I'm not quite tracking here. What does this MPD have to be accountable for with respect to this incident?

Disposing of PII and sensitive information is pretty standard procedure if you're losing control of a controlled area. When I was in the military we had similar procedures for cryptography, which are in the same realm of PII and sensitive information such as informants or case details.

Edit:

This link speaks to the federal standard pretty well: https://www.marines.mil/News/Messages/Messages-Display/Artic...

I don't know how or if this pertains to city police, but I imagine there's similar standards.

Edit again:

I'm getting two vibes from this:

- some amount of people want zero accountability for the police

- some amount of people want to provide the police with zero room for understanding

Both of these groups need to introspect as to what exactly you're trying to accomplish and how you're going about it affects the outcome.

Police departments do not have "the enemy" and should not have a contingency for evidence destruction. Ever. There is no circumstance where it is reasonable to assume that frantically shredding documents serves the public interest. They certainly shouldn't be destroying evidence in a building that isn't the target of protests.

> IN LIGHT OF RECENTLY ESTABLISHED CROSS-AGENCY REPORTING REQUIREMENTS PERTAINING TO ISSUES SURROUNDING THE LOSS OR BREACH OF PERSONAL INFORMATION BY FEDERAL AGENCIES, THE OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET HAS ESTABLISHED ONE STANDARD TO DESCRIBE PERSONAL DATA.

I don't think I'd want to be tried on evidence that fell into the hands of protestors or rioters. Provenance is a pretty important part of the evidence of any court case.

It's probably safe to assume that they have confidential informants at play that could be involved in serious crimes like human trafficking or drug trafficking. The consequences for this data getting in the wrong hands would be life and death.

Whether you want to call the people who would do bad things with that information an "enemy" or not I think is entirely up to you, but at the very least you could think of it as risk-mitigation.

It also seems the government has some amount of intent to try to contain the leakage of PII, however ineffective they may be at it aside, given this statement

> IN LIGHT OF RECENTLY ESTABLISHED CROSS-AGENCY REPORTING REQUIREMENTS PERTAINING TO ISSUES SURROUNDING THE LOSS OR BREACH OF PERSONAL INFORMATION BY FEDERAL AGENCIES

The issue is that a lot of us don’t think that that precinct was in any actual danger of falling.

Maybe. If there is no reasonable way to safely move the sensitive material to someplace safe. Of course, the set of situations ever where that would be the case and it would be even practical to destroy the material rather than abandoning it to effect a safe retreat is really stunningly narrow. You can construct highly-contrived scenarios, but...

So, we actually do know that the 2nd precinct never came anywhere close to falling. The question now is whether they’re lying about destroying evidence maliciously, or lying about having panicked.

The police are fundamentally different from the US Marines in almost all ways, in practice and in reality.

My position is that there is NEVER a situation where it makes more sense for the police to devote manpower to destroying evidence over restoring order. Police agencies shredding files on the way out the door are, historically, not doing it to protect anyone but themselves.

Either way, it’s pretty clear that Precinct 2 never got anywhere close to such a convoluted hypothetical. That leaves the question why they did it, to which I believe the Roman jurors said it best: cui bono?

If rioters had been advancing on the building, then surely their actions would be justified. But there was never any danger to property or persons at the second precinct.

I can also see how this could be an opportunistic tactic to coverup wrong-doing. The two can also be simultaneously true.

If you don't trust my word - you can go look up a map of damage from the riots yourself.

There is a lot that MPD could’ve done, and instead they decided to destroy evidence at a precinct uninvolved in the disturbances. Given how bad of an excuse that is and their history of misbehavior, it is perfectly reasonable to not give them the benefit of the doubt here.

To me, I can see it being a reasonable response given the nature of the situation. That said, I can also see it being a coverup. There's no details that are very illuminating here, but hopefully an investigation filters out the mud for those interested.

> but you sound like you fall within one of the groups mentioned in my original comment.

I’d prefer if you spared the patronizing attitude, thanks.

Sure, spare your attitude in the future as well.

That leaves the question about why they’re lying, which is where losing the benefit of the doubt matters.

- there's no direct evidence that says the precinct was in danger, but it's also reasonable to assume a group of rioters would attack other precincts in the area and that they acted based on proximity.

- there's no evidence to suggest they're covering up for something, but it's reasonable to assume that this would be a good opportunity for someone looking to do that.

In Afghanistan I was part of three base attacks. All three were a surprise and two quickly overwhelmed our defense forces on the perimeter and they breached the base. One was in Musa Qalah, the other is one that made headlines in Camp Leatherneck. The chance to act is a very slim window and that's something you're reminded of continually. So yeah, I don't see it as totally unreasonable but I can see the other side of this argument as well.

Its reasonable assumption to assume that they might attack another precinct, not a reason to assume that a precinct will fall. If they say, barricaded the bridge between the two precincts or setup a cordon, that would seem like a prudent response. If the rioters were at the gates and they initiated this policy, that also would be reasonable.

Jumping straight to destroying evidence in the precinct is not a reasonable response. They need to provide evidence that the situation was so dire that they had to resort to their last ditch policies, and they have not done that. Pointing towards riots miles away is an insufficient excuse; they need to provide evidence of an immediate threat of the precinct falling.

> there's no evidence to suggest they're covering up for something, but it's reasonable to assume that this would be a good opportunity for someone looking to do that.

You’re sidestepping the issue. I think they’re lying about why the destroyed the evidence. Once I believe that they’ve lied once, why should I continue to give the benefit of the doubt to them?

More investigation is obviously needed, but I personally smell a rat.

We're also dealing in hindsight. I still think given the climate back then and that a group of people stormed a police station is a pretty incredible circumstance to be dealing with. Now, whether their bias to action was innocent or correct is up to investigation to determine.

It's perfectly okay to speculate and ask for investigations. It's less okay to speak in very definitive terms about something that is quite in flux. That's why I'm a bit wishy-washy on what I believe happened, because any number of variables can produce each outcome -- or both.

I am not "side-stepping" the issue. You think they lied and now you're into searching for an MO to match that. To me, that's pretty improper and it's not how I come to conclusions.

I don't give them the benefit of the doubt, that would imply a conclusion. This, to me, has not concluded. Both theories are still plausible based on the information we have today.

The entire purpose of the justice system, including the police, is to judge people in hindsight. Why can’t we judge them in hindsight?

> Buildings along a 5-mile stretch of Lake Street in Minneapolis and a 3.5-mile stretch of University Avenue in St. Paul's Midway area experienced some of the heaviest damage.

You might be able to say that various people did all the damage, but to my knowledge a smaller group of folks were responsible for the larger damage done.

Not exactly the map of a station in dire straits worried about getting overrun.

Plenty of Americans can walk a few miles. Besides, it’s not like rioting is something that doesn’t take significant cardio vascular fortitude in its own right. Something tells me that individually lots of those rioters were more than capable of walking five miles over level, paved terrain.

The real question is not whether or not a rioter could walk from there to here, but whether the riot will come here without being stopped or dissipating into smaller and easier to stop groups. If the riot disperses and 5% shows up at the other precinct, that’s a pretty easy thing for the cops to deal with; and if it isn’t I have questions about what all the public safety money is being spent for.

And that's of course before we look at the terrain. The 2nd and 3rd precinct are on opposite sides of the river. That means that even if you were certain that the riot was coming for the 2nd precinct next, you have a very small number of bridges that you could defend to stop the riot. In fact, cops regularly prefer bridges to kettle and mass arrest both riots and protests, and that would have been the perfect opportunity had it happened.

But you obviously did not read the article you posted or might have sympathy to the folks lives that could be in danger if such documents were released to the public. But ACAB, FTP right?

The department has for decades shown aggressive conduct and forced Minneapolis to pay out $71M in settlements in recent years. If anyone is doing the defunding, it's the MPD defunding Minneapolis.

There is more nuance than can fit in a Hacker News comment, but I do see the need for public safety while at the same time demanding accountability from our police department. I will be voting yes to change the charter.

https://m.startribune.com/minneapolis-third-precinct-served-...

https://yes4minneapolis.org/

edit: I recognize that this comment/thread may steer discussion from the original intent of the article here. Mods, please let me know if I can remove if needed.

Are you honestly making that statement with a straight face? If it takes a full summer of protests to get justice for 1 man then that is not justice and anyone pretending it is is either not paying attention or is complicit. What about Breonna Taylor or the other people (black AND white) killed or harmed at the hands of the police? Where is their justice?

The police get off /all the time/ using qualified immunity and aren't held to anywhere near the same standard as the general public. To pretend that police are regularly prosecuted for their crimes is disingenuous at best.

This has nothing to do with police so I'll assume your emotions or politics are getting the best of you.

Are you blind to a building being set on fire because some people feel some way?

Side note, yes, the IT department failed them 100%.

Its completely insane that everybody is just okay with millions of tax payer dollars being destroyed. Its insane that folks are okay with completely shutting down probably one of the best invention of man kind and reverting back to pure mob rules barbarism.