Denver police union calls for chief to resign

KUSA -The head of Denver's police union wants Chief Robert White gone.

He says officers were told not to take immediate action when protesters defaced a memorial for fallen officers.

"We will no longer follow him as we move forward," said Nick Rogers, president of the Denver Police Protective Association. "He is not our chief."

Saturday, demonstrators aiming to protest what they perceive as police brutality threw red paint on the memorial, which sits outside of Denver Police headquarters. Rogers says DPD brass told officers not to take immediate action.

Sunday, Rogers called for Chief Robert White's resignation.

- www.9news.com/story/news/local/2015/02/1...bert-white/23480973/

Which side do you agree with?

I agree with Chief White, I think it helps to keep the situation from turning more violent than it needs to be, and results in arresting the appropriate instigators.

It would be easier to agree that the right call was made if the News was about the arresting of the appropriate instigators. Has anyone been arrested? If not, why not?

Yes, arrests were made:

When arrests are made — as was the case Saturday when two men were charged for vandalizing a police memorial — they are done afterward and away from the crowd.

- www.denverpost.com/news/ci_27538484/denv...-into-confrontations

I have seen more information about the arrests somewhere, but did not find it in a quick search this morning.

I know a couple Denver police officers and they don't have much respect for Chief White.

Protesters went too far. I can see the "no confrontation" policy as long as the protesters are marching, having their say, not actively (or passively) blocking the general flow of traffic, and not destroying property. Everyone says we have a right to protest. They are correct. We have the right to peaceable assembly.

Pouring paint over a memorial to officers that have lost their lives in the line of duty is not peaceable.

I'm not sure if the memorial was public property or personal property, or if it matters.

But wouldn't it of been fitting if someone poured red ink over the cars of those who defaced the memorial?

Nobody that matters wrote: Protesters went too far. I can see the "no confrontation" policy as long as the protesters are marching, having their say, not actively (or passively) blocking the general flow of traffic, and not destroying property. Everyone says we have a right to protest. They are correct. We have the right to peaceable assembly.

Pouring paint over a memorial to officers that have lost their lives in the line of duty is not peaceable.

It is no less peaceable than marching down the middle of the street and creating traffic problems like the kids from East High were doing the day 4 officers were hit by a car, nearly killing one of them. It is no less peaceable than taking over Civic Center Park and filling the air with marijuana smoke on April 20th every year.

I know the DPD rank and file were rankled that the memorial to their fallen comrades was defaced, and FWIW I disagree with the decision to allow it to happen, but there are times when allowing misdemeanor violations of the law are the lesser of two ills. Had they not arrested the criminals at a later time so that they can be charged and made to pay for the cost of removing the paint, along with being made to serve the community by removing the paint (graffiti) that others have used to deface other property for say 40 hours since they seem to have time on their hands that they don't know what to do with, I might agree with the boys in blue, but I'm not convinced the chief didn't make the right call here.

The phrase that keeps running through my head is "give them an inch, and they'll take a mile". The Chief let the protesters vandalize property. Yeah, they arrested those responsible, but it still happened. If the Chief would have said "No confrontation, unless they go past protesting and start destroying" he would have had a good platform to stand on and say "We stayed out of the way, let the protesters have their say until they started vandalizing."

Now the next group can think "Well, they got away with pouring paint, maybe we can knock it over. Maybe we can go farther, maybe we can do even more. Let's find the Chief's breaking point."

He gave them an inch, they took a mile.

Printsmith,
What is the other "ill" that this is the lessor of?
I know the DPD rank and file were rankled that the memorial to their fallen comrades was defaced, and FWIW I disagree with the decision to allow it to happen, but there are times when allowing misdemeanor violations of the law are the lesser of two ills.

I see it as a matter of risk vs. reward.

I don't believe they could be arrested until they actually started pouring the paint. Until then they had not committed an offense.

At that point, what is the risk of immediate arrest action? What are the odds that they will peacefully accept arrest, the crowd will calmly accept it, and disperse peacefully? On the other hand, what are the odds that they will resist arrest, pour paint on the officers, and/or otherwise incite the crowd, and officers, to further violence, resulting in injuries or maybe even death?

The delayed action resulted in no permanent damage, no injuries, and no further violence.

The reward in both cases, assuming the instigators are not killed - the instigators are arrested.

Delayed action makes more sense to me.