1952

Sure, but the other articles say there is no chapter for that area, so it’s not a local group.

I mean putting on a shirt that says Black Lives Matter doesn’t actually mean someone is part of a movement because anyone can do that. I mean putting on a pink hat didn’t mean you represented a woman’s movement either, unless you know you went to one of the events they organized. It’s hard with these loosely organize but hell they can sometimes get people going groups.

1953

Sure, but this isn’t the first time something stupid like this has happened. Also this:

Giger and Melina Abdullah, a founder of the nation’s first BLM chapter in Los Angeles, said the group invited the South Bend members to the Watts protest, paying their hotel costs and driving them around while the members raised donations to pay for the airfare.

1954

Pete seems like a misplaced target for this group.

1955

That’s the local chapter for BLM, according to that article, his local are. They’re following him around due to specific incident, kind of like i said, a case where they believe justice was not served, and Pete was part of that injustice.

I see Pete has tried to address the groups at these debates, not sure if he’s tried outside of that. They are following him around due to the death of Logan.

1956

Pete isn’t really the main obstacle in the way of these guys getting what they want.

1957

Which brings us back to what I asked earlier, what do they want. If they just want Pete not to win, that’s misguided, but their current approach is not working against that. I think that’s the wrong approach myself, but it’s not my want they’re pushing here.

I think what happened under Pete’s watch is tragic and unexcusable, but I also don’t know that anyone else in the scenario we have today, would’ve done a lot better. To address the police, and the unequal lethal approach that some groups experience automatically, it has to be a holistic approach by someone who understands what is needed and can voice that. I think Pete has a chance to absorb and listen to the problem and probably voice it pretty well if he does, but if this local group doesn’t want that, there isn’t much he can do. The other BLM groups are put in a hard position by not supporting a local chapter, so ideally they should meet outside these debates, 3 groups, South Bend, Pete and other BLM chapters to get everything on the table and present an actual ask.

1958

Indeed, they probably want to take this sort of thing up with the mayor of their city.

1959

Last I check, Mayors weren’t dictators and we still have to contend with the rule of law.

Anyway, here was an interesting piece I found when I went looking for information.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/elections-2020/inside-pete-buttigiegs-years-long-and-often-clumsy-quest-to-understand-the-black-experience/ar-AAK8FYB

1960

Last I heard, the elected official with the most direct control over local police departments was the mayor.

1961

Yeah, well Pete has some serious baggage with his short run, and he is not addressing it right.

1962

That would depend on the make up of the local government, such as strong mayor versus weak mayor. In some cities the Mayor is more figurehead than boss, with a city council or city manager running nost things, while in others the Mayor does have power.

1963

Sure, but Buttigieg is the mayor who fired the chief of police. I’d say that means he has some power over the PD. And it isn’t unreasonable for people to want to hold him accountable for his tenure.

1964

If he fired the Chief then he was in a strong mayor system and yea, he is then more likely to be responsible for those who hold positions in that goernment.

1965

There’s no if. He fired South Bend’s first black police chief, and the whole thing was painted as the new white mayor sides with the racist white police officers who may have been using racist language which was taped and that improperly taping that racism was more important to the mayor than actually addressing racism… the tapes were never released because the mayor, that’s Pete, refused to release them. Everyone sued, the chief, the white officers, and got money.

This is going to keep haunting him until he addresses it differently.

1966

My understanding is that the police chief was under investigation by the FBI for wire tapping before he was fired.

I am not sure about you all, but I don’t really enjoy the idea of police setting up wire taps whenever they feel like it. That feels a bit too much like the Stasi to me.

Anyway, the police officers sued, the chief sued and everyone got some money. And now the tapes can’t be released because of the lawsuits going on. I guess.

Anyway, here is a more recent take on Mayor Pete.

1967

As for the tapes themselves, they are under court order not to be released.

To support the redactions of the DePaepe documents, Assistant City Attorney Danielle Campbell Weiss cited to The Tribune a 2017 order from St. Joseph Superior Court Judge Steven Hostetler in the tapes case. The judge wrote that any recordings or descriptions of them “shall not be used, disclosed, or communicated to any person or entity in any fashion or for any purpose whatsoever until such time as a court of competent jurisdiction has entered a final, non-appealable ruling regarding the legal status of the confidential information.”

1968

I think that understanding is probably wrong. There existed as a matter of department policy, for 10 years — so prior to the chief’s appointment as Chief — a system that recorded the internal calls within the police department’s phone system. The chief did not wiretap anyone, and wasn’t the one who created the policy or the system that recorded calls. He seems to have inherited it. And the focus of the federal investigation seems to have been whether a recording system like the one in place was in compliance with the law. No criminal charges were ever filed, and none were contemplated at the time Pete fired, then demoted the chief.

1969

It’s not. Read the articles. He was asked to remove the Tape and he did not. He broke the law purposively after being told there were issues.

Years-old controversy surrounding secret police tapes is newly relevant amid Buttigieg’s rise

DePaepe, while listening to some of the calls, heard comments from Captain of the Investigative Division Brian Young that “she found to be inappropriate,” according to a 2015 federal court decision that laid out the facts in the case. The court document also indicates that Young’s line was recorded without his knowledge because the officer who previously had his phone number had asked for the line to be logged.

" At that time, no one intended to record Young’s line," the document reads.

DePaepe then told Boykins about the recordings and, according to the court, the police chief “decided to continue the recording practice to gather more information before making a decision on what to do.”

Seven months later, according to the court document, Young found out his line was being recorded and asked for the recording to stop; nothing was done at that time. Two months later, Boykins asked DePaepe to “give him relevant recordings of Young’s line to keep them as evidence,” according to the court; the communications official “made five audio cassette tapes for eight recordings that occurred between February 4, 2011, and July 15, 2011.”

So, the Chief was much more proactive in this whole ordeal then you claim.

1970

I don’t know what read the articles means. I think it is a fact that the recording system was not a wiretap ordered by Boykins, but a feature of the system that predated his tenure as chief. The recordings in question were not ordered by Boykins, but discovered by DePaepe and given to Boykins. Whatever he did after that is certainly open to criticism, but he did not order wiretaps on anyone.

1971

I just updated my response. Please take another look.

He actively continued to listen, despite being told it was out in by accident, and asked to remove it.