Police working security at a Minnesota Lynx basketball game walked off the job because members of the team were wearing these t-shirts.
Change starts with us
Justice and Accountability
The head of the Minneapolis Police Federation commended them for abandoning their job, and said If [the players] are going to keep their stance, all officers may refuse to work there.
I have to ask, what offended them? Justice? Or accountability? Or possibly it was that the names of two dead black men were listed on the back. Please be specific, Minneapolis police. Perhaps you could suggest some edits that would make acknowledging injustice and a lack of accountability palatable to you.
Oh oh oh oh, I’ve got this:
#BlueLivesMatter
#ReverseRacism
#NotAllWhitePeople
Obviously they want to acknowledge the true injustices here. You know, like parking and speeding tickets, or how this one time a black dude hurt their feels!
Excuse me, but isn’t it the job of the police to protect and serve the public, not to protect and serve those that they like the best? Even if the players had been wearing T-shirts that said, “Shoot all the pigs!” the professional response would have been for the police officers to roll their eyes and treat the players with the dignity and respect owed to members of the public by public servants.
Keep their stance? Really. Hmm. I’d say it’s time for a whole lot of people to lose their jobs. They can go find something inoffensive to do. Jesus fucking Christ, we really need to burn the whole system down to the ground and start over.
As a retail peon I can’t just walk off my job if a guest is rude or downright abusive. I’m not even supposed to talk back. If that behavior isn’t acceptable when Random Guest #639 needs their cornflakes why is it acceptable when determining whether people live or die, when hundreds to millions of dollars in property are on the line?
“Nice stadium you got here. Would be a shame if something happened because we weren’t around to protect it, but you know, you gotta give something to get something…how’s about a nice shine on my boots.”
The police are not here to protect or server anyone. They’re here to exert their power to their pleasure. To kill and rob whomever they please and to extend or deny protection to whoever they judge worthy of protection. This is a criminal racket. Disband them all and reform the institution from the ground up.
http://www.startribune.com/minneapolis-cops-working-lynx-game-walk-out-over-player-comments-warm-up-jerseys/386373171/
The ESPN article also omits the part where Kroll, displaying the maturity of a 12 year old, takes potshots at the Lynx’s attendance while he’s at it:
“Asked about a report that seven or eight officers had walked off the job, Kroll said, “They only have four officers working the event because the Lynx have such a pathetic draw.” ”
It’s like we’ve got a little Trump running our police union. Unsurprising though, when this is the same guy who has had half a dozen lawsuits filed against him for beating up minorities, and who has called BLM a terrorist organization. But you know, protect and serve.
Oh, was their fe-fes hurt? Big, bad, cops can’t deal with words on a t-shirt? Doing the job they’re paid to do is ever so hard when there might be people out there who have issues with cops killing innocent black people and express those issues on their apparel. I guess being a cop these days isn’t like it used to be where you could rough up or kill people without your actions being photographed 9 ways from Sunday. Pussies.
They didn’t have to walk out. They could have just held up a sign saying “Black people, we will kill you and you will like it”.
The two actions are equivalent.
**** John.
***** “As a retail peon I can’t just walk off my job if a guest is rude or downright abusive.”
That means that retail should be reformed. You should have that right.
***** “Perhaps you could suggest some edits that would make acknowledging injustice and a lack of accountability palatable to you.”
To include the names of fallen police officers. To turn to peace and
reconciliation, not (very, very slight) antagonism.
These are some thin-skinned police officers though. There is slight
antagonism in the shirts, but nothing worse than wearing an NWA shirt.
I noted also in the article that it said the officers were off-duty. I don’r actually know how that’s regulated; I do know that it’s a job, and therefore they aren’t entitled to quit in the middle of it, but does that mean they’re basically freelancing mercs (and thus accountable to themselves only for their service offering) or is it like, extracurriculars in the precinct, still basically accountable to institutional supervision but basically voluntary?
Show me the “slight antagonism” in the shirts, because I don’t see it.
Remembering two murdered citizens should not require listing every other dead person on the planet, or even that we have to acknowledge an equal number of dead police officers. Otherwise, I’m going to stamp my foot and insist that every memorial must include the names of my dead father, my dead sister, and my dead cousins.
Also worthy of note is that in addition to recognizing Sterling, Castile, and BLM, the shirts have the seal of the Dallas Police Department on it. But nuanced opinions don’t fit into the us-vs-them mentality that Kroll thrives on.
What is antagonistic about those shirts? Why do we need to constantly acknowledge cops dying before we talk about the much larger and unrelated issue of cops murdering civilians and getting away with it?
***** “Show me the “slight antagonism” in the shirts, because I don’t see it.”
The message of the shirts is: “Your institution is corrupt.” It is not: “We
need to work together to bridge our two communities.” The former is
“slight” antagonism.
***** “Remembering two murdered citizens should not require listing every other dead person on the planet[.]”
I agree, but the shirts are not listing two random, unrelated murders. I
doubt police officers would find a shirt with the names of Columbine
victims offensive.
penalfire
Doing this
<blockquote>paste copied text here</blockquote>
Results in this
<b>bold</b>
bold
<i>italic</i>
italic
dianne@2, since this story is getting widely misreported, it’s worth pointing out that these were off duty and working as private security – meaning they were free to take or leave the employment. In the US, it’s quite common for officers to work private security when they’re off duty. They can and should be judged for what they said and did, but merely quitting is not a violation of any duty to the public at all.
Larry @6
Can we not with the gendered slurs, please?
+++
penalfire
I don’t know what shirts you’re reading, but the ones I’m seeing say ‘Change starts with us’, which is a wonderful message of initiative and willingness to work for progress. “Justice and accountability” should be standard vocabulary for any police officer, nothing offensive or antagonistic there… And since it’s the police who hold more authority within a community, it’s a nice gesture to acknowledge that they should be the ones to initiate some kind of change.
No, they are not, which is the point. You’re missing it.
I do believe it wasn’t the police doing the shooting that time, and if you’re trying to address police aggression, those names seem to be slightly off-topic. And not the names you need to focus on the issue of police officers killing black men on the streets.
If this has nothing to do withh their primary job, why is the head of the Minneapolis Police Federation defending them?
Siobhan @1, you forgot one of the racists right’s favourites…
“#BlackOnBlackCrime”
Because until African-Americans become better than all the rest of humanity and no longer commit any crimes, how can the police be blamed for killing unarmed black people?
Let’s look at why they might find the two names offensive:
1. They feel that the killings were justified
2. They feel that criticism of police killing civilians (whether or not the feel it was justified to kill them) is always wrong
3. They feel that police should not be subjected to the same laws that govern everyone else and thus are threatened by calls for justice.
Anyway you slice it the police are out of line by being offended:
1. Even if the police had no choice but to kill a suspect for their own self-defense or defense of others, they should be asking how it could have been avoided. Police should never be OK with the killing of members of the community. The shirts simply ask for justice and accountability. In other words, a thorough investigation just like any other homicide. If the police believe and investigation is wrong, they need to quit.
2 and 3: Any officer who holds these beliefs needs to find another line of work.
@whywhywhy, well said. One of the most nauseating things I’ve seen are the people who treat a possible justification defence for police homicide as the police having “no choice.”
@2 Dianne: “but isn’t it the job of the police to protect and serve the public ….?”
No. It’s to protect the state against that public.
I’d like to finish here with [/sarcasm], but am afraid that the head of the MPF actually thinks this correct.
I agree with everything that’s being said here. It’s worse than it sounds from the OP, BTW: police habitually punish the public by responding slower to certain calls, or skipping certain areas on their patrols, etc. I agree that the entire system needs to be burned down and rebuilt, and cops completely retrained.
That said, security at sporting events are generally done by off-duty police for extra money. This isn’t their day job; it’s a side job. I think they’re complete asshats for walking off for the reason they did, but they’re not refusing to do their duty–they’re passing up on a bit of moonlighting.
@ penalfire #8 / rpjohnston #4,
It depends on how abusive the customer is and how supportive management is. There is a certain threshold where a worker should remain calm and attempt to assist the customer, a point where management should be willing to take over, and a point where the customer should be asked to leave.
The police in this instance did not even come close to following those steps, and the shirts they were objecting to were mild. (I think “shoot the police” shirts, as dianne mentioned would be crossing a major line, especially given the recent shooting).
The only time it would be appropriate to walk off the job would be an instance where there was an extremely abusive customer and management refused to handle it. If you walked off the job in such instances, you’d likely lose your employment but it’d be a shitty place to work anyway. I think it’s always your “right” to walk off the job, but not without consequences.
When I worked in retail, there was a time when other customers started telling off an asshole customer. I was so appreciative that I made it one of my life missions to stand up to shitty customers. I also give my phone number to the employee (while the shithead customer is watching) telling them to pass it on to management if there is a complaint*. The worst one I ever encountered was when a couple started calling the gas station worker a “brown asshole who probably wants to blow up our country” because he told them he’s not allowed to lend out a Jerry can for them to get gas.
* As I write this, I’m thinking I should go one step further and proactively contact management and tell them that the employee handled a hostile customer without losing their cool. Next time. Sadly, there’ll probably be a next time.
Quite right. I would hope that the Minnesota Lynx organization keep note of said unprofessional officers and offer them a permanent ban from ever working security at any of their games in the future. Said unprofessional officers are obviously unqualified (and probably not trained) to deal with the rigours of standing around and waiting for hours on end until (if) some drunk and/or rowdy fans start acting up.
Come to think of it, they probably can get EventStaff for cheaper.
To say there is slight antagonism in the shirts is to say Philando Castile’s (and others’) killing was justified.
Or put another way, the police officers who are antagonized by the shirts want the public to approve of Castile’s killing.
New Orleans: cops invade private property to “hold people accountable” for a legal, peaceful, non-violent protest where no law was broken.
Minnesota: cops walk off the job because civilians said police should be held accountable for illegal and violent actions, where a law was broken.
With attitudes like theirs, I’m surprised the cops didn’t attack and beat the players. Or are they going to wait until the black players are alone, heading home after the game?
My applause for the Lynx players.
A couple of people mentioned the moonlighting aspect and, while it is a somewhat mitigating detail, they have still signed on to perform a critical service. It’s not the same as a hot dog vendor walking off the job. If something had happened after they left, I think they should be held partially liable for abandoning their job.
qwints@15: As others have pointed out, they were still performing a critical public service and if they weren’t ready and able to perform that service regardless of what they thought of their employers’ politics, they shouldn’t have ever accepted the job. They certainly shouldn’t have simply skipped out with no notice or warning. That is extremely unprofessional, at the very least.
Crybaby Nation strikes again!
These guys shouldn’t just be fired for refusing to do their jobs, they should be fired because I don’t think the public welfare can be effectively protected by a bunch of whiny manbabies who get their fee-fees hurted by t-shirts.
re mnbo@21:
yes. reminded of a response to an historical situation where the military was used to supplement a beleaguered police force; noting that while police are trained to serve and protect the citizens, the military is trained to protect the state from any aggressors. Protesting citizens could easily get conflated into ‘enemies’ as opposed to citizens expressing protest.
I only bring this up as part of the current militarization of the police. The government seems to fail to recognize the issues, and thinks giving the police more terrifying/deadly equipment will silence protest and dissent, and solve everything.
those whole fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it
@ Usernames! # 24
I’d go a step further and keep a list which is available to anyone planning to hire security for any event. They clearly can’t be trusted to uphold their commitments. Such a list would also probably not be limted to police officers.
@15 Qwints
Also, police officers will volunteer their time and provide traffic control and flow into and out of churches. They can do this within their uniform, since they are directing traffic flow, but are volunteering their time to the Church for the services.
It’s mostly Christian Churches, but I have seen it outisde of one synagogues
So, were the moonlighting police officers at least fired from their security job? I doubt they just organize as individuals, there must be a company hiring them.
Saad, #25:
Yes, I believe that’s exactly what those cops are saying.
@chigau #17: Opportunistic asshattery? I assume he saw the consequence free opportunity. And he chose to be himself.
Interesting points, good arguments.
If they’re working off duty as security they’re still working.
+++
As someone wise once noted: if it’s not about you, it’s not about you.
If you don’t think black people should just be shot then you’re not the one we’re talking about
Target Center is owned by the City of Minneapolis. Additionally, the Lynx and the Timberwolves are jointly owned, so there might be a lot of events that Mpls police officers can/should be barred from working in the future. Owner Glen Taylor should be able to locate another local department willing to commit to protecting all arena-attendees. This might be any other LEO organization which doesn’t have an asshat who spits hate as a union-membership leader, i.e. a smaller dept which has not unionized. Those Police Union leaders who’ve publicly spoken out on race relations have all been fuckwads, as I remember it.
However, “[a] Lynx spokesperson said Tuesday the players won’t be wearing the shirts before that night’s game in San Antonio.” The players should be able to wear them if they wish, in my opinion. All of the hateful messaging is coming from the vitriolic #BlueAssholesUnite and never from our community-bridging BLM movement. Arena fans who might wear similar shirts or carrying signs with similar inclusive messaging can’t ever feel completely safe in the stands until team ownership addresses this latest outrage properly.
I don’t want to come across as a patronising Englishman lecturing the poor colonials on how to do society properly, but I notice that Cracked has a nice article today getting to the heart of why the British police tend to do far less of this nonsense than US ones. As has been said many times in these discussions, a lot of it comes down to the ethos and expectations we have of the police (things that are drummed into them repeatedly throughout their careers), and the mechanisms we have in place to ensure accountability.
http://www.cracked.com/personal-experiences-2353-i-was-cop-in-country-with-no-guns-6-startling-truths.html
In Marcus-land, every single fan would show up wearing those shirts.
I worked at a major league stadium years ago and was familiar at that time with the rules under which members of the local police force worked part-time. I am not surprised to see that the rules are similar in Minneapolis. In essence, THESE OFFICERS ABANDONED THEIR POST AND SHOULD BE TERMINATED FROM THE POLICE FORCE.
.
II. Policy
.
Minneapolis Police Department employees who work off-duty are subject to the rules, regulations, ordinances, and the policies and procedures of the City of Minneapolis and Minneapolis Police Department.
.
In all cases of off-duty employment the primary duty, obligation, and responsibility of an employee is to the City of Minneapolis and the MPD. This policy applies to all off-duty employment. [bold added]
.
D. Restrictions and Prohibitions
Officers are subject to supervision by the precinct in which they are working and are subject to inspection.
.
Source: http://www.ci.minneapolis.mn.us/police/policy/mpdpolicy_3-800_3-800
Here’s a thought exercise for you guys. I have mentioned it elsewhere, but not gotten a lot of feedback on practicality or desirability.
Hypothesis: Police violence would drop dramatically if there were a “One shot” rule. If a law enforcement officer kills a person in the line of duty, for any reason, their job is forfeit. Full stop, no exception.
I know someone will, sooner or later, babble about “unavoidable circumstances”. I know they exist, but I suspect that they are extraordinarily rare. I am of the opinion that a true good cop will sacrifice his career to stop someone from shooting up a crowd of people if that is the only option. I just want them to be really damn sure that is the only option.
I know the other objection will be “but an innocent cop could lose his job”. Yes, and? Maybe so. This is one of the few times I will use the phrase “acceptable collateral damage”. I would rather have a good cop fired under a policy that saves citizen lives, than continue policies that allow bad cops to get away with killing citizens just because someone may lose their job.
Cameradragon (#43) –
A stellar idea. But the one shot rule shouldn’t only apply to the one who fired, it should apply to any other cop present when it’s fired. If a second can’t talk the first out of firing, that cop failed to de-escalate the situation. If fifty are present, then they was no need for the excessive force, and they all failed in their duty.
I disagree. A hesitant cop will think twice not just before firing a gun, but before committing other crime. When they all have to walk on eggshells, they won’t “watch each others’ back” and cover up crimes, they’ll watch each other and report others’ crimes to keep their own job.
I don’t think the “one shot” idea is particularly good, but I was also going to link to that Cracked article before cartomancer @40 beat me to it. I have far fewer qualms about being a patronising Englishman telling the colonials how to do it, and I’ll point out that, although our police are far from perfect, the systems we have to limit abuse of power and police brutality seem to be far more robust than you guys have. Notably, every time a police officer uses significant force, they have to write up a slew of paperwork to justify it. Every time one of our armed officers shoots someone (fatally or otherwise), they are routinely and automatically subject to an Independent Police Complaints Commission investigation where a panel determines whether the officer was justified in using (potentially or actually) lethal force. As I said, the procedures and officers are far from perfect (just look at the Mark Duggan case, for instance), but the knowledge that they will be held accountable for any use of force, and held to public scrutiny where this is potentially lethal, certainly moderates the worst potential abuses by officers.
I think the one shot idea is bad. It would lead to cops trying to stay out of trouble instead of trying to prevent/mitigate it.
There are already imperfect but functioning solutions in other countries, no need to try and reinvent the wheel.
These policies taht work are 1) teach policement to deescalate 2) police shootings should all automatically invstigated as homicide and have to go before the court of law. The shooter might get cleared or not, but they cannot avoid the case being fully investigated at all.
The one shot idea still doesn’t change the fact that someone most probably will die during the execution of that one shot.
40 / 45: Remember, though, in the Cracked article he repeatedly makes the point that he doesn’t think the model would work well in the US, given how armed the population is. I completely disagree that killing someone in the line of duty should mean loss of job – serious and tough review, but absolutely not an automatic loss of job. After all, these are people who we as society license to use force; it’s part of their job (that should be very rare).
One of my favorite stories about Dutch police: we live on a canal in Amsterdam, and recently had someone (presumably a junkie) sleeping on our boat and stashing some apparently stolen stuff. I wasn’t home at the time, so my wife just closed up the boat cover and put the pile of stuff neatly on the street (I think she even put a plastic sheet down first). Next morning, all the crap was strewn about the street – the guy just freaked out, I guess. I asked a cop buddy of mine what we should have done – brought the stuff to the police and left a note? Called the police directly? Waited to catch the guy? His reply: “Well, first I think you have to think what the human response should be.” Totally caught me off guard.
#48
I accept that the prevalence of guns in US society does make things a bit different. But the problems that US police departments have are not limited to their trigger-happy nature. The Cracked article highlights just as much the differences in training, ethos and accountability, and those I think very much could be changed in the US. The guns are in many respects not the root of the probem.
US police training does not ram home the need for de-escalation as much as it should. The US police are not trained to think of themselves as part of their communities, but rather as a clique of enforcers over them. The US police are not subject to the same review procedures and accountability measures as British and other police are. As you say, the need to take the psychology, emotions and behaviour of those they interact with into account are not widely appreciated by US policemen. All of this could realistically be changed even without disarming the police over there.
Of course, the benefits would be lessened if officers are still enraptured by US gun culture and believe that armed response is an everyday tool of policing. But I’d take lessened benefits over no benefits at all.
“Show me the “slight antagonism” in the shirts, because I don’t see it.”
PZ, you don’t have your blue-tinted glasses on. The GIANT antagonism is in the part where they dared to even mention the unfortunate circumstances of the perps’ demise. You see, if people even mention the idea that perhaps those police officers didn’t need to shoot those black men dead dead dead, why that’s just like stabbing the police in their collective back.
It’s assault on the police, plain and simple. Those female basketball players were only lucky that they were female, cause some of them are black – if they had been black AND male after such an unconscionable assault on the police, well, there just might have been a few more corpses off to the morgue.
You just have to look at it from the correct perspective. Start by thinking that the police have the right to murder citizens without question or consequence.
I think they left because if violence broke out and they had to intervene then there would be nothing they could do without being character-assassinated. Again.