoming a cop doesn’t mean you give up your 1st Amendment right to freedom of association.
Besides, who gets to decide which groups are to be labeled “white supremacist groups or ideologies?” The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) lists over a thousand (1,020) organizations as hate groups, including the Mormon Church. So you can’t be a cop if you’re a Mormon?
I happen to belong to a national group of veterans and first responders who have pledged our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor to the preservation of the U.S. Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. We are of all genders, races, creeds and colors yet I can assure you that it has been described by the Left and in their press as a “hate group.” This proposed unconstitutional rule should be a non-starter.
The problem is groups like the one you describe are often the most ignorant of the constitution. The statement that keeping people from certain groups out of policing is problematic and barred is actually ignorant and disdainful of the constitution. But I won’t judge your group just by your erroneous understanding of the constitution. I guess you could tell us who it is.
Groups like the Oath Keepers describe themselves the same way, but we can all agree that they are terrorists and traitors who hate America and the constitution. We can’t have people like that on our police forces, and the constitution certainly allows us to bar them.
“…the constitution certainly allows us to bar them.” Is there a court decision that supports this? Or is this your opinion?
I’m not being snarky. I am genuinely interested in whether freedom of assembly under the U.S Constitution has been tested in just this way, and couldn’t find anything.
I don’t think there are any Supreme Court cases on it, but its not a particularly difficult issue.
The mistake a lot of people make is thinking that the First Amendment protects you from the consequences of your speech. The government can’t shut you up or tell you that you can’t join the KKK or the Oath Keepers or Mr. Tester’s group. That is your First Amendment right, absent being part of a criminal conspiracy. But you can certainly be fired for your speech or membership in a hate group.
In the case of firing cops, its not so much them getting fired because we don’t like racists. Its that their membership in hate groups and/or racist social media behavior undermines their ability to do their jobs. You can’t go to court with the testimony of a Klan member – they will have no credibility. If cops have Facebook pages with racist tropes, those will absolutely be used to undermine their credibility at trial, even if their police work is non-racist and by the book. Their associations with these groups literally make them bad at their jobs. Cops have to be trusted and seen as fair by the public, and membership in these types of groups undermines that trust.
I was able to find additional info by a reputable source here https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/can-employers-discriminate-based-on-political-beliefs-or-affiliation.html
The key takeaway: “Those who work for public employers—the federal, state, or local government—are protected by the First Amendment…”
Cops work for the government. Any law barring them from political or social groups would be unconstitutional. Mr. Tester was not “ignorant and disdainful of the constitution”, as you stated. He was right.
The part left out of the key takeaway: “. . . and might have a valid legal claim if fired for their political beliefs, depending on the circumstances.”
So maybe, and it depends. That’s a far cry from saying Mr. Tester was right.
Mr. Tester was close enough to not be labeled ignorant.
See above. “Ignorant” was actually an understatement.
That source is hot garbage. I mean, I’ll give you credit for doing more than Tester likely did, even if it was second-grade legal analysis.
You couldn’t fire a cop for being a Republican or voting for Trump. But cops get fired all the time for belonging to the Klan or other hate groups without any recourse. And its because they can’t do their jobs – you can’t have racists testifying in court. You can’t have people who hate blacks and Muslims policing those same people.
When I wrote my initial comment, I hadn’t realized he was lying about Mormons. So I actually understated the level of ignorance.
No reasonable person would call Nolo that. They are the #1 resource for legal info. Their books fill our libraries.
You attack the source, you insult posters. None of this is rational.
Under the rule of Pickering v. Board of Education, 391 U. S. 563 (1968) and Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138 (1983), pubic employees have limited First Amendment rights even when speaking as private citizens and not in their official capacity. Courts are required to balance the employee’s interest in free expression against the against the interests that the government has in being confident that the employee can do their job effectively and fairly.
Whether membership in the Oath Keepers would erode that confidence is another matter. One has to wonder if we want law enforcement officers who are involved with this kind of paramilitary underground.
Yow. “Public” employees.
Thanks for finding this. Look for these to be challenged, in just the way you predict.
As for calling the Oath Keepers the “paramilitary underground”, I doubt that’s how they would describe themselves. It’s a label, just like calling a far-left group the “Marxist underground”. A court would want more than labels.
Do tell.
Do tell what? How they would describe themselves? I guess check their website.
“Do tell: interjection, used especially to express mild or polite surprise.”
The labels themselves won’t get you fired, but anyone saying they belong to a paramilitary group would certainly get scrutinized. After the terrorist attack on the capitol, being a member of the Oath Keepers is immediate grounds for termination, which is now happening around the country. If your affiliation with a group prevents you from doing your job, you can be fired. Even that article you posted kind of says that. If cops aren’t trustee by the public, if they won’t be believed in court, they aren’t of any use.
The same is true with Facebook posts. Philadelphia recently fired a ton of cops for racist Facebook posts. If your public expression prevents you from doing your job. Anytime one of those cops would testify, the defense would show the jury the racist posts. Having cops like that on the force not only renders them useless, it undermines the police in general. Of course they can be fired.
I’d love to know what Mr. Tester’s secret group is, but I don’t think he will tell us.
“…being a member of the Oath Keepers is immediate grounds for termination” Really? I’m finding nothing.
“The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) lists over a thousand (1,020) organizations as hate groups, including the Mormon Church. So you can’t be a cop if you’re a Mormon?”
Do you ever even try to verify something you hear? The SPLC identifies a polygamous Mormon splinter group as a hate group. The main LDS group is not identified that way.
It’s always entertaining to me how the right only seems to discover the First Amendment when it is applied to right-wing hate groups. Would you allow a law enforcement officer who expressed sympathy with BLM?
I didn’t even think to check that. His claim is completely false. Imagine that.
Hatred of democracy, in service of authoritarian ideals is a unifying feature of most groups like you describe Mr. Tester, why would the distinguishing characteristics you list apply? Did you think hatred was limited to racism?
You do realize that for a significant part of the electorate there are people who like authority. Also there are anti-democratic forces that embrace other visions(plural) of government. With Biden finally adopting pro female and pro family policies some of this is similar to other pro development models in the rest of the world. Not just Western Europe, but also parts of central/eastern Europe.
What the heck are you on about now? Are you under some impression that I care what motivates authoritarians? I’m not writing a dissertation describing the tenets of the authoritarian mind, I’m attempting to find a means to participate in preventing their destruction of our society.
I would think anyone belonging to a group pledging to defend our Constitution would be quite proud of it and reveal what the group is. Still, pledging your life and your fortune seems a bit of a stretch and gets me wondering what your group is all about. I’d be willing to bet it’s got something to do with those immigrants threatening our way of life though.
By the way, RB has already pointed it out, but you might want to pay attention to the word “Fundamental.” It’s really quite important in figuring out which Mormons are basic nut jobs as opposed to just the regular ones. You wouldn’t want to give up your life, fortune, and honor defending, for example, some guy with 6 wives including a couple in their teens.
“You wouldn’t want to give up your life, fortune, and honor defending, for example, some guy with 6 wives including a couple in their teens.”
Just to complete the circle, Tucker Carlson would. Okay, he would want to hang on to his fortune, and “honor” is pretty much a moot point with him, but he has publicly defended men marrying underage women.
The problem is that Republicans have no coherent concept of fact or knowledge. This will be an exercise in futility, and is designed to be so.
The people want accountability. Yet our current laws don’t allow local government officials to take the disciplinary action they deem appropriate without review by arbitrators not bound by the law or by the evidence and who, at best, rely on the decisions of other arbitrators to guide their decision making.
While there is a great deal more to be done, the Legislature and governor would help foster greater confidence in and accountability for local officials by exempting law enforcement’s use of force from the arbitration system and providing officers a right of appeal to the Minnesota Court of Appeals under the Minnesota Administrative Procedures Act.
The onus for this is not simply on Republicans, as the DFL has resisted such efforts as well.
Senate Majority Leader Paul Gazelka, R-East Gull Lake says “I’m not promising that we’re going to do more reform, I’m promising to listen to see if something is warranted.”
Listen and see if something (more reforms) is warranted? What planet is he on? How in the world is the legislature NOT meeting, NOT having ongoing conversations, with our communities beyond stressed? COVID and isolation are only a couple of the difficulties our citizens are facing.
Maybe things are just peachy in East Gull Lake, but in Minneapolis they are not. Gazelka is using power to stand in the way of trying to fix what is happening in our city. He needs to poop or get off the pot so someone functional can get in there.
I am curious what the state has to do with local police reform in minneapolis?
The state sets the minimum standards for law enforcement officers.
Everybody is talking about people getting shot by cops. What hasn’t been discussed is what leads up to that. The 1st step in the process is that a cop pulls a gun on someone. That’s what needs to be addressed.
It should be mandatory that every time an officer pulls a gun on someone, or witnesses another officer doing the same, that they file a detailed police report describing exactly what led up to this, and why it was necessary. Maybe doing 20 minutes of paperwork will discourage the routine habit of many cops of grabbing for their guns as a 1st step in everyday police stops.
The other thing that needs to be addressed is why we have people who have been arrested for illegal gun possession or armed robberies and car jackings walking the streets one or two years after they have been charged. These people need to be locked up. We need to get serious about gun crimes. No plea bargaining! Fast trials!
We can’t just be beating up cops for being on a hair trigger, without also addressing the root cause.