The Militarization of American Police
Police Use Deadly Force at Their Discretion and Receive Minimal Oversight
In the summer of 2006 a frail, troubled 18-year-old girl named Ashley MacDonald ran through a nearly empty Huntington Beach, California, city park in the early morning holding a small knife. An onlooker called the police and soon two large male officers showed up. They shot the girl to death with 18 bullets, claiming she had lunged toward them and put their lives in danger. It was just another day for law enforcement in suburban Orange County, where—despite low crime rates—police have become increasingly aggressive and militaristic.
The MacDonald killing sparked an unusual amount of public outrage. This shooting, in particular, was hard to grasp. An empty park and a tiny teenager hardly make for a life-threatening situation for the officers. Couldn’t they just have backed away and used nonlethal alternatives such as pepper spray? The police admitted that they were readying a beanbag gun in the parking lot when the officers claimed that “time ran out.”
Angry that anyone would question their “split-second decisions,” the law enforcement “community” said it was wrong to jump to conclusions before the details of the investigation were complete. The sheriff defended the police publicly before any investigation even started, so he apparently was jumping to conclusions, but never mind. The consensus: calm down and wait for the department to see what happened.
I called the Huntington Beach Police Department (HBPD) and asked for the completed reports for two other high-profile officer-involved deadly shootings from 2001 and 2004. In the one case a troubled man reportedly with a toy gun was shot 29 times and bullets riddled several houses behind him. In another case, officers followed a suspect, lost track of him, and then started following a different man, 18-year-old Antonio Saldivar. Police shot him to death after they claimed he pulled a toy gun on them. The officer who shot Saldivar, by the way, has a disturbing disciplinary history, including allegations of excessive force.
Plenty of time had passed, so the reports should have been completed in those two cases. Well, the HBPD said I could have neither report because both are exempt from the California Public Records Act. What a great Catch-22: the public has no right to comment on police shootings until the investigation is complete, but once it is complete the public has no right to see the report.
In the teenaged girl’s case district-attorney (DA) investigators ultimately prepared a report arguing that the officers had “no choice” but to shoot. The DA’s office did not conduct any of its own interviews with witnesses. Investigators simply took the reports produced by the sheriff’s department, which detailed a “perfect storm” scenario: the police were backed up against a fence with nowhere to go; the girl lunged toward them; officers gently implored her to back away but reluctantly shot her as she intruded on their 21-foot safety barrier.
Although a local newsweekly easily found witnesses who stridently disputed that account, the DA was content with what it found. No Orange County district attorney has ever filed charges against police officers for an on-duty shooting, which is typical of most DAs. And district attorneys, by the way, only look at whether officers committed a crime—whether they fired the shots with criminal intent. But no one thinks there was criminal intent. DAs do not look at police procedures, and the newspapers were quick to find police training officials who declared that the officers “did what they are trained to do.”
That’s what is so worrisome.
As the MacDonald case reveals, despite many official oversight channels and processes, there is no serious oversight of police behavior. Law enforcement writes the rules of engagement, investigates its own officers, and has a well-oiled public-relations machine that kicks in whenever something disturbing takes place. District attorneys and grand juries are part of the law-enforcement establishment, and politicians usually defend the “heroic” officers. No information gets out until the family files a civil lawsuit against the department. No one ever discusses police policy, which is an internal matter.
Typical Shooting
Yet the MacDonald shooting is sadly typical. Here’s an Orange County Register report about a 2004 incident: “Robert Velarde said his son Jason stood beside the bed and appeared to freeze out of fear when four police officers, their guns drawn, entered the room the night of May 10. ‘They told him to drop the scissors. I told him to drop the scissors. He didn’t look like he could let them go, so I wrestled to take them away,’ said Velarde, a quadriplegic with partial use of his arms. . . . ‘Then one officer yelled ‘knife’ and they all fired,’ Velarde, 62, said. His son, Jason Velarde, 22, was killed.”
In September 2007, a 15-year-old autistic teen went missing. The mother called the sheriff’s department, which, she said, did nothing to help find him. Ten hours later, someone reported that a man was wandering around a busy street. It was the missing teen. Deputies responded by tasering the teen and then handcuffing him. The teen’s father said his son was tasered when he already was on the ground and that the deputies treated him roughly as he tried to comply with their orders. The sheriff’s department alternately claimed that the deputies had no choice but to taser the boy because they feared he might have a weapon and that they tasered him to protect him from himself.
In one case I recall several years ago, Anaheim police went to arrest an elderly doctor for a nonviolent crime. They drove one of those mini-tanks into his wealthy suburban neighborhood, black-clad SWAT-team members hanging onto the sides clutching high-powered rifles. (SWAT stands for Special Weapons and Tactics.)
Police often tell me, “Our only concern is getting home safely at the end of the day.” Such statements reveal two common traits in modern police forces. The first is an outsized sense of danger. In reality, police work isn’t in the top ten dangerous professions, according to the federal Bureau of Labor Statistics. Indeed, no government job is in the top ten. The second attitude is the self-centered nature of police work. Concern for the public takes a backseat to concern for “officer safety.”
Police officials always depict their officers as reluctant warriors who rarely, if ever, use or even brandish their weapons. But this is a fiction from the past. Officers tell me the old-school guys are mostly gone and that the new breed of cop has a military mentality and often a military background. The SWAT-team members are the ones who do the training and get promoted to top positions in the departments.
There’s plenty of anecdotal evidence that police are far from reluctant to pull their weapons or feel much remorse when they do. After Riverside police gunned down a sleeping girl named Tyisha Miller in a car in 1998 (she had a gun in her lap, was unconscious, and after police smashed her window, she moved and they immediately opened fire), the officers involved in the shooting stood around, joked, and animatedly reenacted the shooting, according to Los Angeles Times reports. One of the officers commented, “This is going to ruin their Kwanzaa,” after upset family members showed up at the scene. One local man arrived at the scene of another officer-involved shooting and reported that the police were high-fiving each other.
In another recent local case, a Costa Mesa police officer admitted pulling a gun on a teenager after the officer noticed that the boy and his friends were riding their bikes without helmets. He chased the boy into the boy’s backyard and drew his gun. After the boy’s dog came to defend him, the officer shot the dog 15 times. The city paid the family a large sum of money, but the police department insists the officer’s behavior was correct police policy. That’s perhaps the scariest part of this whole disreputable incident.
Former San Jose Police Chief Joseph McNamara, now a scholar at the Hoover Institution, captured the essence of the problem in a November 29, 2006, column he wrote for the Wall Street Journal. McNamara focused on an incident a few days earlier in New York, when several plainclothes police officers fired 50 shots at a car, wounding two men and killing a third, Sean Bell, who was to be married later that day.
How did this and other cases like it happen?
“Simply put,” wrote McNamara, “the police culture in our country has changed. An emphasis on ‘officer safety’ and paramilitary training pervades today’s policing, in contrast to the older culture, which held that cops didn’t shoot until they were about to be shot or stabbed. Police in large cities formerly carried revolvers holding six .38-caliber rounds. Nowadays, police carry semi-automatic pistols with 16 high-caliber rounds, shotguns and military assault rifles, weapons once relegated to SWAT teams facing extraordinary circumstances. Concern about such firepower in densely populated areas hitting innocent citizens has given way to an attitude that police are fighting a war against drugs and crime and must be heavily armed.”
According to McNamara, “Reasonable people accept that a cop’s job is difficult and dangerous, and most people understand that sometimes an officer will have to shoot someone. But the police are not and should never be allowed to think of themselves as soldiers or to believe they face the same level of danger.”
That’s exactly right. Even worse, there is virtually no public oversight or accountability, not only for police who follow these new policies and kill or hurt citizens, but for police who act outside proper authority and abuse their power. In Orange County, deputies spend about seven years patrolling the jail before being sent out onto the streets of our cities. Some critics wonder whether the experience dealing with prisoners leads at least some officers to treat members of the public with a high level of disdain. While police militarization is a problem on city streets, it is even worse for anyone under police custody.
Beaten by Inmates
In March of 2006, John Derek Chamberlain, who was stopped by an officer for public urination then arrested after he was found to possess child pornography, was savagely beaten to death for 20 minutes by fellow inmates. The Register reported that “[w]hile inmates beat John Derek Chamberlain to death, the senior deputy at the minimum-security barracks sat in the guard station, watching television. . . . The deputies’ failure to prevent the torture and killing of a man thought by jail inmates to be a child molester is at the center of an ongoing criminal inquiry.”
An inmate claims the deputy, who was several feet from the beating, actually instigated it after falsely outing Chamberlain as a child molester. Before any investigation was done, the county sheriff declared that his deputies did nothing wrong. Although other agencies typically investigate these killings, the sheriff’s department took charge of the investigation itself and even “cleaned up” the scene before the county supervisors’ staff arrived. The department refused to give the inmate a lie-detector test to corroborate his accusations. According to many solid sources, a group of deputies that calls itself “The Psycho Crew” routinely inflicts rough justice on inmates, picking particularly on minorities and drunks. The department denies this, but county taxpayers end up paying civil settlements to abused victims.
The Chamberlain case led to enough of a public outcry that the county board of supervisors voted to take the first steps toward creating an independent oversight panel. The sheriff, DA, and deputies’ union have tried to derail the proposal. It has been approved but the current plan, although useful, would create only a few advisory responsibilities. And, under current state law, almost all information regarding the disciplinary records of deputies and police are off-limits to civilian oversight panels, the public, and the media. As the American Civil Liberties Union explained, “On August 29, 2006, the California Supreme Court in Copley Press v. Superior Court held that records of an administrative appeal of sustained misconduct charges are confidential and may not be disclosed to the public. The decision prevents the public from learning the extent to which police officers have been disciplined as a result of misconduct.”
Police supporters claim the public already has plenty of oversight. But observers always find the same pattern: The internal investigations are not public, and the deputies stay on the force with no obvious punishment. The DA exonerates the deputies. The grand jury only gets involved in the most highly publicized cases, and such juries are controlled by the DA and represent a narrow, conservative demographic. (Around here, it’s mostly retired government workers who can afford to spend half their day working at the court for virtually no pay.) When a member of the public files a complaint with a police or sheriff’s department, it typically takes months to hear anything back. Then the only legal requirement is for the agency to say whether the complaint was “sustained” or “not sustained.” Such complaints are rarely sustained.
Code of Silence
Even when police engage in obvious misbehavior, fellow officers stand by the miscreants. There’s a well-known “code of silence.” Many people have watched the videotape of the savage beating of a barmaid by an off-duty Chicago police officer. The department had to be shamed into filing serious charges, and fellow officers showed up in force in solidarity when their compatriot had his court date. Juries in suburban communities are notoriously conservative, so when a case gets to trial, it’s difficult to convict an ill-behaving cop. In February former Irvine Police Officer David Alex Park went to court for pulling over a woman motorist, threatening to arrest her, but letting her off after she performed a sex act. Park argued that he pulled the victim over for her own safety and that the sex was consensual—as if sex could ever be consensual when an armed police officer has pulled a woman over and threatens to take her to jail.
The jury, however, bought the argument, and Park went free. He did lose his job, however, and the woman received a civil settlement from the city. Indeed, the only real oversight and justice in police-abuse cases comes from trial attorneys who sue police departments. It’s better than nothing, and such actions often dislodge police documents, but it’s a sad day when the only serious oversight of the most powerful government agents most people will encounter comes in the tort system. In many cases when police are caught abusing their power, their union defends them and keeps them on the force.
No wonder police officers behave as if they can do as they please. The Los Angeles Times reported last October 4 that Los Angeles County deputies play a game on the job called “Operation Any Booking,” in which the winner is the deputy who makes the most arrests or most car seizures in a 24-hour period. “It’s just a friendly competition to have a little fun out here,” said the department spokesman. Never mind that such “games” encourage officers to make unnecessary arrests and seizures.
Officers at times behave like they are part of an occupying army, and there are many stories of excessive force that don’t rise to the level of investigations and lawsuits, but are indicative of what’s going on out there. One of the Register’s independent contractors who services newspaper racks in the wee hours of the morning tells about the time recently when he was emptying money from a rack while wearing his newspaper apron and he saw an officer looking at him. Rather than approach and ask him what he was doing, several police cars surrounded him and officers came at him with weapons drawn; he was shoved to the ground, his arms painfully wrenched behind his back, and he was even taunted by an officer. He was let go after a short time, but is this really the way we want our communities policed?
Police officers in California in particular are well paid, so this is not a case of insufficient funds to hire quality candidates, as some people argue. In Orange County the average deputy earns a total salary and benefit package of $111,000 a year. They are eligible to retire at age 50 with 90 percent of their final pay after 30 years of service, guaranteed forever, courtesy of taxpayers. Police agencies in California complain about a hiring shortage. The reason for the shortage is simple: a) rapid increases in retirement benefits have encouraged a large portion of local forces to retire; and b) unions are always lobbying cities to provide more police positions, and politicians often comply for political reasons. Who can say no? Police and deputies, after all, have been afforded near-hero status following the 9/11 attacks. And the media often provide photo ops for their anti-terrorism training exercises, so the public knows about the importance of their work. In a recent political battle police organizations made direct references to 9/11 as a reason to oppose any rollback of benefits. Politicians who go against the blue tide pay a heavy political price.
There’s no apparent limit to the political gains that can be made by pandering to the “law and order” crowd. Last June the Assembly Public Safety Committee considered a bill that would have overturned the Copley decision and restored some public oversight to police misbehavior. The room was filled with police officers speaking out against it. The cops told emotional stories about police officers being killed in the line of duty—even though news reports later revealed that none of the examples had anything to do with the release of public records. The committee could not muster a single Democratic or Republican vote for the bill. In the state legislature Democrats mostly oppose such reforms because of their ties to the unions, and Republicans mostly oppose such bills because of their commitment to “law and order.” It’s the perfect scenario for law enforcement, and a troubling one for the public.
Yet something needs to be done. While I was writing this article, the Santa Ana police gunned down an apparently unarmed man in a stolen car, and then shut down the freeway for five hours. The department would say nothing, according to the Los Angeles Times: the police spokesman “referred questions to the district attorney’s office, which investigates officer-related shootings. A spokeswoman declined to discuss the probe, citing district attorney policy.” And so it goes.
Police use deadly force at their discretion. Police agencies then investigate themselves. They release only the information they choose to release. Few politicians are willing to discuss police procedures, and the courts and legislatures uphold the “right” of police agencies to hide information about misbehaving officers. In California, police have a special officer’s “bill of rights.” America may not be a police state—that is, a political system characterized “by an arbitrary exercise of power by police”—but it’s getting too close for comfort.
Comment by JoeRT on 23 March 2009:
Excellent article that should be required reading by anyone concerned with the continual erosion of our liberties and rights as American citizens. Please continue to urge everyone to participate in establishing civilian oversight committees on a local level.
Comment by John Anello on 30 July 2009:
If all the facts are true, the cases highlighted above are certainly examples of police brutality and I would never defend that. However, I could just as easily cite instances where police officers were killed by degenerate criminals because they were too apprehensive about pulling their guns. Here is a recent case out of Oakland, California.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/03/21/california.officers/index.html
The police have a difficult job. In NYC for example, they routinely perform risky and often life threatening tasks for menial pay. Are some police officers bad? Yes. There are bad people in all professions. Like any imperfect institution, the police are composed imperfect individuals. When the police are abusive they deserve our scorn. When they are heroic they deserve our praise.
The recent incident involving Henry Louis Gates is a prime example of the precariousness the police face on a routine basis. In situations where a person in locked out of his home the police are trained to search the home before leaving to assure that it is not a domestic violence dispute. Suppose that Mr. Gates had been locked out of his house by his wife whom he had been physically abusing. The police arrive and Gates shows them his ID, proving that the home is indeed his. The police respect his “rights” and leave. A few days later, neighbors call the police about a foul odor emanating from the Gates’ residence. Are the police at fault for failing to conduct a sufficient investigation?
Comment by Cory on 30 July 2009:
John Anello, to answer your comment ending question, No… they would not be a fault. They were not called to investigate a domestic disturbance (even if they were the only request that can be made is to keep it down, activities on private property are just that, I routinely have competitive sparring in my home and i feel sorry for the cop that tries to come inside without an invitation or warrant), they were called to investigate a possible robbery. The investigation of the call was handled as soon as Mr. Gates identified himself. If in fact a few days later there was a report of a “foul odor” then that report goes to the Home Owner’s Association, not the cops, it is not illegal in this country to smell bad. If however, there was a report of a missing person, then that investigation would take some more time, the job of law enforcement is exactly that to enforce laws, to bring in people after the law has been broken. This entire concept of Cops being there to PREVENT the law being broken is absurd to me, liberty or security… Which do you value? Personally, I value liberty, and would rather be left to defend myself against the “degenerate criminals” than to have a patrol car on every corner directly under the surveilance camera. Wake up man, it is not the 50′s anymore, cops have the same sense of entitlement shared among the majority of our population, they need to know that they work for us, it’s time to do a bit more serving, because this form of protection is eliminating infringing on our rights, I don’t like being taken to jail when i refuse to identify myself to a cop. If i have not broken the law, been accused of breaking the law, or witnessed a crime… my identity is mine I will go to jail for it every time, without exception, and it will end up a charge of assual against a police officer because I will not go willingly, my choice is to live free, the can do what they want, but the will not affect my choices… perhaps not the most productive method, but it’s all I have right now.
Comment by dj41326 on 30 July 2009:
All of our civil liberties are under attack. State’s Rights are no long a problem for the Federal Government to trample over. If face look how overreaching the Obama Healthcare plan is http://popblogculture.blogspot.com/
Comment by greiner3 on 30 July 2009:
I agree that Obama’s healthcare plan overreaches. It not only tries to make health care affordable, it tries to guarantee health care for everyone, regardless of their ability to pay. Just think of it, no one need go to their local hospital for an unplanned apmputation. They will simply go to their doctor who will call the local hospital to set up an appointment for them to reattach their finger, toe or arm. On the current plan, the health care providers, Aetna, Cigna, etc… will not do anything for the uninsured so they have to go to the hospital emergency room where they might get their digit sewn back on, or not. Regardless, this clogs all the hospitals and raises the cost of everyone’s insurance, co-pays and taxes. I hate the present way of doing business because only the health care companies make money. Isn’t that the way it should be though? In fact, they are sheltered from even being sued by an act of Congress. Republican that is.
Comment by John Anello on 30 July 2009:
The police should, whenever possible, prevent crime. This is especially true of domestic violence, a crime that often goes undetected until it is too late. In the Gates case, the Cambridge police followed standard procedure. It was not a violation of Mr. Gates’ rights to have his home inspected by the police before they left. Even though the police were not called to investigate a domestic violence dispute their training and the circumstances of the event led them to suspect domestic violence was a possibility. Mr. Gates became very irate and shouted profanities at the police. Such belligerence, together with a preponderance of the evidence would lead a reasonable officer to believe that domestic violence was a very real possibility.
Cory, you’re right. This is not the 1950s, and the militarization of police is largely a reaction to 1960s radicalism that created a general mistrust of police within society. During the 1950s, most citizens respected and trusted the police. Therefore, criminals were less likely to become belligerent and insult police officers. Police officers, in turn, did not need to use as much force in apprehending criminals. During the 1960s, academics and social engineers fostered an image of the police as “The Man”, an evil extension of societal oppression. This view was adopted by many young Americans, particularly minorities. Needless to say, as respect for police, and by extension the law, deteriorated crime skyrocketed. As a result, the police became less amicable and more focused on preventing and controlling crime.
What we need to combat police militarization is respect for the rule of law and those who enforce it.
Comment by James Madison Fan on 30 July 2009:
Unfortunately John I live in Orange County (Republic Del Norte AKA Santa Ana) and I’ve seen a lot of this stuff first hand. I really can’t “back the badge” anymore because most of my contact with police has not been positive, even though my experience is from the point of view of the victim rahter than the criminal.
This was written before the Mike Corona case. If you’re not familiar with “America’s Sheriff” you should look him up. He did some really nasty stuff and should have been lynched but he’s got away with everything except a count of witness tampering and the odds are 50/50 that he won’t see the inside of a cell for his actions.
Mike’s buddy Asst. Sheriff Don Haidle set up elections for him, laundered money, hid the value of gifts, and ran other schemes that kept Cororna in office and made both of them a lot of money. Haidle’s kid was also a complete turd. He was in the news a couple years back for gang raping a minor girl that he got drunk. He had a long history of drug abuse and other crimes that got ignored because of his dad’s position.
Mr. Greenhut should have mentioned that the CHP provides around a billion dollars in revenue for the State of California via tickets and this billion is matched by another billion due to “penalty assessments” which are supposedly there to cover the court costs associated with the ticket even though less than 2% of tickets go to court and less than 2% of those actually win.
When real crime happens the cops always fall back on “we have limited resources” but when given the opportunity to increase beat cops and detectives local PD’s usually invest heavily in motorcycle cops because they are the most profitable. If you think tickets are about public safety rather than profit think back on how many times you, friends, and relatives have been pulled over and how many times you have been let go with a warning. I’ve heard about it happening but not to anyone I know.
In the past couple years my condo was broken into as well as my van and they did exactly zero to investigate the crimes. I had information they could have used to trace the coins that were stolen from my condo but they didn’t even send a detective. They did a short report over the phone so they could mollify me and to satisfy the homeowner’s insurance requirements but actually trying to catch the criminal was never an option. You could hear the yawn in his voice from the moment he picked up the phone to the moment he hung it up.
They did even less to find the guys that took my car stereo even though I had the serial number. It wouldn’t be so bad except they made it sound like it was my fault. “Did you take in the face plate?” “Well, no, I was bleeding internally and I ended up going to the hospital and getting 7 units of blood due to an intestinal bleed so the faceplate wasn’t really as high on the priorities list as staying alive.” “Well next time take the face plate. If they don’t have anything to steal they can’t steal it.” “Uh. Yeah. Thanks.”
The problem is that law enforcement is no longer community based. They have the same “us versus them” mentality as the gang bangers. “We risk our lives for them but they don’t appreciate it.” How can I when the only time I see a cop is when he’s in my rearview mirror looking to steal money from me? I’m more worried about some cop writing me a ticket than a criminal stealing my wallet. I can take steps to keep myself from being robbed, including buying a gun. That doesn’t work with office Crispy Cream.
Comment by John Anello on 31 July 2009:
I live on the east coast and have no experience with the Orange County Police. Judging by this article and the comments, however, it seems they have a problem interacting with the community.
Perhaps the Orange County PD should exercise greater scrutiny in their screening process to ensure they hire more conscientious and competent officers. The department should also routinely send officers to training to learn how best to serve the community. Perhaps a change in the upper brass would also help.
I live in New Jersey and I rarely have interactions with the police. When I do however, they have always been courteous and respectful.
Comment by James Madison Fan on 31 July 2009:
My Sister lived in Maplewood and was a minister in Chatham.
This is a difficult topic for me. I am not an anarchist and I value the police. At least the concept of what police are supposed to be. For the most part I imagine that most police officers are reasonably close to the ideal but when you bounce off these other idiots that get off on the power it undermines respect for the real cops doing a real job protecting the community.
A couple years back I had one of these motorcycle clowns come up behind me as I exited a parking lot and he started tailgating me. He was so close I could not see the top of his helmet in the window of my van so I had no idea he was a cop. I yelled out my window \"Get off my A!\" So Officer Donut A-Hole backs off and turns on his rollers. I turned left into a parking lot so I am out of traffic and he tickets me for making the left turn without signalling. I asked him if he was going to write himself a ticket for tailgating and he got a stupid grin and said, \"No sir.\" So after Porky had \"done his duty\" he gets on his bike and makes a right turn out of the lot, no signal. I reported all of this and wrote up a complaint which did an excellent job of wasting my time.
Now all of this happens less than a month after some turds broke into my condo and Santa Ana PD tells me they don\’t have enough detectives to handle my case and they are closing it due to lack of evidence. I found this vexing because they had done almost zero to collect it. They didnt even interview me. For all Detective Wide-Body knew I had the perps locked up in my closet ready to play Hannible Lecter on them. Too bad I didn\’t.
So in less than a month I had to deal with lazy cops, unethical cops, and cops that had no interest in holding other cops accountable for being lazy and unethical. None of this fosters the respect they supposedly deserve but in concert it completely undermines any positive opinion entirely. I would love to hold cops in higher regard but I have yet to meet one that deserves it.
Comment by James Madison Fan on 31 July 2009:
I wanted to mention that I hadn\’t checked my email recently and when I went to my hotmail account Ms. Akers wrote back. I\’m going to do a cut an paste in her \"Mr. Obama Tear Down This Wall\" article.
Comment by Paul B. on 31 July 2009:
\"I value the police.\"
\"idiots that get off on the power\"\"
\"motorcycle clowns\"
\"I yelled out my window \\\"Get off my A!\\\"
\"Officer Donut A-Hole\"
\"Porky\"
\"Detective Wide-Body\"
\"lazy cops, unethical cops, and cops that had no interest in holding other cops accountable for being lazy and unethical\"
After evaluating statement one in light of the other six, I can come to no other conclusion than you are dumber than a bag or rocks.
Comment by Mike in SF on 10 August 2009:
John Anello, you said “…The police should, whenever possible, prevent crime. This is especially true of domestic violence, a crime that often goes undetected until it is too late.”
Just curious — what would you suggest that police do to prevent domestic violence crimes?
Comment by John Anello on 11 August 2009:
I will be happy to elaborate.
Domestic violence is crime that was neglected by the police and society for years. It was viewed as a “private” matter between spouses and the police would rarely act even when called to an incident. Their typical response was to calm the man down and give the woman an ice pack. Even if they did make an arrest the abused spouse would usually drop the charges against the other or neither would appear in court. The police felt that making an arrest in a domestic violence dispute was useless because it would almost never result in a conviction. Needless to say, with this kind of law enforcement lethargy domestic violence situations would only escalate. Women would develop a psychological disorder called battered women’s syndrome, a condition where they become so mentally defeated by the abuse that they cannot bring themselves to leave their abusers.
If no one intercedes a domestic violence situation will end one of two ways. Either the man will beat his wife so severely that he will eventually kill her or the woman, seeing no other way out of her misery, will finally snap and kill her husband. Either way, lives will be ended and families will be destroyed.
Preventing domestic violence lies in preventing its escalation. In New Jersey if the police are called to a domestic violence dispute and there is any sign of a physical violence (e.g. black eyes, bruises, etc.) than an arrest MUST be made. If the abused spouse refuses to sign the complaint than the police officer assumes the role of the complainant. The abuser is usually ordered by the court to stay out of the home for a few weeks.
If it is a first offense the couple is usually ordered to attend counseling sessions. The charges are dismissed upon completion of the counseling program.
Comment by James Madison Fan on 11 August 2009:
Paul,
Thanks for proving my point. You took what I wrote out of context which shows a lack of ethics. You never addressed the point which shows that you are evasive. You resulted to ad hominem since you could not counter what I wrote. And you did all of this in an effort to build a fallacious straw man argument. Quite an accomplishment for one sentence.
The message you so adroitly overlooked is that when a bad cop interacts with the public negatively then he undermines the respect that good cops deserve.
Should we respect officer Rafael Perez convicted of stealing cocaine from the evidence locker in an attempt to frame a gang member, implicated in the murder of rapper Notorious BIG, as well as sundry other crimes? No.
How about the cops responsible for raping Abner Louima with a plunger? No.
How about officers John Herman and officer Ken Moreno both found guilty of pulling over female motorists and raping them. No.
How about “America’s Sheriff” Mike Corona charged with conspiracy, mail fraud, and witness tampering. No.
Cops are humans too. There are good cops and there are bad ones. If you do not understand this then it is your IQ that is in question rather than mine.
Comment by LA juror on 11 August 2009:
Today, I completed jury service for the trial of Freddy Davis Sr. vs La County with regards to the shooting death of Freddy Davis Jr, and the wounding of Keyonte Davis in Compton, CA by LA Sheriff’s Deputies. One of the deputies was the one who had organized the ‘Operation Any Booking’ in 2007.
Freddy Davis Junior was shot 5 times in the back, but the defense was that he had a sawed off shotgun on him. The ultimate decision came down to inconsistent testimony by the deputies such that it was unclear if the gun was actually in view when the officers began shooting.
It is quite disturbing what some law enforcement officers believe is permissible. However, I do know several people in law enforcement who are not those kinds of people. It is an unfortunate situation that the acts of some are so influential on the overall outlook of a group or organization.
Comment by James Madison Fan on 12 August 2009:
John,
I hope you will forgive me for playing “Devil’s Advocate” but I\’d like your thoughts on the following:
BoJ statistics indicate that approximately 1 in 5 domestic violence cases are F on M and this number is likely under reported due to societal pressure that paints men that are abused by women as \"wimps.\" Unless the situation is particularly brutal F on M violence is rarely reported. In addition there is a level of F on M violence that is considered acceptable by society such as slapping that is considered unacceptable if reciprocated or, worse, initiated by the male.
The ratio of male to female arrests is not consistent with these statistics. Male arrests are far more prevalent probably because M on F violence is more sympathetic and usually results in obvious physical trauma making the arrest of the male far more likely, even in cases of retaliation and self defense. Essentially, unless there is obvious damage to the male and no damage to the female, the cops do not have time to sort it out so they grab the guy and leave, even if the female gave as good or better than she got. As such there seems to be an inherent gender bias that I find distasteful but I am ready to admit this may be the lesser of two evils.
There is also the problem that by making arrest mandatory the victim is put in a situation where (s)he may not report the crime so as to avoid the fiscal repercussions of sending a contributing or sole source of income to jail putting their combined financial future in jeopardy. This is especially true if children are involved. The question becomes, do I report my spouse and take the risk of loosing everything we worked for or do I let it continue and hope it stops which is a Catch 22. The financial repercussions can be long term since the abuser will have a criminal record that must be disclosed when applying for a job. Once again, I am ready to admit this may be the lesser of two evils but I can see a reasonably enlightened victim choosing to suffer in silence rather than put his or her family in jeopardy.
Comment by John Anello on 13 August 2009:
JMF,
I neglected to mention that the law I described above was enacted at the behest of feminist radical groups. Obviously, they are biased against men. However, men are usually more prolific and brutal in their domestic violence abuse so naturally, they are arrested more frequently.
I interned at the Essex County Prosecutor’s Office here in Jersey for about a year and I have seen this law function first hand. A large percentage of the cases that appeared in my department were domestic violence. I saw just about every type of domestic violence case imaginable. Grandchildren abusing grandparents, homosexual love triangles, cheating wives, you name it. Most days the court seemed like Jerry Springer without the chanting audience.
Personally, I felt the police made too many DV arrests. They were so afraid of facing a law suit or disciplinary action for not following the DV laws that they would look for just about any excuse to make an arrest whenever they were called to an incident. I recall one lady being arrested because she had chipped nails.
Some of the people I encountered deserved to be arrested; they were despicable excuses for human beings. Others seemed like nice people who may have just let their anger get the best of them.
When women are financially dependent on their husbands the situation becomes all the more complicated. In that case, judges often release the defendant on his own recognizance so he can continue to work. In such a situation, the alleged abuser would almost never be incarcerated.
The NJ is certainly not perfect and I am no great champion of it. Like you said it tends to be the lesser of two evils.
Comment by James Madison Fan on 13 August 2009:
John,
That\’s pretty much what I expected. With the exception of drug addicts I cannot find any sympathy for habitual repeat offenders so I have no problems putting the dregs of society in prison but it seems wasteful to run someone through the system based on trivia.
Comment by Lance500 on 31 August 2009:
John Anello and Madison. Domestic Vilolent situations are not preventable by the police. 100% of the time the women were depended on the men for financial support and men seemed to take that advantage. Therefore, most of the DV were not reported to the police. The law required that police had to arrest the person who inflicted any visible injuries to another. Otherwise, the police would be responsible for further injuries, at least for the night. The police also tried to calm down or separate both parties temporary for a certain amount of time if no injury was visible. They also advise that further occurence would result in an arrest and they owuld provide addaition information for counseling. The sad thing was the woman would usually bailed the man out the same night, and the same thing would happened again. In police’s view, most of the women involved in domestic violence put themselves in that situation by meeting the wrong kind of men. Domestic dispute calls wasted lots of the police time which could be spent preventing other crimes.
Comment by Ben on 1 September 2009:
If you take human nature into consideration this trend in police work is inevitable. Police do not represent an even cross section of society. They are a self selected group. Now ill let the evidence help you figure out what kind of people would select this group.
Comment by Tom on 17 December 2009:
I had a run-in myself with the money grubbing police. On a sidestreet near my home cones had been placed in front the four recently repainted white lines in front of each stop sign that mark where the driver is supposed to stop. As the driver approaches the intersection they notice the cones from a medium distance and become somewhat confused. Is the road closed? Do they have to turn around and go the other way? They naturally slow down and focus on the cones as they assess the situation. Only after coming within about 20 yards does the driver realize that the cones are protecting the paint job and they must simply roll around them. This I did, and afterward I noticed a police officer behind me who had turned on his lights. I pulled over extremely confused, and he told me he had to ticket me for running a stop sign. I incredulously asked which one and he told me. As if to exonerate himself (I don’t think he really enjoyed having to ticket innocent motorists in a confusing situation) he said that his department had intentionally stationed him there because people often roll the stop sign in those situations, and so he had to give me the ticket. So basically this guy was sitting there all day writing tickets to people for rolling around cones in front of stop signs on a completely empty side street. Thanks for protecting and serving.
Comment by RV on 20 January 2010:
Of course it’s true. Why wouldn’t it be? Two plus two equals four, and power corrupts. When there is no opposition to corruption, it controls.
I live in Orange County. I worked with at-risk and delinquent youth for ten years, after which I went to law school. My work in the criminal justice system made me realize that attorneys are just the administrators of the modern American slave trade.
As minor as this seems, what really pisses me off is that the police can’t even abide by the traffic laws. It’s as if they’re rubbing it in everyone’s faces that they can make left turns from the outer right lanes (almost causing an accident), zoom through red lights and stop signs, and park anywhere they damn well please. I see no greater negative example to youth than that of “po-po” recklessly flaunting the traffic laws in front of them, with one arm cockily propped out the window and more attitude than any wanna-be menace on the street.
But what I wish people would realize is this:
The police REGULARLY:
murder
steal (don’t know what asset forfeiture is? google it, civil AND criminal)
lie, and
cheat
Shouldn’t this be a problem?
Here’s my idea. Compile pictures and profiles of every police officer. Get their histories, with full witness statements/complaints. Send a copy in print or an e-mail link to their family members. Particularly mother, grandmothers, and grown children. Let’s see how they defend themselves to those who know them best and probably have no idea that their loved one is a monster.
Comment by John Anello on 20 January 2010:
RV,
You are using inflated vicious rhetoric to describe a very diverse group of people. You are making gross generalizations that are not grounded in facts. There are approximately 18,000 law enforcement agencies in the United States that employ hundreds of thousands of people. Law enforcement agents come from diverse backgrounds, each one of them is unique. To classify all law enforcement officers as thieves, murderers, liars and monsters is the equivalent of saying all black Americans are stupid, arrogant criminals.
Since you are posting on this site, I am assuming you are a libertarian. How can you rectify your gross generalization of law enforcement officers with the universal libertarian belief that individuals are all different?
Comment by Bill U on 21 January 2010:
I’m from NJ and about 95% of all my interactions with police have been negative. I have no police record and am a law-abiding, tax-paying citizen, who owns a home, is happlily married and is raising 3 children. Why is it then that I have consistantly been harrassed and mistreated by the “peace” officers all my life who are sworn to protect me and my family? Why are they able to ignore the law and yet I am terrorized for obeying it? Why when confronted with facts and logic do police respoond with violence and anger? I don’t fit any profile that they would be interested in yet I find myself at odds at every occasion. They tailgate and provoke traffic violations, they over-react and assume with no facts, they protect eachother eve when they are wrong, they start fights and enjoy having the support of their police brothers when they can’t cash a check their mouths wrote. While there are good cops, they appear to outnumbered and forced to condone the actions of the bad ones. In NJ it’s all about knowing a cop or having cop friends…knowing a cop lets you throw loud parties at 2am without a problem. Knowing a cop lets you drive drunk. knowing a cop gets you off of traffic violations. Knowing a cop gets you out of assaut charges when you start a fight.
Pingback by The Great Train Wreck of the Republic | Probable Cause on 15 April 2010:
[...] mind. The consensus: calm down and wait for the department to see what happened. (Steven Greenhut, “The Militarization of American Police” (March 2008) The Freeman: Ideas on Liberty, vol. 58, issue [...]
Pingback by Domestic Soldiers | copblock on 29 April 2010:
[...] Greenhut, “The Militarization of American Police,” The [...]
Pingback by Overreaction as a Societal Ill | Probable Cause on 1 June 2010:
[...] that happens is subject to police intervention and our militarized police forces “take no chances.” The new “zero-tolerance” for “civilians” [...]
Pingback by The Ultimate Betrayal: Police and Military Working Together to Oppress Americans : on 3 August 2010:
[...] I have spoken to retired police officers who remember a world where it was considered a failure to draw a weapon unless under direct attack. Even if such an action was required, the result was nightmare inducing. Today’s police seem to have lost such empathy. Police are rarely a welcome site these days, as they are often black-clad, brandishing military gear and weapons, and applying military force over such non-violent infractions as traffic stops. Police are being equipped and trained as if they are an occupying force, and the results have been predictably disastrous. [...]
Pingback by Militant Libertarian » The Ultimate Betrayal: Police and Military Working Together to Oppress Americans on 3 August 2010:
[...] Where are we today? I have spoken to retired police officers who remember a world where it was considered a failure to draw a weapon unless under direct attack. Even if such an action was required, the result was nightmare inducing. Today’s police seem to have lost such empathy. Police are rarely a welcome site these days, as they are often black-clad, brandishing military gear and weapons, and applying military force over such non-violent infractions as traffic stops. Police are being equipped and trained as if they are an occupying force, and the results have been predictably disastrous. [...]
Comment by Brandon on 4 August 2010:
Speaking from VA, here-
I’d have to agree with Bill in that 95% of my interactions with Police have been negative. Of all the officers I’ve dealt with, only one was honest, respectful, and courteous. I’ve been stopped twice in which K9 units arrived with no explanation. No probable cause, no nothing…. The officers lied to me about my rights, and held me illegally. After nothing was found, I was given no apology.
Since Police salary does not depend on consumer evaluations (like businesses) we can predict that they will concentrate on those activities which A-Are low risk and B-Maximize revenue for the state/county.
This means that by-and-large police will avoid dangerous situations and concentrate on activities where they can plunder the most – drugs (asset forfeiture for a non-crime) and traffic tickets.
Have any of you ever had experience with private security companies? Let me tell you, the difference is night and day. Granted, there’s no guarantee that you won’t have a bad experience with private security, but at least they can go out of business!
Pingback by FreeWestRadio.com » Blog Archive » The Ultimate Betrayal: Police and Military Working Together to Oppress Americans on 5 August 2010:
[...] I have spoken to retired police officers who remember a world where it was considered a failure to draw a weapon unless under direct attack. Even if such an action was required, the result was nightmare inducing. Today’s police seem to have lost such empathy. Police are rarely a welcome site these days, as they are often black-clad, brandishing military gear and weapons, and applying military force over such non-violent infractions as traffic stops. Police are being equipped and trained as if they are an occupying force, and the results have been predictably disastrous. [...]
Comment by Michael Patton on 9 August 2010:
I wrote an article about police shooting dogs in 2010.
http://dogcd.com/police/terrorists-dressed-as-police-shoot-dogs-with-impunity-across-usa/
The way dogs are being treated today, is the way people will be treated tomorrow. If not today already.
Pingback by The 5-0 Then and Now - Page 2 - Grasscity.com Forums on 22 April 2011:
[...] The Rise of Paramilitary Police Raids in America | Radley Balko | Cato Institute: White Paper The Militarization of American Police | The Freeman | Ideas On Liberty [...]
Pingback by The Militarization of American Police on 12 June 2011:
[...] [...]
Comment by Lisann Martinez on 30 September 2011:
My son was also a victim of the Santa Ana Police, They brought him home to me saying that they made a mistake. That he was a good kid, when they left I found out what they had did to him. I wanted to call an ambulance, but my son said they threatened him by booking him…if his back was hurt, when asked again how his back felt my son said fine it was fine. He said he would take off if I called an ambulance. So I told him to get in the car I took him to St. Joseph’s Hospital. To make a long story short, He ended up in the hospital. With several fractured and broken ribs, a collasped lung and expanded disc. The investigation from internal affairs a generic letter that said all allegations against the SAPD were unfounded. My son was 17 at the time. My son’s quality of life has diminished, his back will never get better it will get worse as he gets older. They also took his ipod touch that was borrowed from his girl friend and they do not know what happened to it, My son went to the police station with the evidence booking number and they could not find it. They also left the bike he was riding there where they stomped and kicked him. It is in litigation right now, and I want to protest in front of the police station. because I’m pissed that now the city of Santa Ana, wants to take away from the city library and santa ana zoo, to give them a raise? Also, guess who the city manager is? Nothing more nothing less than the Chief of Police, Paul Walters. Now don’t you think that is a conflict of interest? He takes away from other programs to give to his department?
Comment by maria on 17 November 2011:
Thank you for your article.
I think that you point out many issues which we tend to overlook because we feel powerless to change this system.
Trackback by stop spam plugin on 7 February 2012:
Stop Link Spam…
[...] Every once in a while we choose blogs that we read or services that we use. Here is the wordpress plugin that we use to stop spamy links. We love our website clean. [...]……
Comment by happy dog care on 7 February 2012:
Thanks for the concepts you have discussed here. On top of that, I believe there are numerous factors which will keep your automobile insurance premium all the way down. One is, to bear in mind buying cars that are in the good directory of car insurance firms. Cars which are expensive will be more at risk of being stolen. Aside from that insurance is also depending on the value of your vehicle, so the more costly it is, then the higher your premium you pay.