Yahoo: Big Ten and commissioner Kevin Warren to form anti-racism and anti-hate task force

I just want to understand here. Do you have a rule that says that a person who points out the specifics of a problem (in this case the way racism manifests itself today) also has to present a solution? Is it not okay to simply acknowledge a problem? (which, sadly, is more than too many white people are willing to do)

Yes, I think the audience is owed a proposed solution. That is the basis of a dialogue.

I don’t think anyone here supports racism or overly aggressive policing, harassment, profiling. Certainly not the horrific murder we witnessed last Monday. So, what’s the solution? What do both parties need to do to build bridges and understanding?
 

Heard the new commissioner on big ten channel this morning saying how worried he is about his son being pulled over and shot by a police officer. In this time of chaos someone in his his position should have a more thoughtful response. I wonder if he was still worried when "those" police officers rushed to the aid of the trapped 911 victims in NYC without regard for their own life. Is a statement like his going to start a meaningful dialog or alienate even more?
 

Yes, I think the audience is owed a proposed solution. That is the basis of a dialogue.

I don’t think anyone here supports racism or overly aggressive policing, harassment, profiling. Certainly not the horrific murder we witnessed last Monday. So, what’s the solution? What do both parties need to do to build bridges and understanding?
There have been all sorts of things proposed; which, none by themselves will solve a problem this complex, but are steps in the right direction.

--I never thought I would agree with Pat Garafalo on anything, but I do like his idea of eliminating the arbitrator as the final say on firing of policeman. Several cases have been given where the cop was fired or severely disciplined for documented severe violations by the Minneapolis chief, only to have an arbitrator reinstate the cop.
--Obviously, ban chokeholds in no uncertain terms.
--Open up, instead of sealing disciplinary records.
--I know it's one talked about all of the time and they try to do it for a while, but get more cops out of their cars and on foot where they engage people simply by talking. But really commit to it.
--De-escalation training. It's a long, slow process, but there are places where it has been shown if they commit to it, it makes a huge difference. I've seen stories on it being used in Flint, Mich. and Gary, Ind.
--Obviously, more minority cops but with better screening and training (for all cops.) Going to be that much tougher now to recruit good candidates. There were enough red flags on Chauvin that he should have been long gone. Have no idea what the other 3 are like but this looks like a classic case of guys with less stature defering to the toughest S.O.B. much to their ever-lasting regret.
--It'll take chipping away because it's not going to happen overnight, but once they see it's headed in the right direction, minority leaders have to get people to cooperate with the police to get the genuinely bad guys off the streets.
--Another thing that needs to be addressed is single parent families. This was a thing Robert Smith, the Viking RB, would always stress: how too many men would father children and then move on. Obviously, this is solved in connection with all the other issues and will take time but Smith was adamant that this responsibility fell mainly on the black community.

That's just off the top of my head mainly on policing and then you have schools, housing, justice system, jobs, etc. There have been many concrete things proposed, but you need the will to totally commit to them. There's going to be pushback, and it might totally go down the drain again because the senseless rioting and looting make it easy for people to use that as a reason to take the focus off the fact a police officer murdered a black man over a period of time while on camera and with three other officers not stopping it.

Lost in all this was the story of a policeman killed in Grand Forks while on a domestic call. So most people recognize it's a tough job. It's got to be stressful going to work knowing how many guns are out there. But there are things that have been proposed so cops aren't seen as the adversary.
 

Heard the new commissioner on big ten channel this morning saying how worried he is about his son being pulled over and shot by a police officer. In this time of chaos someone in his his position should have a more thoughtful response. I wonder if he was still worried when "those" police officers rushed to the aid of the trapped 911 victims in NYC without regard for their own life. Is a statement like his going to start a meaningful dialog or alienate even more?
I didn't hear or see this interview, but I have heard Warren speak on multiple occasions. I would describe him in a number of ways, but I have never once come away thinking he wasn't a compassionate, serious and thoughtful individual. I trust that you believe him when he says he's concerned about the safety of his son, even if you think his concern is misplaced. Based on that assumption, I presume that your real objection is that he voiced that concern and/or that he didn't offer a suitable disclaimer that it's only "a few bad apples" that are causing the trouble.

Your 911 comment misses the mark so spectacularly that I suspect you made it in jest, but just in case you were serious, let me inform you that, for me and the vast majority of people I know, the fact that there are good cops and cops who do good and heroic things doesn't make us want to look the other way when somebody gets murdered by a police officer. To paraphrase Chris Rock, being a police officer is like being an airline pilot, we can't afford any bad apples.
 

I realize emotions are running really high but a lot of the rhetoric is not constructive and some it it is exaggerated or false. The vast majority of videotaped incidents I’ve seen of motorists being shot by police involved altercations, drive aways/collisions/rammings, or lack of cooperation eg putting hands out of sight despite instruction to keep them visible. A gun can be produced and fired so rapidly there is no time to react so officers are naturally on edge. There have also been tragic episodes where people in medical distress or with hearing loss were injured or killed mistakenly after failing to cooperate. Fair to argue whether non-lethal force could have been attempted or whether deadly force is justified in some of the incidents. There is however a common theme of belligerence and lack of cooperation in most of the encounters that end badly.

Nome of that explains some of the high profile killings and use of force we’ve seen and those officers should be in prison. Harassment, stalking, profiling are not ok. I think everyone is in agreement.

Comments like those from the commissioner of the Big Ten conference are needlessly inflammatory IMO. The chances of his son being killed by police solely for being black are vanishingly low. A member of the general public probably has a much greater chance of dying at the hands of a criminal than the police.
 


There have been all sorts of things proposed; which, none by themselves will solve a problem this complex, but are steps in the right direction.

--I never thought I would agree with Pat Garafalo on anything, but I do like his idea of eliminating the arbitrator as the final say on firing of policeman. Several cases have been given where the cop was fired or severely disciplined for documented severe violations by the Minneapolis chief, only to have an arbitrator reinstate the cop.
--Obviously, ban chokeholds in no uncertain terms.
--Open up, instead of sealing disciplinary records.
--I know it's one talked about all of the time and they try to do it for a while, but get more cops out of their cars and on foot where they engage people simply by talking. But really commit to it.
--De-escalation training. It's a long, slow process, but there are places where it has been shown if they commit to it, it makes a huge difference. I've seen stories on it being used in Flint, Mich. and Gary, Ind.
--Obviously, more minority cops but with better screening and training (for all cops.) Going to be that much tougher now to recruit good candidates. There were enough red flags on Chauvin that he should have been long gone. Have no idea what the other 3 are like but this looks like a classic case of guys with less stature defering to the toughest S.O.B. much to their ever-lasting regret.
--It'll take chipping away because it's not going to happen overnight, but once they see it's headed in the right direction, minority leaders have to get people to cooperate with the police to get the genuinely bad guys off the streets.
--Another thing that needs to be addressed is single parent families. This was a thing Robert Smith, the Viking RB, would always stress: how too many men would father children and then move on. Obviously, this is solved in connection with all the other issues and will take time but Smith was adamant that this responsibility fell mainly on the black community.

That's just off the top of my head mainly on policing and then you have schools, housing, justice system, jobs, etc. There have been many concrete things proposed, but you need the will to totally commit to them. There's going to be pushback, and it might totally go down the drain again because the senseless rioting and looting make it easy for people to use that as a reason to take the focus off the fact a police officer murdered a black man over a period of time while on camera and with three other officers not stopping it.

Lost in all this was the story of a policeman killed in Grand Forks while on a domestic call. So most people recognize it's a tough job. It's got to be stressful going to work knowing how many guns are out there. But there are things that have been proposed so cops aren't seen as the adversary.

I think some of these have real merit.
 

Heard the new commissioner on big ten channel this morning saying how worried he is about his son being pulled over and shot by a police officer. In this time of chaos someone in his his position should have a more thoughtful response. I wonder if he was still worried when "those" police officers rushed to the aid of the trapped 911 victims in NYC without regard for their own life. Is a statement like his going to start a meaningful dialog or alienate even more?

I guess unless you are black and have black children, you can't really speak to his perspective, right? That's kind of the whole point here. It's time to start listening to these stories and the perspective of those who have a VASTLY different American experience than us.

Also, someone can appreciate the efforts and job that most police do while STILL worrying about their minority child crossing paths with a cop who is not patient, steady and fair and it ending in the worst way. This is not an either/or. That's why police chiefs all over the country are calling for reform and chastising this Floyd situation.
 

A member of the general public probably has a much greater chance of dying at the hands of a criminal than the police.
For the love of God, I would hope so. Police officers are supposed to protect and serve their communities while criminals are, well, criminals. The point is that too many people lose their lives at the hands of police officers. Some of those are the result of naked abuse of power as seems to be the case with Mr. Floyd. Others are the result of charged circumstances and mistakes made under duress. The goal should be to eliminate all of the former and as many of the later as possible.
 

For the love of God, I would hope so. Police officers are supposed to protect and serve their communities while criminals are, well, criminals. The point is that too many people lose their lives at the hands of police officers. Some of those are the result of naked abuse of power as seems to be the case with Mr. Floyd. Others are the result of charged circumstances and mistakes made under duress. The goal should be to eliminate all of the former and as many of the later as possible.

I agree with all of that but it is easier said than done and the emotional rhetoric is unhelpful. “We should eliminate crime and behavioral and psychological problems” is probably something everyone supports outside of the 16% that support violent protests. The devil is in the details on minimizing problems because they cannot be eliminated. Proposals to to eliminate police departments would lead to more issues than they solve IMO. Rooting out every instance of abuse and prejudice is not realistic although that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try. Do no harm applies here, to everyone.
 



This might sound naive, but I think one way to re-establish trust between the police and city residents would be for the Legislature to once again allow Minneapolis (and St. Paul, and other large, diverse cities in Minnesota) to require that police officers live in the city they police. There are real community building benefits that result from requiring that a city's police officers be part of the city's full-time resident population. The police force no longer is perceived (by some) as an occupying army, and I believe it would, over time, positively change the outlook of many officers toward the folks they "police." Currently, thanks to something called the Stanek Amendment, about 90% of Minneapolis's police officers live outside the city and are not integrated into the community in the way permanent residents are. Could the Big Ten Committee make a recommendation such as this? Personally, I favor an amendment to the Minnesota Constitution authorizing major cities to require that their police officers live within the city limits, shoulder-to-shoulder with the folks they police, so the Legislature couldn't go back and forth on the issue. Then you might see more brotherhood between the police and the city's diverse communities--like what you see on a thoughtfully-coached, diverse football team.
 




Top Bottom