The primary election ends tonight at 7 p.m., but we may not have all the results until 10 days from now. [TNI]
Public defenders marched at the RJC in support of Black lives. [8NewsNow; RJ]
There is a hearing today on challenging the constitutionality of the 50-person cap at churches due to COVID-19. [Las Vegas Sun]
If you haven’t seen it already, here is a summary of the 30-page Admin Order 20-17 regarding procedures for Phase 2 of COVID-19 recovery in the Eighth Judicial District Court. [eighthjdcourt blog]
And here’s a video interview with Chief Judge Bell talking about the court’s response. [eighthjdcourt blog]
AO requires everyone, including lawyers and court employees, to wear masks in RJC,including courtrooms. But in Justice CT, lots of staff and lawyers don't. Lots of employees in the RJC without masks. Some Dist Ct judges and staff don't wear them. And now a bunch of J Ct people are COVID positive. This AO is meaningless unless the Court is going to enforce it.
Unfortunately Justice Court and District Court are on separate and independent AO's. District Court cannot order how Justice Court will conduct its proceedings.
Most law firms are dysfunctional and run by egotistical, greedy sociopaths who are living beyond their means. You just have to try and find one where these things are at a tolerable level, and that includes enough less-horrible people to keep the really horrible ones in check.
All these protests are fine, and should be supported, providing:
1. No violence.
2. No looting.
3. Morons don't call for the abolishment of police departments.
Actually, only #1 and #2 are critical. #3 is more aspirational and goes to the issue of credibility.
I also recognize that some of these "abolish" people are just trying to make a dramatic point, and they really mean that there should be dramatic revamping, far better selection and training, far more accountability, etc.–which is largely valid.
But some of these people literally do believe that the police departments should be completely abolished, and a lot of these people are the de facto media spokespeople on behalf of the groups of protestors they represent.
When challenged about what would be done in place of abolished police departments, and the likely ensuing anarchy, some of these spokespeople say inane things like having other public officials, like county social workers, intervening and dealing with people who commit certain crimes.
There are certainly some limited situations(such as narcotic usage) where a move from punitive law enforcement to a more therapeutic approach is appropriate. But for most violent crimes, and for most theft crimes as well, nothing productive can be accomplished without a law enforcement structure.
I have not heard about "Abolish Police." I have heard defund. I have heard about tearing it down and starting from scratch. There was an interesting article about Camden, NJ who found the corruption so deep that it effectively cleaned house and started over. Crime is down by 50%. Complaints against police are down a similar percentage.
Frankly the greatest evidence that the system might need to be scrapped and started over is the response of LEO themselves: the unions, the tear gas and rubber bullets, the slashing tires of reporters. On Memorial Day, I would have told you that the system needs fixing. Today I have a hard time denying that systemic replacement might not be necessary because reform will only involve the same people doing the same things all over.
Great points. I would add that the Minneapolis city council has already voted to abolish their police department, so it is an actuality and the term should be taken literally. A literal train wreck of an idea. Minneapolis is the 16th largest metropolitan area in the country, not a small town by any means.
A Minneapolic city council member was asked yesterday what they were going to do to protect citizens and he said, among other things, that while he did not know, the community did, and that it would be a year long process so the police would be there until the other plan was put in place. My answer to that is, no they won't. It's not a far stretch of logic to expect every Minneapolis police officer to, right now, be actively looking to go to another agency, retire, or flat out quit to go do something else (police officers choose to be police officers, they don't have to be working in that capacity). And there sure as heck won't be anyone answering want-ads for any open positions related to the Minneapolis police department. So, no, there won't be police hanging around to get fired.
What's worse is that the county sheriff said that his agency, and the others that came in to help Minneapolis during the riots, have no appetite to go back into that city and police it. His attitude was, if they want to get rid of their department, they are going to have to deal with the consequences of that action. I think he is right.
Also yesterday, a CNN anchor was interviewing another Minneapolis city council member. The anchor, speaking on the topic of how this new community police group would operate, asked the council person who she (the CNN anchor) would reach if she called 911 as someone was breaking into her house. The council member's answer, without hesitation, was that calling 911 was coming from a place of privilege.
Then, on another media outlet, I heard that instead of calling 911, the plan would be to call your neighbor. So, I'm getting my butt kicked by a family member and I'm going to call my elderly male neighbor Joe (his name really is Joe), who is suffering from multiple sclerosis (which he is), to come over and intervene. How would Joe respond? I have no idea, angrily and with a weapon of some kind is suppose, but doubtful that he would be coming over with a plate of freshly baked cookies to solve the problem. And if he did, how is that going to help me as I'm lying on the ground bleeding to death?
"Defund police" is pretty simple really. So-called bad apples can't be fired due to unions. But even the good apples enable this process by, for whatever reason, refusing to put a stop to it. So the Camden apporach was to disband the police, allowing any officers to reapply.
Even the most cursory google search of minneapolis PD police union would tell anyone all they need to know about why nothing changes there and nothing will if they keep their current structure.
10:59– You ridiculed this comment "The council member's answer, without hesitation, was that calling 911 was coming from a place of privilege." If you are a POC and as you say "I'm getting my butt kicked by a family member", you aren't calling 911 in many cases because those officers are going to perceive you not as a victim but as a threat. You are not going to get responsiveness and have a fair chance that you will also be going to jail. It is a privilege to be able to trust and rely that LEO are there to help you, will be responsive to your needs or will not turn against you.
So, Joe to the rescue! Looking forward to that. I'll take my chances with the poe-poe since nine out of ten do the job they are supposed to do, all day long.
Minneapolis has been under Democrat control for over 40 years. Most cops retire with 25 years in, so it is extremely likely that every single cop on the Minneapolis force was hired and trained by a Dem city government. The Dem's own the culture of the Minn. PD. If the PD isn't "woke" enough, blame the Dems!
Over the course of 40 years, the Dems are fully responsible for whatever the PD is. Why have the Dems hired racist cops? Why have the Dems tolerated police brutality? It is not as if the Dems were just elected and just took over an already existing PD. 40 years to shape it however they wanted.
Let’s face it, we never want to see a situation like was saw with Chauvin regarding his treatment of Floyd. It was disgusting, criminal behavior and completely uncalled for. The overwhelming and appropriate cry for justice is to prevent that brutality from happening again, in the future, ever. And rightfully so.
Unfortunately, there is a Chauvin in every department – an angry, defiant, hates-everyone, negative thinking bully of a cop. This kind of cop is dangerous with or without racism, so the solution, a true lasting solution, has to go beyond racism to be effective. The solution lies within the mindset of the officer. Specifically, the solution is the abolishment the punish-mindset.
If Chauvin would have been committed to managing Floyd’s behavior (the mange mindset), once Floyd was handcuffed, a reasonable and safe-for-Floyd plan could have been developed on the spot to work with whatever resistance Floyd may have been exercising, which appeared to be rather passive in nature and perhaps complicated by medical concerns. It’s not that difficult of a situation to handle properly, officers effectively work through these incidents all the time.
But Chauvin chose to not employ the self-discipline necessary to act on his training to simply manage the situation; instead he was bent on punishing Floyd for not going-with-the-program of custody and transport. We can’t change what Chauvin did, but we can delve into why he was allowed to act out on his bias – his punish mindset. Although racism can certainly be a driving factor in these situations, the influence of change to a person that favors punishment requires a broader swath because officers like Chauvin hate everyone that they consider to be a criminal – in their mind, a criminal is a POS and should be treated as such.
So, back to the solution. I’ll start with this question, who was in charge of Chauvin? The police chief? The union? No, his immediate supervisor, the sergeant. Have we heard anything in the aftermath of Chauvin’s actions with regard to his sergeant? No, nothing. The chief can apologize to the public fervently, and promise that it will never happen again, but he is too far removed from the action on the street to make any kind of sustainable guarantee. So this leads us down the chain of command to the person that is closest to the action.
But is it fair to make the sergeant accountable for their officer’s actions? Yes and no. No, the officer took the actions and is therefore accountable (and still is in this solution); but also Yes, the sergeant was aware of Chauvin’s punish mindset long before Chauvin acted out on it and is therefore responsible for taking the preemptive action necessary to check Chauvin’s mindset. The sergeants are in the best position to effectively use their ear-to-the-ground insight to shift the internal culture of the department from punish to manage (an effort that the administration should already be supporting).
Part 2 of 2 (thanks for sticking it out if you made it this far)
Here is how the immediate supervisors’ can shift the internal culture from punish to manage: Guys like Chauvin tend to vocalize their hate throughout the department to anyone within earshot, starting in the locker room, then into the briefing room, and ultimately out on patrol. Unfortunately, too many sergeants want to be considered one-of-the-guys and therefore passively allow officers like Chauvin to dominate the conversation in the room, specifically the briefing room where the sergeant should be in control. Unfortunately, any sergeant bucking the one-of-the-guys trend is quickly ostracized among the officers due to the few sergeants that allow it to permeate, so it is imperative that every sergeant must be equally accountable for the officers’ actions. In law enforcement, negativity drowns out optimism in an instant, so it takes true and purposeful leadership to steer the talk back to productive topics.
Making a sergeant accountable for his subordinates’ actions would be a strong incentive to take on that challenging leadership role, which would have the sergeants and lieutenants reinforcing the policies and actions that support the manage mindset…to put out the fire in the room that the punish mindset ignites. As a result, officers like Chauvin would then stand out as being troubled rather propped-up amongst his peers as a “do it my way or your less of a cop” kind of cult figure. Play this change out and we likely would have had the other three officers on scene overruling Chauvin’s deadly directives and instead rolling Floyd over and properly securing him until medical arrived.
But what about the unions, guys like Chauvin are untouchable? No, they are not. The unions protect the agreed upon discipline and discharge processes, but lazy administrations try to skirt around the process all too often, making for a winnable case of wrongful termination. And administrations throwing an officer into an internal affairs investigation for every complaint, while necessary, if left alone as the only remedy to bad behavior, does nothing more than enable the punish mindset and is purely reactive in nature.
Proactive administrative leadership seeks to manage the officers’ behavior through both positive and negative reinforcement, and insists on adherence to proper documentation for things like coaching, verbal warnings, remedial training, and progressive disciplinary processes. Terminations following those efforts are justified (and quantified), and rarely get pushback from the unions. Legitimate unions don’t want bad cops in law enforcement any more than the public does.
This is an internal accountability solution and would certainly put a lot of leadership pressure on the sergeants and lieutenants, but without their active involvement in their officers’ attitudes and behavior, the punish mindset bias that plays out on the street in the form of police brutality is sure to rear its ugly head once again.
Other solutions may work better, who knows, but to dismantle an agency and then have the “good officers” re-apply is naïve thinking. With the current anti-police climate whipping into a whirlwind of hate and discontent for law enforcement, none of the people that we want to be cops will have the desire do so. And cut the budgets of existing departments so that pay and equipment decline, and now we’re attracting poor performers with inadequate means to do a lousy job. We can fix this with workable solutions.
Here is how the immediate supervisors’ can shift the internal culture from punish to manage: Guys like Chauvin tend to vocalize their hate throughout the department to anyone within earshot, starting in the locker room, then into the briefing room, and ultimately out on patrol. Unfortunately, too many sergeants want to be considered one-of-the-guys and therefore passively allow officers like Chauvin to dominate the conversation in the room, specifically the briefing room where the sergeant should be in control. Unfortunately, any sergeant bucking the one-of-the-guys trend is quickly ostracized among the officers due to the few sergeants that allow it to permeate, so it is imperative that every sergeant must be equally accountable for the officers’ actions. In law enforcement, negativity drowns out optimism in an instant, so it takes true and purposeful leadership to steer the talk back to productive topics.
Making a sergeant accountable for his subordinates’ actions would be a strong incentive to take on that challenging leadership role, which would have the sergeants and lieutenants reinforcing the policies and actions that support the manage mindset…to put out the fire in the room that the punish mindset ignites. As a result, officers like Chauvin would then stand out as being troubled rather propped-up amongst his peers as a “do it my way or your less of a cop” kind of cult figure. Play this change out and we likely would have had the other three officers on scene overruling Chauvin’s deadly directives and instead rolling Floyd over and properly securing him until medical arrived.
But what about the unions, guys like Chauvin are untouchable? No, they are not. The unions protect the agreed upon discipline and discharge processes, but lazy administrations try to skirt around the process all too often, making for a winnable case of wrongful termination. And administrations throwing an officer into an internal affairs investigation for every complaint, while necessary, if left alone as the only remedy to bad behavior, does nothing more than enable the punish mindset and is purely reactive in nature.
Proactive administrative leadership seeks to manage the officers’ behavior through both positive and negative reinforcement, and insists on adherence to proper documentation for things like coaching, verbal warnings, remedial training, and progressive disciplinary processes. Terminations following those efforts are justified (and quantified), and rarely get pushback from the unions. Legitimate unions don’t want bad cops in law enforcement any more than the public does.
This is an internal accountability solution and would certainly put a lot of leadership pressure on the sergeants and lieutenants, but without their active involvement in their officers’ attitudes and behavior, the punish mindset bias that plays out on the street in the form of police brutality is sure to rear its ugly head once again.
Other solutions may work better, who knows, but to dismantle an agency and then have the “good officers” re-apply is naïve thinking. With the current anti-police climate whipping into a whirlwind of hate and discontent for law enforcement, none of the people that we want to be cops will have the desire do so. And cut the budgets of existing departments so that pay and equipment decline, and now we’re attracting poor performers with inadequate means to do a lousy job. We can fix this with workable solutions.
3:02,3:04, 3:28–I believe you indulge too many suppositions and assume factual patterns we can't know anything about.
You assume that he sticks out in the department as a real hate monger and real peddler of pain, and that he is such an equal opportunity hater, and such an overall misanthrope, that he is not even particularly concerned about the race of the suspect, but that instead they will all receive the same abominable treatment.
You assume he is a dominant sadistic voice that controls the dialogue at all briefings and meetings and that his superiors give him such free reign as they want to be viewed as one of the guys. If he is such a loud, out-of-control presence, don't you feel, that in this day and age, rather than placating him that a large police department like that would instead consider him a powder keg–a huge P.R. black eye just waiting to erupt.
I'm not suggesting that his tendencies were some secret, or that he did not speak his ignorant mind, but you make him sound like an all engulfing presence at the station house that has everyone cowed and intimidated. You make it sound like he very publicly, and consistently,
and very loudly and aggressively touting an "Us Vs. Them" and "take no prisoners" philosophy.
He may say things like that around some of his colleagues of equal rank, but if he, at official briefings and meetings, was acting the way you suggest, I think they would have dumped him a long time ago, if they were not successful in re-directing him.
If you know any local METRO officers, just ask them what happens if at official briefings they speak over the Sgt. and start promoting grossly excessive violence against minorities, and suspects in general.
I think he was probably a jerk who shared his views with those of equal rank–in the locker room, patrol car, at their favorite cop hangout tavern–but not during official briefings. I do not believe that for moment.
Plus, you also act like this guy would have been so easy to profile and predict, and thus intervention could have prevented a lot of this. But it may well be that his behavior, as observed by his superiors, was not that dramatically different than his colleagues.
Now, with all that said, it does appear he attracted quite a few complaints, but as of yet we really don't know the nature of them.
I enjoyed the lengthy posts at 3:02, 3:04, and 3:28. They show a lot of thought and analysis.
But,as 5:58 points out, there are a lot of conclusions assumed which may not be the case.
I wish these guys really stuck out like such a sore thumb well in advance. It would then be much easier to take preventive measures and avoid these type of nightmares.
But human nature is very complex and often real life does not work that way.
But, really thoughtful discussion anyway.
Guest
Anonymous
June 9, 2020 5:32 pm
Is anyone aware of an ethics opinion, case, or other Nevada (including federal) authority regarding contacting former management-level employees of an adverse party?
The employee in question is clearly a "management" level employee, but he left a few months before any of the incidents giving rise to the suit occurred and was not in any way involved. I'd expect his testimony to be along the lines of what the status quo / policies were during his tenure.
Or is it once management, always management (i.e., no ex parte contact allowed)?
Yes so what do all these cases say in contacting former management employees.
I recall the presumption is that they are represented by the counsel of the organization and it is generally prohibited. Or is it easier to ask for forgiveness than it is to ask for permission.
Thanks everyone. I don't think any of them clearly answer the issue regarding former management level employees who were not personally involved. They seem to indicate that if the former employee could make a binding admission on the party, it's a no-no.
I don't see how that would happen in this case, but I think I'm going to go the safe route and assume it is off limits. I'll ask opposing counsel's permission and when it is denied, I'll file my discovery dispute thing and make my case to the court.
Guest
Anonymous
June 9, 2020 5:56 pm
What has peoples' experience been with new judge Trevor Atkin?
I have been in front of him twice,, both on minor case management issues. But for a new judge, I generally found his judicial temperament to be among the best of the Eighth JD (not a huge accomplishment right now) and he seemed prepared for his cases. I'm not setting the bar too high, but it was a pleasant surprise. He also was one of the first to pivot to effective remote appearances when CV-19 hit.
That being said, I admit to never having a highly complex issue in front of him.
Been in front of Atkins a handful of times on two cases, sat and observed a few others. Small sample, but I'd have him way up the list on the Eighth JD. His rulings, in favor and against my clients, were correct each time. Perhaps as important, he processes his docket quickly each morning so you're not waiting there until lunch for him to hear your small matter.
Atkins is good. It makes me laugh that judges who are criticized cannot take it. Grow up. You are an elected official. People are allowed to criticize judges. If you don't like it, then resign.
I had one "warm body" case management conference before him, and was very interested to observe him during the other matters. He seemed courteous, well prepared. I would guess intelligent, but I didn't really have much to judge that by. Based on very limited experience, I think he'll be good.
Genuinely a nice guy. Having observed him when he practiced, both in hearings and jury trials, he was always focused on his cases, interacted well with opposition, and was articulate and compassionate enough to get a verdict on a tough to win case. Not surprised to hear that these traits have translated well to his efforts on the bench.
Guest
Anonymous
June 9, 2020 6:14 pm
Since he ruled against me, I must be consistent with the spirt of this blog and many of the posters, and observe that he is not a good judge.
Isn't that the drill? If a judge rules against us they are really bad?
Which plays up problems with rating judges. I personally believe someone should be before a judge half a dozen times or so, in order to effectively weigh and balance various factors of judicial performance. But if people rate a judge after just one appearance(which is often the case), the attorney's opinion of the judge is largely result oriented.
People on Twitter have been saying what it was but others are saying it was worse than is being quoted. I don't want to repeat it since it hasn't been verified.
Most politicians would not survive this. Fiore will survive. This is just another Tuesday for her. Plus she has Niger Innis saying it wasn't racist, and he is an African American. And… would Michele Fiore have a black engagement coordinator if she was racist? I mean really!
Guest
Anonymous
June 9, 2020 10:21 pm
A non-attorney family member commented today how much she appreciated being able to google candidate names at home while she went through her ballot. IF her experience is typical, and that's a BIG IF, that does not bode well for certain candidates.
Guest
Anonymous
June 9, 2020 10:44 pm
ODD COMMENTS BY THE BENCH WARMERS:Page 27 of the May NEVADA LAWYER has "do's and don'ts" before federal magistrates. IMPORTANT………don't refer to them as MAGISTRATE………THEY ARE JUDGES ! WOW That is sad.
No idea if it's true, but I read once that what were then called magistrate were given a choice between a raise or getting the title "magistrate judge." They chose the latter.
In any case, they have earned the title magistrate judge and should be referred to accordingly, just like a Supreme Court justice should not be called a judge.
We're lawyers, we're supposed to get these details right.
AO requires everyone, including lawyers and court employees, to wear masks in RJC,including courtrooms. But in Justice CT, lots of staff and lawyers don't. Lots of employees in the RJC without masks. Some Dist Ct judges and staff don't wear them. And now a bunch of J Ct people are COVID positive. This AO is meaningless unless the Court is going to enforce it.
Unfortunately Justice Court and District Court are on separate and independent AO's. District Court cannot order how Justice Court will conduct its proceedings.
Really, Covid still a thing. Yawn. Any news out there?
Hearing Black & Lobello is splitting.
Now this is news we can use? Any details?
Horrible place to work. Horrible people. I just feel bad for those of us losing our jobs.
Most law firms are dysfunctional and run by egotistical, greedy sociopaths who are living beyond their means. You just have to try and find one where these things are at a tolerable level, and that includes enough less-horrible people to keep the really horrible ones in check.
This should be fun…
Tisha Black is something alright
All these protests are fine, and should be supported, providing:
1. No violence.
2. No looting.
3. Morons don't call for the abolishment of police departments.
Actually, only #1 and #2 are critical. #3 is more aspirational and goes to the issue of credibility.
I also recognize that some of these "abolish" people are just trying to make a dramatic point, and they really mean that there should be dramatic revamping, far better selection and training, far more accountability, etc.–which is largely valid.
But some of these people literally do believe that the police departments should be completely abolished, and a lot of these people are the de facto media spokespeople on behalf of the groups of protestors they represent.
When challenged about what would be done in place of abolished police departments, and the likely ensuing anarchy, some of these spokespeople say inane things like having other public officials, like county social workers, intervening and dealing with people who commit certain crimes.
There are certainly some limited situations(such as narcotic usage) where a move from punitive law enforcement to a more therapeutic approach is appropriate. But for most violent crimes, and for most theft crimes as well, nothing productive can be accomplished without a law enforcement structure.
I have not heard about "Abolish Police." I have heard defund. I have heard about tearing it down and starting from scratch. There was an interesting article about Camden, NJ who found the corruption so deep that it effectively cleaned house and started over. Crime is down by 50%. Complaints against police are down a similar percentage.
Frankly the greatest evidence that the system might need to be scrapped and started over is the response of LEO themselves: the unions, the tear gas and rubber bullets, the slashing tires of reporters. On Memorial Day, I would have told you that the system needs fixing. Today I have a hard time denying that systemic replacement might not be necessary because reform will only involve the same people doing the same things all over.
10:42, but to defund essentially means effective abolishment within a matter of months.
Major reform is supported, but defund and abolish, as a practical matter, lead to the same result.
But 10:42 offers some really interesting details and observations which merit analysis and consideration.
Great points. I would add that the Minneapolis city council has already voted to abolish their police department, so it is an actuality and the term should be taken literally. A literal train wreck of an idea. Minneapolis is the 16th largest metropolitan area in the country, not a small town by any means.
A Minneapolic city council member was asked yesterday what they were going to do to protect citizens and he said, among other things, that while he did not know, the community did, and that it would be a year long process so the police would be there until the other plan was put in place. My answer to that is, no they won't. It's not a far stretch of logic to expect every Minneapolis police officer to, right now, be actively looking to go to another agency, retire, or flat out quit to go do something else (police officers choose to be police officers, they don't have to be working in that capacity). And there sure as heck won't be anyone answering want-ads for any open positions related to the Minneapolis police department. So, no, there won't be police hanging around to get fired.
What's worse is that the county sheriff said that his agency, and the others that came in to help Minneapolis during the riots, have no appetite to go back into that city and police it. His attitude was, if they want to get rid of their department, they are going to have to deal with the consequences of that action. I think he is right.
Also yesterday, a CNN anchor was interviewing another Minneapolis city council member. The anchor, speaking on the topic of how this new community police group would operate, asked the council person who she (the CNN anchor) would reach if she called 911 as someone was breaking into her house. The council member's answer, without hesitation, was that calling 911 was coming from a place of privilege.
Then, on another media outlet, I heard that instead of calling 911, the plan would be to call your neighbor. So, I'm getting my butt kicked by a family member and I'm going to call my elderly male neighbor Joe (his name really is Joe), who is suffering from multiple sclerosis (which he is), to come over and intervene. How would Joe respond? I have no idea, angrily and with a weapon of some kind is suppose, but doubtful that he would be coming over with a plate of freshly baked cookies to solve the problem. And if he did, how is that going to help me as I'm lying on the ground bleeding to death?
"Defund police" is pretty simple really. So-called bad apples can't be fired due to unions. But even the good apples enable this process by, for whatever reason, refusing to put a stop to it. So the Camden apporach was to disband the police, allowing any officers to reapply.
Even the most cursory google search of minneapolis PD police union would tell anyone all they need to know about why nothing changes there and nothing will if they keep their current structure.
10:59– You ridiculed this comment "The council member's answer, without hesitation, was that calling 911 was coming from a place of privilege." If you are a POC and as you say "I'm getting my butt kicked by a family member", you aren't calling 911 in many cases because those officers are going to perceive you not as a victim but as a threat. You are not going to get responsiveness and have a fair chance that you will also be going to jail. It is a privilege to be able to trust and rely that LEO are there to help you, will be responsive to your needs or will not turn against you.
So, Joe to the rescue! Looking forward to that. I'll take my chances with the poe-poe since nine out of ten do the job they are supposed to do, all day long.
9 out of 10 times? Sounds like Russian Roulette to me.
Minneapolis has been under Democrat control for over 40 years. Most cops retire with 25 years in, so it is extremely likely that every single cop on the Minneapolis force was hired and trained by a Dem city government. The Dem's own the culture of the Minn. PD. If the PD isn't "woke" enough, blame the Dems!
Over the course of 40 years, the Dems are fully responsible for whatever the PD is. Why have the Dems hired racist cops? Why have the Dems tolerated police brutality? It is not as if the Dems were just elected and just took over an already existing PD. 40 years to shape it however they wanted.
Part 1 of 2 (sorry, coffee kicked-in hard today)
Let’s face it, we never want to see a situation like was saw with Chauvin regarding his treatment of Floyd. It was disgusting, criminal behavior and completely uncalled for. The overwhelming and appropriate cry for justice is to prevent that brutality from happening again, in the future, ever. And rightfully so.
Unfortunately, there is a Chauvin in every department – an angry, defiant, hates-everyone, negative thinking bully of a cop. This kind of cop is dangerous with or without racism, so the solution, a true lasting solution, has to go beyond racism to be effective. The solution lies within the mindset of the officer. Specifically, the solution is the abolishment the punish-mindset.
If Chauvin would have been committed to managing Floyd’s behavior (the mange mindset), once Floyd was handcuffed, a reasonable and safe-for-Floyd plan could have been developed on the spot to work with whatever resistance Floyd may have been exercising, which appeared to be rather passive in nature and perhaps complicated by medical concerns. It’s not that difficult of a situation to handle properly, officers effectively work through these incidents all the time.
But Chauvin chose to not employ the self-discipline necessary to act on his training to simply manage the situation; instead he was bent on punishing Floyd for not going-with-the-program of custody and transport. We can’t change what Chauvin did, but we can delve into why he was allowed to act out on his bias – his punish mindset. Although racism can certainly be a driving factor in these situations, the influence of change to a person that favors punishment requires a broader swath because officers like Chauvin hate everyone that they consider to be a criminal – in their mind, a criminal is a POS and should be treated as such.
So, back to the solution. I’ll start with this question, who was in charge of Chauvin? The police chief? The union? No, his immediate supervisor, the sergeant. Have we heard anything in the aftermath of Chauvin’s actions with regard to his sergeant? No, nothing. The chief can apologize to the public fervently, and promise that it will never happen again, but he is too far removed from the action on the street to make any kind of sustainable guarantee. So this leads us down the chain of command to the person that is closest to the action.
But is it fair to make the sergeant accountable for their officer’s actions? Yes and no. No, the officer took the actions and is therefore accountable (and still is in this solution); but also Yes, the sergeant was aware of Chauvin’s punish mindset long before Chauvin acted out on it and is therefore responsible for taking the preemptive action necessary to check Chauvin’s mindset. The sergeants are in the best position to effectively use their ear-to-the-ground insight to shift the internal culture of the department from punish to manage (an effort that the administration should already be supporting).
Part 2 of 2 (thanks for sticking it out if you made it this far)
Here is how the immediate supervisors’ can shift the internal culture from punish to manage: Guys like Chauvin tend to vocalize their hate throughout the department to anyone within earshot, starting in the locker room, then into the briefing room, and ultimately out on patrol. Unfortunately, too many sergeants want to be considered one-of-the-guys and therefore passively allow officers like Chauvin to dominate the conversation in the room, specifically the briefing room where the sergeant should be in control. Unfortunately, any sergeant bucking the one-of-the-guys trend is quickly ostracized among the officers due to the few sergeants that allow it to permeate, so it is imperative that every sergeant must be equally accountable for the officers’ actions. In law enforcement, negativity drowns out optimism in an instant, so it takes true and purposeful leadership to steer the talk back to productive topics.
Making a sergeant accountable for his subordinates’ actions would be a strong incentive to take on that challenging leadership role, which would have the sergeants and lieutenants reinforcing the policies and actions that support the manage mindset…to put out the fire in the room that the punish mindset ignites. As a result, officers like Chauvin would then stand out as being troubled rather propped-up amongst his peers as a “do it my way or your less of a cop” kind of cult figure. Play this change out and we likely would have had the other three officers on scene overruling Chauvin’s deadly directives and instead rolling Floyd over and properly securing him until medical arrived.
But what about the unions, guys like Chauvin are untouchable? No, they are not. The unions protect the agreed upon discipline and discharge processes, but lazy administrations try to skirt around the process all too often, making for a winnable case of wrongful termination. And administrations throwing an officer into an internal affairs investigation for every complaint, while necessary, if left alone as the only remedy to bad behavior, does nothing more than enable the punish mindset and is purely reactive in nature.
Proactive administrative leadership seeks to manage the officers’ behavior through both positive and negative reinforcement, and insists on adherence to proper documentation for things like coaching, verbal warnings, remedial training, and progressive disciplinary processes. Terminations following those efforts are justified (and quantified), and rarely get pushback from the unions. Legitimate unions don’t want bad cops in law enforcement any more than the public does.
This is an internal accountability solution and would certainly put a lot of leadership pressure on the sergeants and lieutenants, but without their active involvement in their officers’ attitudes and behavior, the punish mindset bias that plays out on the street in the form of police brutality is sure to rear its ugly head once again.
Other solutions may work better, who knows, but to dismantle an agency and then have the “good officers” re-apply is naïve thinking. With the current anti-police climate whipping into a whirlwind of hate and discontent for law enforcement, none of the people that we want to be cops will have the desire do so. And cut the budgets of existing departments so that pay and equipment decline, and now we’re attracting poor performers with inadequate means to do a lousy job. We can fix this with workable solutions.
Part 2 of 2 (same post, but with line spacing)
Here is how the immediate supervisors’ can shift the internal culture from punish to manage: Guys like Chauvin tend to vocalize their hate throughout the department to anyone within earshot, starting in the locker room, then into the briefing room, and ultimately out on patrol. Unfortunately, too many sergeants want to be considered one-of-the-guys and therefore passively allow officers like Chauvin to dominate the conversation in the room, specifically the briefing room where the sergeant should be in control. Unfortunately, any sergeant bucking the one-of-the-guys trend is quickly ostracized among the officers due to the few sergeants that allow it to permeate, so it is imperative that every sergeant must be equally accountable for the officers’ actions. In law enforcement, negativity drowns out optimism in an instant, so it takes true and purposeful leadership to steer the talk back to productive topics.
Making a sergeant accountable for his subordinates’ actions would be a strong incentive to take on that challenging leadership role, which would have the sergeants and lieutenants reinforcing the policies and actions that support the manage mindset…to put out the fire in the room that the punish mindset ignites. As a result, officers like Chauvin would then stand out as being troubled rather propped-up amongst his peers as a “do it my way or your less of a cop” kind of cult figure. Play this change out and we likely would have had the other three officers on scene overruling Chauvin’s deadly directives and instead rolling Floyd over and properly securing him until medical arrived.
But what about the unions, guys like Chauvin are untouchable? No, they are not. The unions protect the agreed upon discipline and discharge processes, but lazy administrations try to skirt around the process all too often, making for a winnable case of wrongful termination. And administrations throwing an officer into an internal affairs investigation for every complaint, while necessary, if left alone as the only remedy to bad behavior, does nothing more than enable the punish mindset and is purely reactive in nature.
Proactive administrative leadership seeks to manage the officers’ behavior through both positive and negative reinforcement, and insists on adherence to proper documentation for things like coaching, verbal warnings, remedial training, and progressive disciplinary processes. Terminations following those efforts are justified (and quantified), and rarely get pushback from the unions. Legitimate unions don’t want bad cops in law enforcement any more than the public does.
This is an internal accountability solution and would certainly put a lot of leadership pressure on the sergeants and lieutenants, but without their active involvement in their officers’ attitudes and behavior, the punish mindset bias that plays out on the street in the form of police brutality is sure to rear its ugly head once again.
Other solutions may work better, who knows, but to dismantle an agency and then have the “good officers” re-apply is naïve thinking. With the current anti-police climate whipping into a whirlwind of hate and discontent for law enforcement, none of the people that we want to be cops will have the desire do so. And cut the budgets of existing departments so that pay and equipment decline, and now we’re attracting poor performers with inadequate means to do a lousy job. We can fix this with workable solutions.
3:02,3:04, 3:28–I believe you indulge too many suppositions and assume factual patterns we can't know anything about.
You assume that he sticks out in the department as a real hate monger and real peddler of pain, and that he is such an equal opportunity hater, and such an overall misanthrope, that he is not even particularly concerned about the race of the suspect, but that instead they will all receive the same abominable treatment.
You assume he is a dominant sadistic voice that controls the dialogue at all briefings and meetings and that his superiors give him such free reign as they want to be viewed as one of the guys. If he is such a loud, out-of-control presence, don't you feel, that in this day and age, rather than placating him that a large police department like that would instead consider him a powder keg–a huge P.R. black eye just waiting to erupt.
I'm not suggesting that his tendencies were some secret, or that he did not speak his ignorant mind, but you make him sound like an all engulfing presence at the station house that has everyone cowed and intimidated. You make it sound like he very publicly, and consistently,
and very loudly and aggressively touting an "Us Vs. Them" and "take no prisoners" philosophy.
He may say things like that around some of his colleagues of equal rank, but if he, at official briefings and meetings, was acting the way you suggest, I think they would have dumped him a long time ago, if they were not successful in re-directing him.
If you know any local METRO officers, just ask them what happens if at official briefings they speak over the Sgt. and start promoting grossly excessive violence against minorities, and suspects in general.
I think he was probably a jerk who shared his views with those of equal rank–in the locker room, patrol car, at their favorite cop hangout tavern–but not during official briefings. I do not believe that for moment.
Plus, you also act like this guy would have been so easy to profile and predict, and thus intervention could have prevented a lot of this. But it may well be that his behavior, as observed by his superiors, was not that dramatically different than his colleagues.
Now, with all that said, it does appear he attracted quite a few complaints, but as of yet we really don't know the nature of them.
I enjoyed the lengthy posts at 3:02, 3:04, and 3:28. They show a lot of thought and analysis.
But,as 5:58 points out, there are a lot of conclusions assumed which may not be the case.
I wish these guys really stuck out like such a sore thumb well in advance. It would then be much easier to take preventive measures and avoid these type of nightmares.
But human nature is very complex and often real life does not work that way.
But, really thoughtful discussion anyway.
Is anyone aware of an ethics opinion, case, or other Nevada (including federal) authority regarding contacting former management-level employees of an adverse party?
The employee in question is clearly a "management" level employee, but he left a few months before any of the incidents giving rise to the suit occurred and was not in any way involved. I'd expect his testimony to be along the lines of what the status quo / policies were during his tenure.
Or is it once management, always management (i.e., no ex parte contact allowed)?
Start with Palmer v. Pioneer Inn Assoc., 118 Nev. 943 (2002).
Follow up with Waid v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 121 Nev. 605, 119 P.3d 1219, 2005 Nev. LEXIS 76, 121 Nev. Adv. Rep. 59
There was a reported case years ago involving the Imperial Palace and the late Joe Cronin.
https://www.nvbar.org/wp-content/uploads/opinion_27.pdf
Yes so what do all these cases say in contacting former management employees.
I recall the presumption is that they are represented by the counsel of the organization and it is generally prohibited. Or is it easier to ask for forgiveness than it is to ask for permission.
The answer is: not all management is treated the same.
Thanks everyone. I don't think any of them clearly answer the issue regarding former management level employees who were not personally involved. They seem to indicate that if the former employee could make a binding admission on the party, it's a no-no.
I don't see how that would happen in this case, but I think I'm going to go the safe route and assume it is off limits. I'll ask opposing counsel's permission and when it is denied, I'll file my discovery dispute thing and make my case to the court.
What has peoples' experience been with new judge Trevor Atkin?
I have been in front of him twice,, both on minor case management issues. But for a new judge, I generally found his judicial temperament to be among the best of the Eighth JD (not a huge accomplishment right now) and he seemed prepared for his cases. I'm not setting the bar too high, but it was a pleasant surprise. He also was one of the first to pivot to effective remote appearances when CV-19 hit.
That being said, I admit to never having a highly complex issue in front of him.
Been in front of Atkins a handful of times on two cases, sat and observed a few others. Small sample, but I'd have him way up the list on the Eighth JD. His rulings, in favor and against my clients, were correct each time. Perhaps as important, he processes his docket quickly each morning so you're not waiting there until lunch for him to hear your small matter.
Atkins is good. It makes me laugh that judges who are criticized cannot take it. Grow up. You are an elected official. People are allowed to criticize judges. If you don't like it, then resign.
Atkin. It's Atkin. No, I am not him.
I had one "warm body" case management conference before him, and was very interested to observe him during the other matters. He seemed courteous, well prepared. I would guess intelligent, but I didn't really have much to judge that by. Based on very limited experience, I think he'll be good.
Genuinely a nice guy. Having observed him when he practiced, both in hearings and jury trials, he was always focused on his cases, interacted well with opposition, and was articulate and compassionate enough to get a verdict on a tough to win case. Not surprised to hear that these traits have translated well to his efforts on the bench.
Since he ruled against me, I must be consistent with the spirt of this blog and many of the posters, and observe that he is not a good judge.
Isn't that the drill? If a judge rules against us they are really bad?
Which plays up problems with rating judges. I personally believe someone should be before a judge half a dozen times or so, in order to effectively weigh and balance various factors of judicial performance. But if people rate a judge after just one appearance(which is often the case), the attorney's opinion of the judge is largely result oriented.
Sure, George.
I'm 11:14 but my name is not George.
No mention of Fiore's comments? Does anyone know what she allegedly said?
People on Twitter have been saying what it was but others are saying it was worse than is being quoted. I don't want to repeat it since it hasn't been verified.
https://twitter.com/TheNVIndy/status/1270465511755640832
Most politicians would not survive this. Fiore will survive. This is just another Tuesday for her. Plus she has Niger Innis saying it wasn't racist, and he is an African American. And… would Michele Fiore have a black engagement coordinator if she was racist? I mean really!
A non-attorney family member commented today how much she appreciated being able to google candidate names at home while she went through her ballot. IF her experience is typical, and that's a BIG IF, that does not bode well for certain candidates.
ODD COMMENTS BY THE BENCH WARMERS:Page 27 of the May NEVADA LAWYER has "do's and don'ts" before federal magistrates. IMPORTANT………don't refer to them as MAGISTRATE………THEY ARE JUDGES ! WOW That is sad.
No idea if it's true, but I read once that what were then called magistrate were given a choice between a raise or getting the title "magistrate judge." They chose the latter.
In any case, they have earned the title magistrate judge and should be referred to accordingly, just like a Supreme Court justice should not be called a judge.
We're lawyers, we're supposed to get these details right.
Excited to vote for Esther Rodriguez today for Nevada Supreme Court.
@7:19,
Hope you've already dropped off your ballot. It needed to be postmarked by today, and the last pickup is what, 6?
Is it a sign you are living in an authoritarian regime when you are forced to kneel, and accept what everyone knows to be a falsehood?
When a mob can cancel you for wrong think?