The District Attorney's Office reviewed the case and declined to prosecute Officer Lopez in December. Eight days later, he was reissued his weapon and returned to full duty.Incredible. I think one point that my white readers have made is starting to get some traction with me. Race is an aggravating factor when you talk about police brutality. But there is something deeper here. Something about cops and how absolute power, and the lack of repercussions, corrupts people.
Read the story. If there were no video, you wouldn't even know about it.
One question constantly nags at me. I understand why a lot of these guys can't be tried for murder. But why the fuck aren't they fired? Where is the basic, "You know we understand it was a mistake. We understand you've been under pressure, and this is a really hard job. We just think you probably aren't cut out to walk the streets with a gun and a badge."
There's no disgrace in that. Everyone can't be a cop.
The Beautiful Struggle: A Father, Two Sons, and an Unlikely Road to Manhood 
you dont need a college education to be a cop in philadelphia. this strikes me as a disservice to potential police officers and the community, as college is a place where you not only get schooled with books, but with interactions with people you'd never come across if you've never left your neighborhood / city. College credits arent a panacea for events like this, but it cant hurt. Its too important a job with way too much responsibility over others' lives and deaths to have such a low education requirement
In "even the liberal People's Republic of Austin," it takes something extraordinary to get a grand jury to indict a cop for shooting an obviously unarmed (or not lethally armed) person. Maybe it's because the shootings all take place east of the freeway (i.e. the wrong side of the tracks).
But I see the DHS-enhanced SWAT tanks and pseudo-military people (does EVERYONE need a buzzcut?) inhabiting the squad cars, wholly unrepresentative of the people they patrol, and I conclude that even here there's been an inuring of scared idiots to unquestioned authority.
Sadly, I'm guessing (don't know at all for sure) that a lot these guys can't be fired for fear of lawsuits. I'm sure camaraderie also has a lot to do with it too.
Sadly, I'm guessing (don't know at all for sure) that a lot these guys can't be fired for fear of lawsuits.
It's more that the police departments in question are fine with their officers doing it. They want the ability to force anybody to submit or be taken to jail on trumped up charges. See all the posts on how you must act "respectful" to the police or they can just take you to jail and file a BS report. They want the authority to force citizens to do something without fear of repercussions.
In this case the police even tried to delete the surveillance tapes, so why aren't they charged with a crime?
"In this case the police even tried to delete the surveillance tapes, so why aren't they charged with a crime?"
Ha! Same reason the CIA isn't, or Bush for that. Obviously there is corruption in police departments. I'm just saying there are gray areas in a line of work which allows its employees to shoot other people--and these can be exploited by lawyers in wrongful termination suits, amongst other kinds.
It's not just a question of corruption, but one of politics. This cop was out of line, but no one got hurt and other cops will argue that "he's a good cop that just made a mistake". The DA needs to work with the police every day. He or she is unlikely to go after anyone unless the public outcry is so large as to drown out the cops defending the officer in question. Sometimes people are killed and it doesn't reach this point, so I'm not surprised this incident did not either.
There's a fundamental conflict of interest to the way local police departments and their internal affairs are setup. The only way to really remove it would be to offload the responsibility and authority to a Federal or State level agency specifically tasked for investigating and prosecuting police corruption.
Sbranda is exactly right.
This is so right. It's about the degree of power they wield over us all, and the way in which the default expectation almost seems to be that you must show DEFERENCE towards the police, if you're smart and a good citizen. I hate that.
Not to quote other people again but Robert Caro pops into mind.
Dammit I have work to do.
"Dammit I have work to do."
I feel you Sorn. This blog is like crack!! One hit and you keep coming back! (Or so I'm told. About the crack that is.)
Why doesn't my boss understand I need ample time to cross reference articles and stats for my TNC posts?
Why doesn't my boss understand I need ample time to cross reference articles and stats for my TNC posts?
Did you remember to file those TPS Reports?
Excuse me I believe you have my stapler...............
exactly.
What we need is pension reform, and re-structured compensation.
No, seriously. One of the barriers to effective discipline on most police forces is that when cops sign up for the job, they believe they're making a bargain - twenty years of mediocre pay, long hours, and often dangerous working conditions, in exchange for a pension while they're still middle-aged. So it's not just about the thin blue line, about solidarity and camaraderie, about the brotherhood of people under fire - though all of those things are crucial. It's also that taking an officer, particularly a veteran officer getting close to that pension, and throwing him out onto civvie street taps into every officer's worst fear. "I could screw up, make a single mistake, and throw away everything I've worked for," they think.
This is bad news, all around. It means that instead of a force comprised of people doing their jobs because it's what they want to be doing, or at least the best available option, we often end up with police forces stocked with officers trying to "put in their twenty." It means that people who decide they're unsuited for the life, or simply can't take it any more, still try to stick it out. And it means that even when supervisors decide that an officer shouldn't be out on the streets, that they don't have the temperament or judgment to be a good cop, they're more likely to try to transfer them to some other unit than to see them dismissed from the force. It's not a problem that's unique to police forces, either. Other public-sector employees suffer from similarly warped incentives - public school teachers leap to mind as the prime example. Trapping people in their jobs, and raising the perceived costs of dismissing them from their jobs, is bad policy.
Which is not to downplay the importance of good oversight, of community review, of reform, of internal affairs, or of any of the myriad other checks and balances for which advocates continually press. But the simplest way to encourage the dismissal of those poorly-equipped to handle the responsibilities of police work from the force is to lower the perceived cost of that dismissal. That means paying cops more up front, and less later on. Or, if that's too tough to put into place, shifting them from pensions over to 457 plans, in which they receive annual retirement payments from the city that are fully portable, and can be taken with them and funneled into a 401(k) after a short vesting period. Little changes, big impacts.
Thats an excellent idea.
Here's a follow-on challenge.
The police, like teachers, surely also get health-care for life.
That part of the deal will be harder to convert to a paycheck or a 401(k) contribution, because health costs keep rising. It's tough to figure out what amount now will let you afford all the care you need decades into the future.
If we can get a competitive public-option plan in the current debate, that might get easier. With single-payer, it would nearly go away.
Or maybe we could say that each year on the force gets you into Medicare a year earlier.
But fundamentally, I think you're right that the current system makes it almost impossible to walk away and way too hard to convince people who should resign to do so.
Great points, all.
great ideas. has there been any movement or discussion about this outside of academic circles? it strikes me as the starting point for figuring out some real common-sense reforms.
also, it's crazy how much good real health care reform could (theoretically) do.
I recommend this book for a deeper exploration of power and its abuse:
http://www.lucifereffect.org/
It caused me to question the "bad apples" explanation when it comes up.
Its the Blue Line TNC. If they fire one it makes it possible for all and the establishment that is designed to protect other cops won't do that.
Funny thing is that the right wing is all about at-will employment, union-busting, et. al.... until it comes to the police.
I think the really key part of that story is this quote:
"The clerk on duty the night that Lopez confronted Lawless told investigators that three times after the incident, police officers spoke with him about the security tape and that two asked if he would erase it.
An Internal Affairs investigation found no misconduct among officers who spoke with the clerk about the tape."
If that's the case, whoever was involved with the "Internal Affairs investigation" ought to be fired. But they won't be, and the public's confidence in the police is further eroded.
It's also interesting because it leads one to wonder how many other times have police officers been successful in getting tapes erased that might get a fellow cop indicted? It's absolutely terrifying, frankly, and makes me wonder why cops are surprised that so many people hate them.
I know. There should really be a rule that anyone who erases such a tape is held guilty of whatever crime the police are alleging happened in the tape, and that anyone who tries to get somebody to erase a tape is guilty of obstruction of justice.
Jesus. The follow-up requests to erase the tape really ARE among the most nauseating elements of the case. Although the lack of disciplinary consequences is pretty far up there, too.
I know so many people who are angry about CCTV tapes and the constant invasion of their privacy. I understand and, for the most part, agree with their anger. But when video can exculpate an innocent victim...I dunno.
Of course, if this HAD been an official CCTV tape and not the Lukoil store's own tape, it probably would have been erased already. So that argument won't hunt.
Jesus. I just can't understand how the police union would support a guy like this (which is why he doesn't get fired--those unions are STRONG). Isn't it in the police force's best interests for the public not to see them as a bunch of potential loose cannons?
The issue with CCTV, in my eyes, is access. One sided surveillance by a group that is not itself monitored is a recipe for abuse. But I do see constant surveillance as a potential asset. Look at how often independent videos, police car cameras, etc. were crucial in demonstrating a victim's case.
And seriously, how big of a baby is this cop's son? Run and tell Daddy that a car you bumped was pissed off?
So true! Not only did he run and tell Daddy, but Daddy apparently left whatever he was supposed to be doing in order to bully his son's victim. Clearly, it's a great family all around.
I had never heard about this case until I saw the earlier comment.
The cop needs to be fired and possibly face criminal charges.
As I've stated before I really think cops need to have headgear that records audio and visual. In the end it will work to everyone's benefit.
What's amazing about this case is that this is not a case where there is any question about "heat of the moment" judgments. Every now and again, you see cases where you see a terrible, tragic error in judgment when a situation seems to be getting more heated.
Not here. He went out and sought this confrontation, and when he started it, he did so by striking someone who wasn't looking, with his weapon drawn.
That this man was not fired is an abomination.
I have been treated brutally by the cops in Detroit for no reason.
Was it racial profiling? I don't know. White folk aren't supposed to complain about that.
I get "Yankee" profiled in GA all the time. I complain constantly. :P
I am not sure what point you are trying to make here. Are you white? Do you mean that you think a police officer might have thought you were more likely yo commit a crime because you are white? Does that really seem likely to you? I have never heard anyone suggest that white folk "aren't supposed to complain about" racial profiling of whites before so I have no idea of what "supposed to" means in this formulation. If you believe that a cop treated you as a suspect not "for no reason" but because he/she assessed that white people who look like you are more likely to be guilty of a particular crime, then who exactly would prevent you from making such a complaint and how would they prevent it exactly?
YES
YES - If you are in certain neighborhoods as a white person, cops think you are buying drugs. In my case, I was visiting one of my home health care patients. I wasn't injured . . . just treated roughly.
OK I was being tongue in cheek about that one. Obviously I know racial profiling is a much bigger issue for PoC. So it just seems silly when white people complain about racial discrimination.
Ah. now I see what you are saying. Thanks for the clarification.
As a white teenager in an affluent suburb, I used to half-jokingly say that since there were few black people who lived there, teenagers were the black people of our town. From about the time I turned 15, I was stopped by cops for walking somewhere, pulled over on a weekly basis, and generally harassed. All teenagers were, it seemed.
A particular incident stands out. Two friends and I (all white, 18-19 years old, all from upper-middle-class backgrounds) were walking around my parent's neighborhood one night. We were smoking cigarettes and talking about some movie or other that we had seen that night.
Out of nowhere, a spotlight is on us and a cop starts questioning us about who we are, where we're going, and why we're in the neighborhood. He wasn't polite about it, and was acting as if we'd done something wrong (we hadn't). While he was asking his questions, two more cops show up. (For backup, I guess?) We all had to show our IDs, and explain why we were walking around the block. My favorite was when he asked me where I lived, and I pointed across the street at my parents' house. He then demanded I give him the address. (I wanted to say, "you can see it from here" but I was taught to always be polite to cops, even when they ask stupid questions.)
Here is where race comes in. My friends and I never really felt threatened. Sure, the cops were being dicks, but we knew we were doing nothing wrong and we felt safe in that knowledge. We knew that this was nothing more than petty harassment and there was no chance of things escalating into anything serious. We found it funny, and had a good laugh about it the moment the cops left.
However, I doubt I would have had that same sense of security had I been a young upper-middle-class black man stopped in the same way and asked the same questions in that mostly white, upper-class neighborhood. While my friends and I did not feel threatened, I do not believe that would be true for a young black man in the same situation.
So why is that? Personally, I think that our experiences as upper-middle-class white kids had instilled a trust in the police and in the criminal justice system in general that if we had done nothing wrong, nothing bad would happen to us. Therefore, the same set of questions with the same tone and the same suspicion held less implied threat for US that in might have for that hypothetical black teenager.
@Skipskate
My brother would get harassed by the cops constantly during his hippy phase, but being white, there's always that safety net there of white judges and lawyers who would see him as a non-threatening white teenager.
Not trying to say all cops, judges, and lawyers are racists to the core and don't value fair application of the law. In fact, I think most are passionate about serving and protecting.
It just takes a few to spoil the whole bunch.
"I think one point that my white readers have made is starting to get some traction with me. Race is an aggravating factor when you talk about police brutality. But there is something deeper here. Something about cops and how absolute power, and the lack of repercussions, corrupts people."
I think this nails it for me. I agree that race is an aggravating factor in many of these incidents because there are just too many examples of it to dismiss, but there are also so many examples of white on white police abuse to dismiss that argument that perhaps there is more involved in these incidents then race. It MAY be that there are a lot of racist cops, but it may also be that the cops involved are just bad people.
Here in San Francisco there have been so many different incidents but the most famous was a group of off-duty cops assaulting a dude for a bag of take-out fajitas (the fajitagate incident). No racial issues just apparently some drunk cops beating up a guy cause he refused to give them his dinner, followed by the usual appearance of the police giving special treatment to their own during the investigation into it.
I have a relative who was beaten up for a pizza while delivering for Domino's. It was a sherif's deputy who beat him. The incident was swept under the rug by the deputys who responded to the complaint so the only action against the deputy was he can no longer order from Domino's. I wonder if stealing food is rampant among off duty cops.
Yes. Fajitagate was worse because on of the three off-duty cops mugging a guy for his Taco Bell (seriously) was the son of a deputy chief. Bad, bad times.
OH. MY. GOD.
First off, mad props to the store clerk for being honest!
Secondly, the cop needs to be fired. I'm sure he went Gates on her/them based on what his son told him occurred at the scene of the accident - racial taunts and kicking the car. But brandishing a weapon and grabbing the woman? Not justified at all.
We have to make it mandatory that all law enforcement personnel wear combined video/audio cameras on their foreheads. If it shows they were wrong, or that the weren't wearing them when a complaint is filed, they need to be fired! There are too many people wanting to be law enforcement officers, and wanting to do it right, for us to allow, and excuse, this kind of behavior.
There may have been a time when you could trust the majority of them, but how much evidence to the contrary do we need in order to accept that this is no longer the case?
"There may have been a time when you could trust the majority of them"
Maybe, but I doubt it. People haven't gotten worse. They have, however, gotten easier to catch. And word spreads much faster today. Cops have been dirty since the beginning of time, and I'm not sure there is any reason to believe otherwise.
Our police forces started out as private security companies like the Pinkertons. I am sure that their behavior has goten beter since they are now public servants and video is begining to help as well.
Sorta thinking outside the box for how to remedy this disgusting arrangement, Jello Biafra (he of Dead Kennedys fame) ran for mayor of San Francisco several times. One of his key tenets was the idea that cops run for elections in the precincts they patrol. His idea was basically that every 5 years or so, the people of an area get to vote in who they want to keep the peace.
It's probably untenable, but I really like the idea that the people who live in an area and know the real threats to their world get a voice in who has police power. Furthermore, methinks more cops would change their behavior when they realize their asses can get dropped if they aren't pleasing the constituents. It can remind them where they derive their power from.
Yeah, a cop here in Chicago just got probation and community service for beating the sh*t out of a polish (female) bartender half his size. He was drunk and off duty and she quit serving him, so this 300 pound gorilla threw this 125 pound bartender to the floor, etc. see here.
Minority or female, you're damned if you do and damned if you don't.
Read the comments below the story. They are by cops. The site is a cop website.
Thanks for pointing this out. Just replying to make this comment stick out. The commenters, to a one, appear to support firing the officer.
That's an important point and I was heartened by it for a while.
But, look back at Cynic's excellent post above and realize; it's easy for those police officers to be disgusted with this guy and say things like 'these guys make us all look bad'. They don't know this guy.
They don't care about him, so it's easy for them to push him off the island. They didn't go to the union picnic with him and meet his wife and kids, they never comiserated about the pay and looking forward to big pension with benefits at age 50. They never have to worry about that county's DA's office or Internal Affairs and how they'll be treated in a case where they are at-risk and the facts are actually gray vs. clear cut here. This is no different than people being up in arms about Iranian protesters being detained and probably tortured while saying that investigating our own former leaders for torturing 'detainees'. Easy to criticize someone far away, let's see how they do when it's them under threat.
The incentives are all wrong. They need to be fixed.
Whoops, forgot to finish that sentence:
"while saying that investigating our own former leaders for torturing 'detainees' is just political or too divisive. We gotta keep moving forward."
Part of the problem is the way our society conflates right/wrong and legal/illegal. This leads to all maner of errors like, "He was not convicted, so he did not do anything wrong." or the unrelated to this discussion, "If we make it legal we are saying it is OK."
I personally think that we should hold the police and other public servants, including elected officials, to a higher standard of behavior than the base line minimum that it takes to stay out of jail but apparantly this is a minority view. Most people will agree that it is true in principal but their votes or activisim show that agreement is at best conditional when it comes down to any particular incident. We neither fire the dangerous cop nor fail to re-elect the corupt pol.
i've cross-examined plenty of cops on the witness stand.
i've even taught criminal justice students who were hoping to become cops.
i've come to this conclusion: almost any person who would say something like this:
"i've always wanted to be a police officer...", or,
"i've wanted to be a police officer for a long time...",
that person should be allowed anywhere near a badge and a gun.
the students would joke about having and using the kind of power they hoped to have as cops.
the cops obviously relished the incredible authority they enjoyed, despite their typically limited education.
limited, relatively, that is.
i'm not quite sure how you could compile a police department, under those circumstances, but there is no question that a certain type of personality, one that enjoys holding and using power over others, is typically attracted to the job.
not allowing that type of person in a department should be a priority for any police department.
I don't know enough cops to know whether anyone who "always wanted to be a cop" should be kept off the police force. But I do know enough to believe that it is a profession in which megalomaniacal jerks are vastly overrepresented. (Another is medicine, which attracts a slightly different kind of megalomaniacal jerk). I suspect this is one instance where TV bears some of the blame. "I'd make an awesome cop! I love to shoot guns and beat people up!"
To be fair, I also know some teriffic policemen, so this is far from an indictment of all cops.
I used to work security with a really nice, decent, intelligent guy who interviewed with a suburban police department in the Dallas area. He left the interview a little freaked out because the majority of the interview dealt with how often he had beaten people up and his propensity to get into fist-fights.
He was a low-key guy and the cops interviewing him seemed unwilling to hire a someone that lacked a taste for violence.
He eventually switched careers and quit wanting to be a cop and the city was poorer for it.
No everyone can't, or shouldn't, be a cop but the problem is partly one of recruiting. If you cut out the people who are in it for the guns,speeding, and power the pool gets pretty small. And then there are the ugly realities of the daily grind which doesn't do much for the soul, as it has been explained to me you get hard or you get chewed up (even then many, but not enough, burned out cops in therapy on the sly). This question of not firing people has to do with the kind of military type brotherhood of soldiers in a war mentality. That and once they start looking at who might not be fit to serve there could be a lot of pensions on the line. This is not acceptable but what are we doing to change it? How many of us try and get to know, or at least say hello, to the cops we run into during the day? We are starting to treat soldiers like human being maybe cops are next. As for the bad apples in your neighborhood join the citizens review board or if there isn't one start one. Top cops are political animals so if you bring the noise till it hurts things may get a bit better.
"How many of us try and get to know, or at least say hello, to the cops we run into during the day?"
That strikes me as a very bad idea, in many cases, for a couple of reasons. First, from what I've seen, petty criminals often seem to go out of their way to get friendly with cops. Maybe they get the same euphoric feeling that snake-handlers get, or maybe they merely enjoy outwitting cops.
Second, it's just not a good idea to make yourself conspicuous to a person wielding a handgun. It just isn't. This is a matter of common sense. Anyone who has been forced to deal with a dickhead cop (lord knows I have) understands that police are more dangerous and unpredictable than a wild animal. Steer clear.
How many of us try and get to know, or at least say hello, to the cops we run into during the day?
I do when I see them in person, but it's impossible if they are in their car. It's not like you can go up and talk to an officer sitting in a car in the middle of traffic. I still maintain that one of the problems is in many areas it seems 99% of the police are in patrol cars. It's possible if they were on the beat instead we'd see each other as a little more human.
old-school community policing is making a come back, or was before the economic downturn. I think that just like the shift in the military to counter-insurgency work many chiefs were starting to realize that if you make peace with the majority of folks who are just trying to get on with the business of daily life then its gets much easier to weed out the bad seeds. When I was younger I had a lot of bad experiences with cops, anyone else enjoy the Giuliani days of trying to sit on your front stoop (I know TnC I know) when the police decided that you shouldn't be allowed outside, but having had some experience of the other side of it I see that we need each other. There is a kind of trust that comes with knowing somebody that just may save lives. Plus what would life be like without the police? Who ya gonna call?
And it's also a dangerous job. Less dangerous than it is on TV, but more than you think. Next time you're pulled over, remember that traffic stops are the second most dangerous thing cops do (after domestic disputes).
Part of the solidarity thing is natural. Part of it is an urge for safety. I don't think anyone wants to think that s/he would be second-guessed after using is or her own gun.
And police can also develop an in-group contempt for the general public, whom they are intended to serve, because so much of police work is about dealing with people at their worst, one way or another. When you aren't dealing with actual criminals, you're dealing with angry people, complaining people, unreasonable people. You're standing in the rain because some drivers don't have the sense to give enough space to an accident scene. You're in some married couple's kitchen while they shriek at each other. It leads to an Us vs. Them mentality, all too soon.
I would have to imagine that a large-scale return to the "beat-cop" mode of operating would alleviate much of this problem. Instead of roaming gangs of cops in neighborhoods unfamiliar to them trying to spot stuff that's "wrong", you would get much more solidarity with the community. When there's a problem in the neighborhood, the first one on the scene would be the "neighborhood cop" who understands the neighborhood and the people involved.
Meh.... it's a dangerous job, but corruption spreads. Too easy, and too tempting, for organized crime to get a rap on a cop.
In-group stuff is all well and good until someone in your group shoots you in the back.
There's a reason some nations' response to this kind of crime is so draconian.
Yes. I'm not trying to justify police corruption. Nor their in-group mentality. I'm trying to explain it. I also don't think contempt for the rest of humanity is a good thing for cops to have, but many have it and there are reasons they develop it.
But I will say that at this point completely rooting out the culture of corruption in any large city force (or large metro area force) would be an enormous undertaking.
The Secret Service and the FBI have no problem hiring people who are not on an ego trip or have anger problems. If police departments across the country embraced how the government hires these people then I think things would be a lot better.
This topic was rattling around in my head while I was at the gym and think it is all related to power and perception of the lack of power the victims of police abuse have. Race, gender, sexuality all are aggreviating factors in that they heighten the perceived difference in power between the cop and the citizen. Police abuse is a more serious form of bullying. It is the abuse of the "weak" by the "strong". Bullies don't generally pick on the strong, they pick on the weak. I suspect that in the Henry Gates incident if he had been a white harvard professor he probably would not have been treated the same way by the cop, but I also suspect if he had not been a black harvard professor but been a black blue-collar worker he would have been treated even worse. In the incident above in Philly would this cop have treated a black man or woman different, I suspect so, just as I suspect if instead she had been a middle-aged white guy in a suit it would have gone down differently.
I'm not saying that bad cops have a checklist in their head that they run through before going off on someone but just that these factors are all probably playing some part in the cops head, consciously or unconsciously, as they interact with the public.
Yeah, that's basically my opinion as well.
I'm sure there are genuinely racist cops out there, and plenty of them. But I'd guess that in a lot of cases they're making a decision based on what they can get away with. And unfortunately, they can get away with way, way too much.
I am from a city where nearly 1 in every 3 dollars budgeted for the Police Department...
is used to PAY POLICE MISCONDUCT SETTLEMENTS.
think about that.
someone posted over at Booman Tribune that there were 10,000 complaints made against my police department..
and only 19 were found to be ' warranted'?
Hell no.
NO, I don't trust the police . NO, I don't think I'll ever trust them.
but, there is a way for police to regain 'respect', if not trust.
1. they must be policed.
2. they must be held accountable
3. they must be fired when found to be rogue
nothing erodes away the trust faster than the repeat of the story you just published, Coates.
I share your frustration with these sort of statistics. But bear in mind that when you start to drill down things become much grayer. Here in NY the city will settle with just about anyone for just about anything to avoid the expense in dollars and manpower of going to court. Were a majority of those suits justified? Maybe. Maybe not. The dollar amount spent to settle doesn't answer that question. As to oversight and civilian complaints, we have CCRB here in NY which is a civilian run oversight board. It is incredibly easy to file a complaint and get it substantiated, even if it has no basis in reality. It's not unheard of for an officer to have a CCRB complaint filed against him/her for an incident that occured when he/she wasn't even working. Figure that one out!
I don't mean to dismiss your frustration, especially not knowing your personal experience, but be wary of drawing conclusions based on complaint and settlement statistics.
Update to the story - after the news report, the cop is now on desk duty:
http://www.philly.com/philly/hp/news_update/51374802.html
Thankfully he's off the street now, thanks to Monday's news story. At least temporarily.
First, a small personal cop run-in and then I harbor a dark secret that I need help with.
In the late 1960s, as penniless film auteurs wannabees, my two partners and I experienced "protect a fellow cop" firsthand. My pals were dropping me off after picking up film equipment in a rented van (a major sacrifice for the penniless). Out of nowhere, as I was just about to step out, a car almost took the door off the van. The lieutenant and his sergeant who rushed out of the offending car could almost not stand up, they were so drunk. They flashed badges and berated us and took us down to the 4th precinct building in their unmarked car. Once there, fellow officers took us aside and begged us, cajoled, threatened us to forget the incident. But the damage to the rented vehicle couldn't be overlooked by paupers like us. Because we were somewhat respectable white folks, they wrote up a report of a hit-and-run incident. There was no way out but to accept the solution, because they hinted at arrest otherwise.
Now my secret, wrung out of me by the Chicago bar attack by Abbate, things a white person experiences when other white people think there are no "others" around, and having lived in an Italian blue-collar NY neighborhood (the kind with big Mafia influence): I am pretty prejudiced against some types of working-class Southern Italians. Why are they among the most racist Americans? I'm thinking of the picture of the California local official, Gary Frago, who sent around the racist emails; there's a type of guy I don't give the benefit of the doubt to. Tom Tancredo? I'm sure his grandmother only spoke Italian so shut up about English.
Can you help me think through this, all you reasonable commentors on TNC's great blog. I've been put in so many uncomfortable moments where I struggle to respond reasonably to their "we're all white folks together" comments without losing my cool and making a scene. I did last fall during the campaign and I was punished socially for it.(It's the worst when my economic survival demands that I just keep quiet; my sister is so good at being forthright but truthful in shutting down such conversations at her workplace; I get too mad but too placating at the same time. Bad with conflict.)
Italians out there, help me get over my reactions because I love Italy the country.
I'm only to a small part Italian (grandmother) but I know the country a little bit. I'm not sure if you really think that Tom Tancredo or the people in your neighbourhood are racist because of their Italianità.
However, if you went to Italy and talked about race with all kinds of people, you would probably come back with the impression that Italians are more racist than the average white American. You would hear things the average white American wouldn't say. It would not all be hate speech, mainly offensive remarks and dim-witted jokes. That's Europe. There are hundreds of reasons why racism is different in Europe than in America but I want to stress one in particular, as it relates to something that was discussed on this blog in the recent days. There are no Al Sharptons in Europe. When Silvio Berlusconi (northern-Italian, not part of the working class) commented on Obama being "suntanned" some Italians posted pictures of themselves in blackface as a sign of solidarity. There was no ill intention, but I doubt that a lot of black Americans appreciated it all that much. Racism in Europe is mainly fought, discussed and settled by white people. The reason why more and more people stop talking about nègres or neger is because white people have decided amongst themselves that it's no longer appropriate. But in all the discussions about racism, some white person will at some point say: "Ok. I think that's enough now. We have more important things to care about, so let's move on". There are no black "ambassadors" who have political power and make noise as long as they want to.
It varies. At best, it's moderately difficult, in a standard civil-service way, to get rid of rogue cops. Then you have places, usually in big cities with longstanding police unionization and family/ethnic histories of police service, where it's impossible because there isn't any recognition that "rogue cop" is a possibility: if you're a cop, and if you're coming out of that family/ethnic history, you're constitutionally incapable of misconduct. Philadelphia, like New York, is one of those latter places.
I'm surprised you're surprised (this to TNC, and the rest of you, too). This sort of thing happens *all the time*. To everyone. That's what cops do. You can pick up any newspaper from any small city in America and read about this sort of incident on a weekly basis -- and that's the stuff that gets out, in a law-and-order society in which cops are given the benefit, by a very large margin, of the doubt. I posted something to another entry here about the cops in Maryland who raided the (white) Mayor's house and shot his dogs -- not knowing he was the Mayor -- because someone had left a package on his porch.
As a more or less law-abiding, middle class, middle-aged white American, I have never, ever, had an encounter with the police where I wasn't struck by their arrogance, their stupidity, and their rage (any of you journalists out there, try doing a ride-along sometime with a cop who thinks you like law enforcement). It happens all the time, and I don't think much is mitigated by saying 'Well, it's a tough and dangerous job...' Cabbies get murdered more often than cops do.
Why? I think Frankie D is pretty much right: if you want to know why cops are the way they are, ask yourself who becomes a police officer -- why and how, for example, they're different than people who become soldiers. You have to want to tell other people what to do, you have to be desperate for authority, you have to think you have all the answers.
Sorry to go off, here, but I think a number of you are trying to be more understanding of law enforcement than is warranted.
There is certainly something to what you've said. There are a lot of stupid, asshat cops roaming around out there. But your attitude towards the police you are dealing with also matters a great deal. I've dealt with my share of arrogant cops, but I can also usually cool the situation by "giving the baby it's bottle" and, basically, kissing ass. (Be polite, smile, keep your hands visible, etc.) I've been arrested quite a few times (deservedly so) but even then, you can usually strike up SOME rapport with the cops involved IF you make them feel safe in their authority. (Yelling and screaming at a cop never did anyone any good . . . ever.) Also, there is difference in the perceived threat of the police and the actual threat.
An Ohio State Patrolman I know told me a story of a day when he was out on patrol on a peaceful highway. He was driving along, enjoying the scenery and the tranquility of nature when, out of nowhere, the car in front of him swerved off the highway onto a side street at fifty miles an hour, lost control, and ended up in a ditch. He was puzzled by it, because the car had been in front of him for a good half hour and the driver hadn't done anything erratic until now.
When he stopped, a woman jumped out of the car and started screaming at the patrolman. "You son of a bitch," she yelled. "You've been following us for a half an hour. My son just got his learner's permit, and you scared him to death, so he tried to turn without putting on the brakes!"
This is a situation where the mere presence of the police has jacked up the tension level. My patrolman friend hadn't even been paying attention to the car in front of him, but for that young driver is was sheer terror. And most of us have experienced that, at one point or another. Who doesn't get nervous when you're driving and there's a cop behind you?
It's yet another example of why the police and the people they are there to protect really need to be a lot closer . . . physically and psychologically. Even the jackass cops you describe would be more likely to moderate their attitude if they dealt with the same people in the same neighborhood day in and day out.
This is a great comment. It really does boil down to "who really wants to be a cop?" It's basic psychology, but I don't know how you change it, other than maybe to have more "civilian" civil servants.
This was meant for for Faivel, my fault
And mine was *not* meant to be a reply to Rich in PA. Sorry about that, Rich: must've looked like I was jumping down your throat for nothing.
I see I am really late to this thread so I am not sure how many people will read it but here goes.
Radley Balko chronicles incidents like this all the time, focusing mostly on SWAT raids gone bad, but highlighting incidents like this as well. He blogs at http://www.theagitator.com/ and is a must read, at least until you start to assume every cop is about to throw you down and beat you. Then take a break. His recent post at the Daily Beast on Puppycides is a winner.
I mention this to highlight another Philadelphia cop story. Balko has been updating his readers fairly frequently on a "rogue" narcotics unit that has been, among other things, shaking down grocery stores run by recent immigrants. Under the guise of enforcing some law that prohibits selling small zip lock baggies to drug dealers they have allegedly stolen money and food, trashed their store, and ultimately arrested the owners. What's striking is that before they do this they are caught on tape disconnecting the security cameras. So there is no tape, so no proof, but there is tape of them stopping the tapping. Clever no?
I wonder if that is a reaction to this case. I would have to go back and look at the time line.
And I forgot to leave links for stories on this unit. There are so many. Go to the Philly INquirer page and search for their ring leader's name "Cujdik." More articles than you have time to read.
The Agitator is amazing.
Can you imagine if the races were reversed? It would be a bigger story than the moon landing.
That's unknowable because you change that fact and it could change other things. Perhaps if the races were reversed the clerk would have erased the tape and then it would have just been the cop's word against the word of the victim.
Without the video it's routine and would just be buried. Video makes all the difference, like that video of the cop tasering the 70 year grandmother during the traffic stop. Without the video it doesn't become that big a story.
You are probably doing a better job as a cop on this blog. I like the way you take out/delete opinions you don't agree with.
No, I just ban people I don't agree with. But you already knew that.
It's interesting to think about American policing in light of the BBC's report comparing social mobility.
One thing to note, aside from the power hunger, is that relatively limited social mobility in the United States would tend to make policing a lower-middle class/working class job, rather than a lower-middle class job for those who are good at it.
So not only do you get the folks who'd like power via a badge and a gun, but also the folks who'd like money, but know that policing's the best gig they can get.
this anecdote plays nicely into this story and the one regarding the incident in cambridge:
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/07/benefits-of-doubts.html
Why aren't bad cops fired? It's the Peter Principle in action. If an incompetent supervisor starts firing his unqualified cops, guess who's next on the chopping block?
Joel hit the nail squarely--apply the same principal in teaching, too. Incomptency rises to it highest level.
We just went through this in Inglewood, Ca. Police csare the hell out of a resident banging on the door in the middle of the night. Dude--who was a postal employee in my neighborhood and a damn nice one, at that--answered the door like many folks here might--with a .45 drawn. Cops fire first ask questions later. Investigation and much marching/speeching by local activists.
Wouldn't you know--the same trigger-happy cop was investigated months previously for similar act. The beat goes on...
David Milch has a fairly grim take on this -- you can hear it in an interview here. (Sorry, I don't know of a free version.)
Essentially what he says is that we -- more or less law-abiding society -- have struck a devil's bargain. In exchange for order, we have agreed to turn a blind eye to what we know is by its nature and of necessity a very brutal and dirty business. We have agreed to cede a vast province of authority to a group of people in exchange for two things: first, that, in public, they enact a pantomime of deference to due process and temperance and regulation; second, and most importantly (for society), that they keep things -- crime; bad behavior; danger; what have you -- under control. For our part we have agreed not to ask too many questions about what they do (unless and until its spills over in the public realm, which is a violation of the first term of the contract), and we've agreed not to ask too many questions about what it -- the job -- does to them.
Milch's view -- and it sounds reasonably accurate to me -- is that there is an inherent tension that we resolve by essentially ignoring it. In truth, there is no way to police human society without a certain degree of brutality; it can't be done. The job we ask the police to do, like the job we ask soldiers to do, is violent, dangerous, and a little sociopathic by definition. It can't be done without deception, threats, intimidation, occasional acts of outright violence. As such it's soulkilling not just to those to whom its done -- many of whom, it must be remembered, really *are* bad folk -- but also to those who do it, and to those of us on whose behalf it's done. That the violence inherent in the role police play can always be controlled or contained is a fiction we insist on because it lets us all sleep at night. In reality, it can't be. It slips and seeps. We try to keep this seepage minimal, and we try to hide it when it happens; but now and then it gets out for everyone to see.
This, blended with some of the more specific reasons others have cited, is why cops are cut so much slack when they f#ck up. We'd rather not dig too deeply into the dark corners of that bargain.
Matt Yglesias has a similar post today along there lines.
http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/archives/2009/07/bias-racism-being-a-jerk-and-abuse-of-power.php