> The lack of accountability at the MPD is astonishing
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.
The military has a defendable reason and history behind destroying documents on the way out in an emergency or as a policy. Gaining and losing territory is part of the business, and the new people coming in are presumably "the enemy". Information being destroyed after it has ceased to be useful is also in the military interest, that is not true of the legal system. The military is also in the explicit business of intentional killings and disrupting existing governance systems, both of which are NOT policing goals.
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.
The military didn't originate this policy, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) did.
> 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
> if a precinct is in reasonable danger of falling into someone else’s hands then it makes sense to destroy sensitive data.
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...
I mean, we have actual maps of where damage was done, you posted one, and it shows no riot damage reported close to the precinct. The closest damage was relatively minor both in type and amount.
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.
I’m inclined to agree. I think by the time destroying evidence makes sense we’re already talking about a precinct burning (in which case the fire will do it anyways), or a revolution (in which case it doesn’t matter). Maybe there are some other cases out there, but it seems a bit silly imho.
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?
The second precinct was not burning, and was never in any danger of burning. It is located on the opposite side of the city from where protests were occurring, in neighborhoods that had seen minimal effects from demonstrations.
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.
The article GP posted said there was five miles of distance between the two precincts. Five miles really isn't very far, so I can see why that would be concerning. Destroying stuff that has to be disposed of properly takes time (the link I provided above mandates how certain PII is destroyed - generally it's a specific type of shredder) while also allowing time for the people doing the disposal to retreat.
I can also see how this could be an opportunistic tactic to coverup wrong-doing. The two can also be simultaneously true.
I am speaking as someone who lives in Minneapolis, near the second precinct. I assure you nothing dangerous was happening anywhere near the second precinct building (which they had fortified heavily with multiple concrete walls, barbed wire, etc).
If you don't trust my word - you can go look up a map of damage from the riots yourself.
Let’s be honest, “we had to destroy evidence because a riot was happening an hours walk away” is obvious nonsense. There’s genuinely no reason to treat that as anything other than undiluted bullshit.
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.
I don't think that's a "transparent lie", but you sound like you fall within one of the groups mentioned in my original comment.
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.
No evidence of danger backs my assertion, that they’re lying about why they destroyed the data. They’re claiming they destroyed it due to fears of the precinct falling; if they can’t back that assertion, then we know they’re lying.
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.
> it's also reasonable to assume a group of rioters would attack other precincts in the area and that they acted based on proximity
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.
> 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.
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.
This is America, whilst technically possible, the average american adult has unlikely walked or even considered walking this distance in their adult life to date. On PBS food desert (comical from outside perspective) documentary the average interviewed person considered five miles / twenty minutes on a bus too far.
> 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.
I'd highly recommend you double check the position of the 2nd precinct station on that map, it's in an area that's very lightly damaged. By my count there are only five instances of property damage closer than one mile to the station, and the nearest is 0.4 miles away. The closest serious damage, a destroyed building, is 2.7 miles away and on the other side of the river.
Not exactly the map of a station in dire straits worried about getting overrun.
I’m not sure if it’s satirical or not either, to be honest.
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.
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.