Salt Lake City mayor announces her pick for police chief
About a week after firing long-time Salt Lake City police chief Mike Brown, Mayor Erin Mendenhall on Thursday announced Brian Redd, the executive director of the Utah Department of Corrections, as her pick to replace him.
Why it matters: Redd's hiring, pending city council approval, would mark a new chapter for the Salt Lake City Police Department, which has come under pressure from GOP state leaders for its "ineffectiveness" in handling the homelessness crisis in Utah's capital city.
Catch up quick: A Republican lawmaker last week introduced a bill that would force the city to enter into an agreement with the state to curb homelessness and drug crimes. If the agreement isn't reached, the state could withhold funding from the city, under the bill.
Yes, but: Mendenhall told reporters the change of the guard was not related to the state lawmakers' pursuit of the legislation.
"They're going to do whatever they want to do, and it has nothing to do with my decision here," she said
Flashback: Brown, who joined the police force in 1991, has led the department for the better part of a decade. His last day is Feb. 28.
What they're saying:"Salt Lake City's police department today is strong in both our staffing and our public safety statistics, but we are also at an inflection point," Mendenhall told reporters Thursday at the Salt Lake City and County Building, adding that the city is facing criminal activities by drug cartels and "complex challenges" around homelessness.
Zoom in: Redd, in 2023, was appointed by Gov. Spencer Cox to oversee two prisons, six community correctional centers and five adult probation and patrol districts.
What's next: The council is set to consider Mendenhall's recommendation on March 4.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
21 minutes ago
- Yahoo
After vowing ‘90 deals in 90 days,' the White House's rhetoric runs into reality
Donald Trump clearly wants the public to believe he recently struck a trade deal with China. The president did not actually reach such an agreement, but he's leaned into his fictional narrative with great enthusiasm lately. Last Thursday, for example, the Republican published an item to his social media platform, noting that he'd spoken to Chinese President Xi Jinping about 'the intricacies of our recently made, and agreed to, Trade Deal.' Soon after, during an Oval Office event, he again touted the same 'trade deal.' A day later, Trump posted a follow-up item, announcing the members of a delegation who would travel to London to meet with Chinese officials about 'the Trade Deal.' The bad news is that the 'trade deal' in question does not exist, no matter how many times the American president pretends otherwise. The good news is that administration officials will actually have some discussions with their Chinese counterparts. NBC News reported: Senior U.S. and Chinese officials will meet in London on Monday in an effort to de-escalate the bitter trade dispute between the world's two biggest economies that has roiled the global economy, with China's restrictions on critical minerals high on the agenda. About a month ago, Trump announced what he characterized as a 'deal' with China, but the closer one looked at the details, the more the truth came into focus. Georgetown University professor Abraham Newman wrote a great piece for MSNBC that explained, "While the U.S. did avoid a major economic calamity, this is not a deal. The U.S. blinked. ... Far from some diplomatic coup, the U.S. climb down reflects the economic risks of maintaining such high tariffs.' The editorial board of The Wall Street Journal came to the same conclusion, noting, '[T]he China deal is more surrender than Trump victory.' Complicating matters, while the White House and Beijing reached a tentative agreement that paused the two countries' tit-for-tat tariffs, both countries have since accused each other of violating the agreement. All of which brings to mind Peter Navarro, the White House's top trade adviser, who boasted in April, 'We're going to run 90 deals in 90 days.' Navarro added that such a plan 'is possible' in part because 'the boss is going to be the chief negotiator.' Roughly two months later, the grand total currently stands at zero. Generous observers might be inclined to give Trump credit for striking a deal with the U.K., but as The Washington Post's Dana Milbank summarized in his latest column, that deal is really more of a 'vaguely phrased framework with Britain that still hasn't been made public.' What's more, a new Politico report added that a month after the agreement was announced, the U.S.-U.K. duties 'remain in place' and 'there is still no clear timeline for when they'll lift.' Or to put it another way, two-thirds of the way into the '90 deals in 90 days' vow, the White House appears to be 90 deals short. Undeterred, Navarro returned to Fox Business late last week, where he was asked when the public should expect to see some breakthroughs. 'We will have deals,' Navarro said. 'It takes time. Usually, it takes months and years. In this administration, it's gonna take more like days.' On average, the typical timeframe for a U.S. trade deal is roughly 30 months. That didn't deter Navarro from pushing the '90 deals in 90 days' talking point in April, and it apparently didn't stop him from claiming again last week that Team Trump will produce amazing results in a matter of days. The White House's top trade adviser should be going out of his way right now to lower expectations after already having set an impossibly high bar. For reasons unknown, Navarro is doing the opposite, setting up the Trump administration for additional failure. This article was originally published on
Yahoo
21 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump Continues Inflaming L.A. Protests: ‘BRING IN THE TROOPS!!!'
President Donald Trump called for the military to be deployed against anti-Immigrations and Customs Enforcements (ICE) protests in Los Angeles, California. The protests, which began in response to ICE raids at various workplaces on Friday, escalated over the weekend after Trump ordered the deployment of 2,000 National Guard troops into the city over the objections of Mayor Karen Bass and California Governor Gavin Newsom, both Democrats. 'Looking really bad in L.A. BRING IN THE TROOPS!!!' Trump wrote early Monday morning on Truth Social. In another post, the president called for law enforcement to 'ARREST THE PEOPLE IN FACE MASKS, NOW!' U.S. Northern Command issued a statement on Sunday indicating that 'approximately 500 Marines from 2nd Battalion, 7th Marines at Twentynine Palms, California, are in a prepared to deploy status should they be necessary to augment and support the DoD's protection of federal property and personnel efforts.' The call from the president to deploy the military against U.S. citizens — a power that hasn't been invoked by a president since the 1992 Rodney King riots in Los Angeles — would be a serious escalation of federal involvement in what local authorities say remains a manageable, if in sporadic instances violent, outbreak of public protest. Some Republican lawmakers and Trump administration officials have indicated their support for the deployment of military personnel to California. On Sunday night, Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) shared a screenshot of a controversial opinion piece he wrote in 2020 calling for the military to be deployed against Black Lives Matter protests. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth wrote on social media Sunday night that 'if violence continues, active duty Marines at Camp Pendleton will also be mobilized — they are on high alert.' The president and his administration have targeted Los Angeles and several other so-called 'sanctuary cities' — cities and other state or local jurisdictions that limit its cooperation with federal immigration enforcement — as sites to conduct highly publicized ICE raids on immigrant communities. While the administration claims that they are focusing enforcement actions on criminals, Acting ICE Director Tom Homan admitted on Monday that ICE has been sweeping up migrants who just so happened to be at the location of one of their targets, including mothers, high school students, and migrants arriving to immigration court for scheduled hearings. As the administration's enforcement actions grow in intensity, and stray from the bounds of legality, Trump and his allies have claimed protests against their increasingly authoritarian tactics are effectively an illegal impediment to federal operations. 'A once great American City, Los Angeles, has been invaded and occupied by Illegal Aliens and Criminals. Now violent, insurrectionist mobs are swarming and attacking our Federal Agents to try and stop our deportation operations,' Trump wrote on Sunday in a post that bears little resemblance to what is actually happening in the city. 'Order will be restored, the Illegals will be expelled, and Los Angeles will be set free.' In a Sunday press conference, Mayor Bass said that 'what we're seeing in Los Angeles is chaos that has been provoked by the administration.' 'When you're at Home Depot and workplaces, when you tear parents and children apart, and when you run armored caravans to our streets you cause fear and you cause panic and deploying federalized troops is a dangerous escalation,' Bass said. 'We need to be real about this, this is about another agenda, it's not about public safety.' Bass added that the city remained committed to protecting the First Amendment rights of protesters, but that those legal protections 'do not give you the right to be violent to create chaos are to be violent to create chaos are to vandalize property.' Governor Newsom formally requested on Sunday that Trump revoke his federalization of the National Guard and withdraw them from the city. 'In dynamic and fluid situations such as the one in Los Angeles, State and local authorities are the most appropriate ones to evaluate the need for resources to safeguard life and property. Indeed, the decision to deploy the National Guard, without appropriate training or orders, risks seriously escalating the situation,' he wrote. 'There is currently no need for the National Guard to be deployed in Los Angeles, and to do so in this unlawful manner and for such a lengthy period is a serious breach of state sovereignty that seems intentionally designed to inflame the situation,' Newsom added. More from Rolling Stone Finneas Says He Was Tear-Gassed During 'Very Peaceful' ICE Protest in L.A. ABC News Suspends Journalist for Calling Stephen Miller and Trump 'World-Class Haters' Republicans Say They're Cool With Trump Deploying Troops Against Protesters Best of Rolling Stone The Useful Idiots New Guide to the Most Stoned Moments of the 2020 Presidential Campaign Anatomy of a Fake News Scandal The Radical Crusade of Mike Pence
Yahoo
21 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Jan. 6 attack gets in the way of Republican talking points on ICE protests
Reflecting on the recent protests in Los Angeles, Republican Sen. Markwayne Mullin told CNN that he considered it 'absolutely insane' to see protesters 'carrying a foreign flag.' When 'State of the Union' host Dana Bash reminded the Oklahoma senator that carrying a flag 'is not illegal,' Mullin quickly interjected, 'A foreign flag while you're attacking law enforcement, it's pretty bad.' Of course, during the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol, Americans also saw foreign flags and rioters attacking law enforcement, and much of the Republican Party now treats those violent criminals as victims and heroes. A day before Mullin's on-air comments, U.S. Customs and Border Protection used its social media platform to issue a statement that read, 'Let this be clear: Anyone who assaults or impedes a federal law enforcement officer or agent in the performance of their duties will be arrested and swiftly prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Attack a cop, and life long consequences will follow!' That certainly seemed like an uncontroversial sentiment, except, again, Jan. 6 rioters assaulted and impeded law enforcement officers in the performance of their duties. And while they were arrested and prosecuted, and it appeared that many of them might face serious consequences, Trump returned to the White House and started handing out pardons — including to those who were convicted of violent assaults. And then there was FBI Director Kash Patel, who published a related online item of his own over the weekend: 'Hit a cop, you're going to jail ... doesn't matter where you came from, how you got here, or what movement speaks to you.' Not only did the president who appointed Patel come to the opposite conclusion when handing out Jan. 6 pardons, but the comment also brought to mind this Mother Jones report published after Patel's Senate confirmation hearing earlier this year. [Patel] hailed January 6 rioters convicted of violence against police officers as 'political prisoners.' ... Several Democrats pressed Patel on his work with the J6 Prison Choir, a group of January 6 rioters who recorded a version of the national anthem mashed up with Trump reciting the Pledge of Allegiance. The song became a mainstay at Trump's campaign rallies. Patel told Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) that he promoted the song to raise money for the families of January 6 attackers. To be sure, 'Hit a cop, you're going to jail' seemed like an undebatable point. The trouble is, in the Trump administration, it's a maxim that comes with some important fine print: 'Hit a cop, you're going to jail, unless the president likes the reason you hit a cop, in which case you're getting a pardon.' This article was originally published on
