Dog Brothers Public Forum
Return To Homepage
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
November 28, 2014, 07:30:25 PM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Welcome to the Dog Brothers Public Forum.
83472 Posts in 2260 Topics by 1067 Members
Latest Member: Shinobi Dog
* Home Help Search Login Register
+  Dog Brothers Public Forum
|-+  DBMA Martial Arts Forum
| |-+  Martial Arts Topics
| | |-+  Law Enforcement issues and LE in action
« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 6 7 [8] 9 10 ... 12 Print
Author Topic: Law Enforcement issues and LE in action  (Read 112142 times)
JDN
Power User
***
Posts: 2004


« Reply #350 on: September 25, 2011, 02:11:42 PM »

GM; I'm missing something here.  I conceded that in the heat of the moment, when the police officer is alone,
it's dark, probably there is no question the perp is a bad guy, if goes to his waist against direct instructions.....  "mistakes" will
be made, but UNDERSTANDABLE in my opinion.  I am NOT trying to second guess these types of shootings.  Frankly, I think, perhaps naively that the Officer himself after the fact will feel bad and regret his decision to shoot, however looking back he probably had no choice.  I UNDERSTAND....

What I do not understand is Ramos....  Read the facts.  He may well get off, statistics show the public is very reluctant to convict a police officer regardless of the facts, however IMHO Ramos is a bad apple.  He gives the whole force, who I truly respect, a bad name.  Sorry, but it's NOT understandable.  You and I might disagree on issues, but I have no doubt you are sincere; on duty, you are trying to do the right thing - to serve and protect; you a good cop. I'm surprised you are so vehemently defending him.

It's like the surgeon who makes  the wrong call and the patient dies.  Not good, but understandable.  But I knew a surgeon a few years ago who showed up drunk a lot and still did surgery.  His peers covered for him.  But I don't understand.  That's not a "mistake" that's criminal wrongdoing IMHO. 

There is a difference.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12140


« Reply #351 on: September 25, 2011, 03:59:55 PM »

What I do not understand is Ramos....  Read the facts.  He may well get off, statistics show the public is very reluctant to convict a police officer regardless of the facts, however IMHO Ramos is a bad apple.

**I do not know if Ramos was right or wrong. Neither do you.

I'm surprised you are so vehemently defending him.

**I won't render a judgement until all the facts are in. The only time the media will use the "cop as a hero narrative" is if the officer was critically injured/killed. Otherwise the street person was just a poor little lamb and Ramos and the other officers are just eviiiiiiiiil brutes is what the media will run with. They'll never let the truth get in the way of a good story.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12140


« Reply #352 on: September 25, 2011, 04:11:20 PM »

I was working with a veteran officer when the Kobe Bryant case first hit the news, that officer made a statement assuming Bryant was guilty. I pointed out to the officer that there was no way of knowing without actually working the case. I pointed out how many cases he had worked where the accusation was unfounded. He agreed. I'm not an advocate for Kobe, but I understand that just because someone is accused of wrongdoing doesn't mean the accusation is true.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31702


« Reply #353 on: September 27, 2011, 09:57:24 AM »

Apparently the deceased in the Ramos case had a conviction for hitting his grandfather with a fire poker , , ,
Logged
JDN
Power User
***
Posts: 2004


« Reply #354 on: September 27, 2011, 10:14:04 AM »

Apparently the deceased in the Ramos case had a conviction for hitting his grandfather with a fire poker , , ,

So?  That was 17 years ago.  The Officers had no idea of that at the time they were busy beating Thomas to death aka the "deceased". 

Also, did you notice that the Judge did not reduce bail from $1,000.000.  I guess he too thinks the crime
is pretty bad and doesn't think much of Ramos.   shocked

I hope he's in general lockup (he's not at great cost to the county).  Why give him special treatment? 
And oh yeah, our tax dollars are paying big bucks for his high profile attorney.  More money...

What would you and I get if we were arrested for beating a guy to death and charged with 2nd Degree Murder?
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31702


« Reply #355 on: September 27, 2011, 11:40:30 AM »

"Apparently the deceased in the Ramos case had a conviction for hitting his grandfather with a fire poker , , ,"
"So?  That was 17 years ago.  The Officers had no idea of that at the time they were busy beating Thomas to death aka the "deceased"."

I get that, but it seems entirely possible to me that someone who at any point in his life was capable of hitting his grandfather with a fire poker may have , , , certain vibrations detectable on an animal level.

"I hope he's in general lockup (he's not at great cost to the county).  Why give him special treatment?"

Because he is a policeman and policemen in prison are subject to unique dangers.  I gotta say this comment of yours strikes me as remarkably petty.
 
"And oh yeah, our tax dollars are paying big bucks for his high profile attorney.  More money..."

Because of what they do for us, police regularly are in hellacious situations.  They serve to know that should the excrement hit the legal fan for them that their families will not face financial destruction if they fight the charges.

Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12140


« Reply #356 on: September 27, 2011, 11:46:11 AM »

Where did you get the idea that the public pays for a defense attorney for a law enforcement officer, JDN?
Logged
JDN
Power User
***
Posts: 2004


« Reply #357 on: September 27, 2011, 12:14:39 PM »

I'm on my way out the door, but it was my understanding that public employees, police included, if while performing the duties of their job, are accused of inappropriate behavior, will usually be given a defense attorney paid for by the city?

Not true in Ramo's case?  Maybe not...  I'll check into later.  But, you may be right.  I hope you are right; I agree; there is no reason why the public should pay.

http://law.justia.com/cases/california/caapp4th/27/168.html

But then it's the Union (you know, Unions that everyone seems to hate here on this forum) that will pay for his defense.

Unlike the average citizen, Ramos isn't paying out of his pocket.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6107


« Reply #358 on: September 27, 2011, 12:16:57 PM »

"I was working with a veteran officer when the Kobe Bryant case first hit the news, that officer made a statement assuming Bryant was guilty..."

Not sure how it ties to the current discussion, but I read the police interview transcript of Kobe at the time.  Seemed pretty obvious that he was guilty of adultery not rape.  http://www.vaildaily.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20040915/NEWS/40916001
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12140


« Reply #359 on: September 27, 2011, 12:17:28 PM »

One need not have a union to have a legal defense plan.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12140


« Reply #360 on: September 27, 2011, 12:19:38 PM »

"I was working with a veteran officer when the Kobe Bryant case first hit the news, that officer made a statement assuming Bryant was guilty..."

Not sure how it ties to the current discussion, but I read the police interview transcript of Kobe at the time.  Seemed pretty obvious that he was guilty of adultery not rape.  http://www.vaildaily.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20040915/NEWS/40916001

Because, the officer assumed Kobe was guilty based on the media spin, when he should have known that sexual assault cases are complex and it's very rarely easy to assume guilt or innocence in most any case.
Logged
JDN
Power User
***
Posts: 2004


« Reply #361 on: September 29, 2011, 09:46:29 AM »

Any death is tragic, but some are more understandable than others.

"Zerby, 35,  was in a seated position on Dec. 12, 2010, when he extended his arms while holding a gun-like object and pointed it at an officer, police said. He was shot in the torso with a shotgun and handgun and died at the scene."

As has been pointed out, if the Officer feared for his life (not knowing is was a toy pistol) I understand.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2011/09/activists-long-beach-police-killings.html

Logged
JDN
Power User
***
Posts: 2004


« Reply #362 on: September 29, 2011, 09:49:37 AM »

On another matter, seemingly more egregious, Ramos posted bail.  I look forward to following this case.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2011/09/fullerton-officer-manuel-ramos-bails-out-of-jail.html
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31702


« Reply #363 on: September 29, 2011, 03:03:39 PM »

C'mon JDN, you know better than this.   angry With sufficient bail to ensure appearance (one million dollars here would seem to more than meet that requirement!) this is what the American Constitution calls for.  You know, that "innocent until proven guilty stuff" , , ,
Logged
JDN
Power User
***
Posts: 2004


« Reply #364 on: September 29, 2011, 03:22:37 PM »

I think you misinterpreted me or I wasn't very clear.  Sorry.   sad

In my previous post (Zerby) I commented how, although sad, I understood the shooting.  Despite the outcries and sadness of the situation, IMHO no trial or indictment of the Officer is appropriate.  I assume there may be civil liability.

In the Ramos matter, although it is IS more serious and brutal, I merely pointed out that he has indeed posted bail.  Understandable.  Frankly I thought the 1M bail a bit high - more than sufficient given that the suspect is a Police Officer.  I thought the Judge would have reduced it.  Of course Ramos is entitled to bail.  And of course he is "innocent until proven guilty".  Then again I can have an opinion as to his guilt.  I mean I thought OJ was guilty too, but he was never found guilty in criminal court.  What do I know?

As for bail, 1M is tough.  Since he posted bond, he basically throws in the trash can 7-10% of that or almost $100,000.  I think it was nice of his fellow officers to raise the money and/or his Union to provide the money.  Or maybe he had saved the money.  In any event, it's a lot of money out the window.

But to reiterate, I have absolutely no problem with him making bail; good for him. 
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31702


« Reply #365 on: September 29, 2011, 08:11:39 PM »

Ah well then-- the "more egregious" is what threw me off  smiley
Logged
Hello Kitty
Guest
« Reply #366 on: September 29, 2011, 10:38:17 PM »

I can't think of the last time I heard "my fists are going to f--k you up at a firing range." In fact, I find that when everyone, and I do mean everyone, is armed, people are extremely polite and well behaved, then again, I support that.
If the deceased, and other citizens were all armed, this wouldn't have ever happened.
Ramos? I have my thoughts, and it isn't because I'm a thug or cowardly. I know what I've seen in real life.
They put down an unarmed man, with several officers on the scene (and GM, I respect you quite a bit, but you're understandably biased in this), if this isn't an argument supporting police being minimalized within society in favour of citizens being more responsible for policing their communities, I don't know what is.
My two cents.
Ps. I loathe criminals and I'm far from being someone that isn't willing to let it "all hang out" as far as risking my life.
Again, respect to people that put their lives on the line in service to others. Still, things often get taken way to far and I've seen it several times with my own eyes, both here and abroad, hence my opinion for people holding the power (firearms - because that's really where the power comes from, isn't it?).
Logged
Hello Kitty
Guest
« Reply #367 on: September 29, 2011, 10:45:53 PM »

*too* far. Forgive the typo, and the misplaced quotation mark. I typed this on my Blackberry and proof reading is difficult. I don't wish to edit it as it may appear I deleted or changed something. My apologies.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12140


« Reply #368 on: September 30, 2011, 08:19:03 AM »

DF,

So if the violent street person with a long criminal history and mental illness that was a suspected in car burglaries was armed, this wouldn't have happened?
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12140


« Reply #369 on: September 30, 2011, 08:29:17 AM »

DF, JDN,

Please tell me about all the street persons with psych issues you've successfully restrained without incident. Perhaps you have insights and experiences I'm unaware of.

Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31702


« Reply #370 on: September 30, 2011, 10:22:07 AM »

While awaiting DF's reply, here is this:

Acknowledging Furtive Movement: Gun Gazer Tango
Posted: 30 Sep 2011 04:53 AM PDT
Editor’s Note:This is a guest post from The Chaplain. The Chaplain’s bio is at the end of this article.

During my first few years as a Law Enforcement Officer I had the experience of working with many back country Rural Police Officers. When you’re working in Southeastern Oklahoma or Western Arkansas as a Law Enforcement Officer you have to be pretty self-sufficient. Many times back-up for incidents and traffic stops is just a dream if nothing more. One lesson I took from a mentoring officer in dealing with gun gazing subjects has served me well over the 20 plus years of surviving the badge.

Big Jerry I called him, and said it with a respectful tone, when addressing him as a rookie looking to make his way. He was a mountain of a man at 6’2 and well over 300 Lbs of corn fed muscle. To ask if he ever played football was to ask if Superman ever wore a cape. He seemed a one man tactical unit at times and had a forceful presence without even saying a word. He certainly was the kind of man you would want to walk in a dark alley with as versus encountering him in one. Big Jerry worked the little towns on the state line and could handle pretty much anything that came his way. He imparted a morsel of wisdom to me one day in dealing with those you catch eyeing your firearm. Jerry’s tactic was to stop whatever he was doing and immediately let the suspect know that he was aware of his gazing in a very abrupt manner. This served most often to defuse a potential situation.

Over the years I have heard many a young officer speak of how the subject was eyeing his weapon and becoming mentally prepared for the potential coming altercation. However, concerning this subject matter an ounce of prevention is certainly worth using to prevent the pound of trouble that comes your way should you end up struggling for your weapon. For those that have never lived through such a situation I can tell you first hand it is as certainly a life threatening dangerous as any vehicle accident or shooting you could ever get into.
We know that the majority of Line of Duty Deaths every year, roughly 70 out of 150, are by murder, many times by firearm and all too often with the officer’s own weapon. This is the very reason we strive to secure body armor that will at least stop the round from of our own weapon.

When considering that the majority of human communication is non- verbal we certainly enter the realm of dealing with furtive movement. Normally this type of movement by the suspect we see as coming from their posture or hand positioning. Are they taking a stance and preparing to fight us? However, where the eyes wonder the hands may attempt to claim in the end game.

Therefore when observing that your suspect is frequently taking sneak peeks at your weapon, particularly a holster ed side arm, it is not out of the level of most use of force models, officer presence being the beginning, to stop what you are doing and advise the suspect, “Look, I see that you are looking at my weapon and I assure you that you don’t want to see it. Because if I have to draw it then there is going to be trouble and that you don’t want.”

This type of address to the suspect, while implying a threat, is well within our most common Use of Force parameters. Letting the suspect know that you know and that they will have a huge fight on their hands should they make that move could de escalate a situation. Of course in the world of dealing with loud obnoxious drunks this tactic could serve to escalate the situation. So, it is important to pick the right suspect on which to utilize this technique. However, it has been my experience that the majority of the time this will ward off the gun gazer from further issues.

About the Author: The Chaplain
The Chaplain is a nom de plume or pen name for the Senior Border Patrol Agent who wrote this article.
Post from: Spartan Cops

Acknowledging Furtive Movement: Gun Gazer Tango
Logged
Hello Kitty
Guest
« Reply #371 on: September 30, 2011, 11:39:09 AM »

DF, JDN,

Please tell me about all the street persons with psych issues you've successfully restrained without incident. Perhaps you have insights and experiences I'm unaware of.



Guro,

You know that no-one is going to restrain a person with psychotic issues without incident. I would never say that is possible and honestly, in my view, murder is too hard for Ramos. I believe it to be either manslaughter or negligent homicide.

I suppose that my chief axe to grind is when someone is being tased, screaming *edit "screeming" (sic)to "screaming"* for help, and there are a plethora of armed, trained officers on scene, ready to assist, I'm having a hrd time seeing why this had to have the outcome that it did.

I respect member of the law enforcment community. I do not advocate them being the only one with firearms.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

To me, this means that evertyone has not only the right, but the responsibility to be armed, to insure that these things don't hapen on either side of the law.
« Last Edit: September 30, 2011, 01:25:51 PM by DF » Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12140


« Reply #372 on: September 30, 2011, 01:20:48 PM »

First of all, I can tell you that dealing with a schizopherenic individual, they may say or yell something at anytime that may or may not apply to the situation at hand. I know this for actual, real world experience.
Logged
Hello Kitty
Guest
« Reply #373 on: September 30, 2011, 01:30:09 PM »

First of all, I can tell you that dealing with a schizophrenic individual, they may say or yell something at anytime that may or may not apply to the situation at hand. I know this for actual, real world experience.
GM,

What do you think of when an officer is going to far and the others fail to intervene? There is a fraternal atmosphere that exists (and I'm not maintaining that there shouldn't be), but I am asking why officers that are watching another officer cross a line, why they don't step in at that moment. Apart from this incident, there are several examples - The beating of the college student in Maryland comes to mind.

Ad note: the only reason we learn of half of these on a public scale is due to the advent of the digital age, otherwise we, as the public, would hear little or nothing about it.

Thoughts?
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12140


« Reply #374 on: September 30, 2011, 01:31:48 PM »

Exactly what line do you imagine was crossed?
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12140


« Reply #375 on: September 30, 2011, 01:42:09 PM »

"Ad note: the only reason we learn of half of these on a public scale is due to the advent of the digital age, otherwise we, as the public, would hear little or nothing about it."

The public learns what's in the media's agenda. I note in the coverage i've seen thus far there is nothing that brings up the difficulties that officers face in dealing with the sometimes very violent and dangerous mentally ill on our streets. The reporting has been very sparse on the violent history of the decedent in this case and despite the many booking photos they could use, they use the well groomed/clean cut pictures supplied by the family. Why? Because the narrative is the cops are wrong and the homeless are the good guys. The media is selective in what they show you in order to push that narrative and you are buying that narrative as they intend that you do.

Logged
Hello Kitty
Guest
« Reply #376 on: September 30, 2011, 05:42:45 PM »

GM, point taken and you're right inasmuch as what the media's portrayal is. I'm not buying anything. I, like you, have seen what I have seen.
I'm not imagining that one unarmed man, was not taken into custody by several armed officers, because he wound up dead. Maybe that was an accident or incompetence. Who's to say? The fact of the matter is they failed to bring the "suspect" in alive...even with their training.
I'm aware of the twenty-one foot rule and I'm aware of how fast someone can be shot. Neither or these seemed to concern Ramos as he went forward threatening violence.
I would also like to note that aside from my personal beliefs and feeling (my opinion basically), the fact that police work is indeed dangerous (no-one is saying that it isn't), doesn't mean that the police should have Cart Blanche, everytime they drop the ball, and not because some sort of vindictive pound of flesh is required in order to placate the public, but simply because every single person should be accountable for their actions, you, me, them... That's either a guiding principle or it's not. If it is not to be, it is clear that they are above the law and this moment, you defend them. I'm arguing the principle, and it's admittedly unpopular and I'm no progressive "the police are evil and I'm calling the =±>!,? ACLU" type person, so I ask, if the shoe was on the other foot and Ramos was alone and confronted the man, and the man, a fight ensued, and Ramos was killed, tell me honestly what public opinion would be? How do we know that Ramos hadn't decided to "let his fists f--k him up?"
We still have the God given right to protect ourselves. That is not a right given of man and therefore trumps any badge or earthly authority. It is a guiding principle, yet we all know where public opinion would go had Ramos been alone and perished, even if Ramos had initiated the conflict unlawfully, yet because he is an officer, and even though he was trained and was NOT alone, we not only excuse his behavior, but we defend him.
Why?
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12140


« Reply #377 on: October 01, 2011, 09:18:05 AM »

I'm not imagining that one unarmed man, was not taken into custody by several armed officers, because he wound up dead. Maybe that was an accident or incompetence.

**Maybe since you and JDN have no background or training or anything but uniformed speculation on this topic, you should STFU until the facts are known. You obviously haven't bothered to read what I've previously posted in this thread that would give you some of the applicable concepts that apply to cases like these.
Logged
JDN
Power User
***
Posts: 2004


« Reply #378 on: October 01, 2011, 09:28:53 AM »

GM - I thought I did stfu?   smiley   I did read your posts.

Have you heard from me recently on this subject?
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12140


« Reply #379 on: October 01, 2011, 09:55:48 AM »

Ok, here is the point. If you resist arrest, force may be lawfully used on you. This force may result in serious bodily injury and even death. Although I always seek to gain voluntary compliance and verbally de-escalate, I have also said things to gain compliance that weren't very nice and were not said in a nice way.

As an example, I told a person that if he moved, I'd shoot him in the fcuking face until I saw what the inside of his skull looked like. He believed me and kept his hands up, thus avoiding me having to press a trigger, which was my preferred outcome.

I told an individual that was getting prepared to resist arrest that he was leaving the scene in a gov't vehicle, the options being my police car, an ambulance or a Coroner's van. He decided to cuff up without resistance. Again, a good result obtained through less than nice verbiage.

In some subcultures, polite and nice mean "weak" and "victim" and violence and the viable threat of violence are the only things that have meaning. You must adjust your presentation to your audience.

When I was younger, I said some stupid things because I thought it was clever to make witty comments in the middle of a fight that out of context would sound bad. Luckily, I never had anyone die in those scenarios.

Again, any force has the potential for death. Pinning a resisting subject to the ground can result in them dying, even without you intending to do anything but get them into cuffs and take them to jail.
Logged
Hello Kitty
Guest
« Reply #380 on: October 01, 2011, 01:56:04 PM »

"Maybe I should stfu?"
I'm purposely not saying anything.
You don't have any idea of who I am whether you've run me or not.
Leo's break the law all of the time and cover for each other. I love the way you completely ducked the question of what if Ramos was breaking the law.
I'd really like to say more, but it wouldn't be appropriate.
Logged
Hello Kitty
Guest
« Reply #381 on: October 01, 2011, 01:59:08 PM »

"I really need to stfu..."

Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12140


« Reply #382 on: October 01, 2011, 02:12:19 PM »

"Leo's break the law all of the time and cover for each other."

Care to cite your source on this?

I love the way you completely ducked the question of what if Ramos was breaking the law.

He's facing a trial where that will be determined, which if you had bothered to read the thread has already been discussed earlier. Do you need me to pull the quote for you?
Logged
Hello Kitty
Guest
« Reply #383 on: October 01, 2011, 02:18:03 PM »

GM...you guys really don't like it when someone challenges your "authority" or calls you on it do you? You have no idea who I am, what I do or don't do when I'm out of the country and rightly so...because it's none of your business... Oddly enough, I keep coming back from places that aren't very nice. Maybe I've got really good bodyguards.
You don't like my query, so you insult me. Are you taking lessons from the Liberals now? I thought you'd be more professional than that. I'm surprised that someone with your training that still is triggered over nothing other than a debate and a few honest questions, was given a firearm. You demonstrate my point better than I ever could.
Cheers.
Logged
Hello Kitty
Guest
« Reply #384 on: October 01, 2011, 02:33:12 PM »

Out of respect for my teachers, I will discuss this no further. We do not agree. If you'd ever like to discuss this in person, I'd be glad to. You have all of my contact info.
Logged
Hello Kitty
Guest
« Reply #385 on: October 01, 2011, 02:46:35 PM »

GM - one last thing? Personal source of being beaten at their hands... You can say what you will publicly, I've been clean or gone in other countries for several years, so I don't break the law...I'm clean. We both know what goes on. If you ever want to have dinner or something especially in Africa, I'd love to. Looks like I won't be fighting at any other gatherings and that okay, because everything I've said is the God's honest truth. You just don't like being called on it. Neither does Ramos, Mr. Rampart Police Scandal.
You know why you need firearms, felons unarmed, and superior numbers don't you?
Pisses me off to have to say this too because there are actually police officers that I good friends with. Everything I've said is a fact.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12140


« Reply #386 on: October 01, 2011, 03:02:17 PM »

"You know why you need firearms, felons unarmed, and superior numbers don't you?"

It's law enforcement's job to win every time, that's why.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12140


« Reply #387 on: October 01, 2011, 03:14:36 PM »

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/rampart-scandal-continues-to-reverberate/?singlepage=true

The 1998 Rampart Scandal Continues to Reverberate in the LAPD

As is often the case when government inserts itself where it has no business, the best of intentions can yield disastrous results. For L.A., this means more people will be murdered this year than last. (Also read J. Christian Adams at the Tatler: "Steve Rosenbaum: foe of LAPD, friend of New Black Panthers")

January 27, 2011 - 12:00 am - by Jack Dunphy

In 1992, the Los Angeles Police Department investigated a staggering 1,092 murders, the most in the city’s history. The number had risen more or less steadily through the late ’80s and into the ’90s with the advent of the crack cocaine trade and the gang violence that accompanied it, but since that high-water (high-blood?) year of 1992, homicide in the city has declined in almost every year, with the LAPD recording 297 murders in 2010.
 
Last year was the first in which Los Angeles saw fewer than 300 murders since 1967, a time when the city had 1.5 million fewer residents. The only interruption to this long, steady decline came in the years 1998 through 2002, when the tally rose from 419 to 647. We may soon see another rise in killing on the streets of L.A., and for reasons very similar to those that engendered the one that began in 1998.
 
In August 1998, LAPD internal affairs investigators arrested Rafael Perez, at the time an officer assigned to the gang unit at the department’s Rampart Division, for stealing cocaine from evidence storage. After being arrested, Perez supplied information on what came to be known at the Rampart scandal, in which, Perez alleged, he and his fellow officers in the gang unit engaged in all manner of misconduct, including planting evidence, perjury, excessive force, and even unprovoked and unjustifiable shootings.
 
Though Perez implicated dozens of officers in misconduct, criminal charges were ultimately brought against only nine. Of these, five pled guilty, one was acquitted by a jury, and three were convicted at trial. And those who were convicted at trial were later vindicated when their convictions were overturned by the trial judge, a decision upheld through the appellate process. And it is worth noting that those same three officers were later awarded $5 million each when a civil jury concluded that they had been arrested and charged despite the absence of probable cause.
That verdict has also been upheld through a long series of appeals.  (I wrote about this aspect of the Rampart scandal for National Review Online in 2008. You can read that column here.)
 
In addition to those officers who faced criminal charges, administrative charges were brought against 93 officers, most of whom were cleared. Seven officers were fired or voluntarily resigned, and 24 received punishments ranging from a reprimand to a suspension. In short, though Perez and another officer were shown to have committed some truly despicable acts, the so-called scandal was confined to a handful of officers at a single police station.
 
And yet, despite the lack of evidence of misconduct elsewhere in the LAPD, then-LAPD Chief Bernard Parks made the decision to shut down the gang units at all of the department’s 18 police stations (there are 21 today). One might speculate that the rise in murders that followed was coincidental, but such speculation is rebutted by the fact that murders resumed their decline in Los Angeles when Parks was ousted as chief and the gang units were re-established.
 
Though the Rampart scandal broke thirteen years ago, its effects are still being felt in the LAPD today. The scandal resulted in the imposition of a consent decree (.pdf) agreed to by the city of Los Angeles and Janet Reno’s Justice Department. The consent decree, intended to last five years, governed virtually every aspect of the department’s operation, subjecting it to inspection by a court-appointed monitor who demanded an impossibly high standard be met for the department to be found in compliance. It was finally lifted in 2009, though some vestiges remain, including a provision that officers assigned to gang and narcotics units be required to disclose their personal finances so as to detect any who might be deemed inordinately wealthy. The Los Angeles Police Protective League, the union that represents rank-and-file officers (and of which I am a member), filed suit seeking to block this provision, but the effort failed in the courts and the financial disclosure rules went into effect in March 2009.
 
The final version of these rules allowed for a two-year grace period for officers already assigned to these units, with only those newly assigned required to disclose their finances. But that two-year grace period is now coming to an end, and LAPD managers are discovering to their great discomfort just how unpalatable these new rules are to street cops. Rather than disclose their personal financial data (and those of spouses or anyone else with whom an officer might own an asset), many officers are choosing to accept reassignment to patrol or other duties in which these new rules do not apply. The result has been the complete shutdown of the gang units in some areas, and the understaffing of the units at every police station in the city.
 
For example, at Southeast Division, which patrols Watts and nearby areas of South Central L.A., and where 46 murders were reported last year, the gang unit was shut down in January. At the adjacent 77th Street Division (39 murders in 2010), the gang unit will cease to operate in February. Department managers lamely attempt to claim that this will not affect public safety in Los Angeles, as the officers and their accumulated expertise will remain at the same stations. “The community should not be concerned,” said Assistant Chief Earl Paysinger. “We haven’t backed away from our gang enforcement posture.”
 
To put it as politely as I can, this is what you might find scattered in a cow pasture after the cows have left. The gang officers remained at their same stations back in 1998, too, but that didn’t prevent the city’s gang members from taking advantage of the diminished enforcement posture, with the result being a significant rise in bloodshed. If the earlier decline in murders had persisted in those years, or even if the rate had but remained constant, hundreds of murder victims in Los Angeles would have been spared.
 
To be fair, the information required on the financial disclosure paperwork is anything but intrusive. It asks only for the most general details on an officer’s assets and liabilities. Where the trouble arises is in the random audits demanded by the consent decree, at which officers will be required to provide much more detailed information. Despite the repeated assurances of Chief Charlie Beck that the information will be safeguarded against unauthorized disclosure, many officers simply do not trust the department to keep their personal information confidential. Added to this is the fact that no living soul believes these measures will have even the slightest deterrent effect on corruption, so officers have little incentive to take the risk of having their financial information fall into the wrong hands, however minimal that risk might be.
 
But there is another reason officers are refusing to cooperate with the financial disclosure rules. For more than nine years, LAPD officers watched helplessly as millions of dollars and countless hours of their time were poured down the bureaucratic rathole that was the consent decree. For all that time they had no choice but to follow every one of its byzantine provisions. But now gang officers have a choice, and many of them are choosing to say no.  (For an examination of another corrosive remnant of the LAPD’s consent decree, see Heather Mac Donald’s “Targeting the Police” in the Jan. 31 issue of the Weekly Standard.)
 
I credit the authors of the consent decree with good intentions in their desire to avert corruption in the Los Angeles Police Department. But as is most often the case when the federal government inserts itself where it has no business, the best of intentions can yield disastrous results. The outcome here is as predictable as the tides: More people in Los Angeles will be murdered this year than last. And what a shame that will be.
 
“Jack Dunphy” is the pseudonym of an officer with the Los Angeles Police Department. The opinions expressed are his own and almost certainly do not reflect those of the LAPD management.
Logged
Hello Kitty
Guest
« Reply #388 on: October 01, 2011, 06:22:58 PM »

GM - I respect you. I've been up 40 hours and am heading from New York City to Philadelphia as we speak. Let's take this up tomorrow.
I haven't been murdered yet, neither have you or several others. I wonder why that is. It isn't because we're "lucky," point being, people that make it a personal issue to be able to protect themselves and train "Die Less Often." Smiley
Logged
Hello Kitty
Guest
« Reply #389 on: October 01, 2011, 11:55:35 PM »

It's 0032 here. I'm finally going to catch about 4 hours.
GM - we both know that we're both right. I get frustrated with this because there's no room in martial arts for politics. They will turn best friends into soured milk.
Is every officer a crook? Not at all, in fact there are many that are extremely brave AND honourable. I admit it. I've met them.
Do "some" (and I do mean a select few), of them abuse their badge? They do, and when they do, the other officers often look the other way. I admit, I would. To me, the ends justify the means. Period.
Did Ramos overstep his bounds? I don't care whether he did or not personally. Cold...but we all go. I'm not going to go getting broken hearted about it. From a legal perspective though, to me? He did. Oh well. It wasn't as though Mr. Homeless Vagrant guy wasn't asking for the whole "start" of a problem to be initiated.
Rampart? We could hash numbers and maximize them or minimize them. It wouldn't serve any purpose. People do what they do. Some are good, some are bad, and some make a statement with their actions by NOT doing something. Who's to say? If you arrest every criminal out there tonight, there will be more tomorrow. Same with both good and bad cops. There will always be some of both. Mostly good, some bad.
Finally, there will always be people like you, like me, like the bad guys, and like the people that just are too afraid to step up and take care of themselves (we see this whether there are police around or not - people being terribly irresponsible for themselves - they don't want to get hurt, so we need police).
A lot said here today. Wanted to end it on a positive.
In the end of times, you and I will be on exactly the same side.
You know...it really would be better if your side of the equation went a little further on letting people that truly want to change, fully come over to your side of the law. Just as you know things that that I still have to learn and could utilize, you mentioned training, I have things (as do others), that isn't something that one can learn from a book and mistakes, any mistake, is as costly. I wish we could be on the same damn side, because we hate the same people.
That's where I'm at with it.
Until then, I'm going to keep doing my best to do what you do, just...I won't be doing it here. It's worth it.
I feel the same way you do on that. Exactly the same.
I meant what I said in the message regarding assignment somewhere. You'd know more than I. I've definitely got the sack for it and I'd love to help, sans weapons or not. In fact, joining them has even crossed my mind. There just some things though that you just don't do. You were dead right about that. They all need to go down.
I'm tired. I'm rambling. Good points from you. Fed should stay out of State, County, and City business. They have no place there and just screw everything up.
Have a good night.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31702


« Reply #390 on: October 04, 2011, 10:22:08 AM »

There's a report in today's Left Angeles Times that the same PD has sent back out on patrol an officer with seven groping complaints against him.  To the ordinary citizen reading his morning paper, this, in conjunction with the dead homeless guy charges against the officers, reads like maybe this is a department that doesn't really police its own.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12140


« Reply #391 on: October 04, 2011, 10:29:00 AM »

And does the Left Angeles Times explain the context of those complaints?

In other words, who were the complaintants? Were the complaints investigated and found valid?

I don't know Fullerton PD, but I have a hard time imagining that in today's litigation intensive environment that the IA investigations found that these were legitimate complaints.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12140


« Reply #392 on: October 04, 2011, 10:37:38 AM »

Ok, after reading the article, there are some issues here that merit further examination. I'm wondering exactly what time period these 7 incidents were to have taken place. What were the nature of the arrests? Why wasn't a female officer called to do a search in those cases?
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31702


« Reply #393 on: October 04, 2011, 12:31:56 PM »

GM:

You are a powerful and effective advocate who can relentlessly back up what he says with specifics-- a VERY rare quality.

My larger point here is how the average good, well-intentioned citizen reading the morning paper that someone with SEVEN complaints of this nature was sent out with a badge and a gun might feel.  Not surprising that they might have a WTF? reaction.

Sometimes THIS is the person you are communicating with here on the forum.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12140


« Reply #394 on: October 04, 2011, 12:47:09 PM »

My larger point here is how the average good, well-intentioned citizen reading the morning paper that someone with SEVEN complaints of this nature was sent out with a badge and a gun might feel.  Not surprising that they might have a WTF? reaction.

**Right, and WTF might be the correct reaction, and it might not as we don't have the source documents.

As an example, were these complaintants isolated female drivers stopped by the accused officer at night, or were they girlfriends of known gang members who were searched as part of an arrest of those gang members? (Often female gang associates are used to carry weapons, knowing they are less likely to be frisked by male officers) Knowing that would be important. Criminal groups will often complaint-bomb effective officers to take them out of service. Was that what happened here? There is not enough information in the article to make an informed judgement.
Logged
Hello Kitty
Guest
« Reply #395 on: October 04, 2011, 01:57:52 PM »

Actually, I'd have to side with GM on that one. The female gang members do hide most of the firearms and drugs. As to the Liberal media, they are notorious for leaving out facts, they use it as a weapon to influence the masses to their way of thinking and it isn't just against the police, it's with everything.
GM posted a piece that I had seen earlier in the day (I've been on Eastern time), but I opted to let someone else post it just to let things calm, but it was on Obama and the New Black Panthers. The Liberal media hasn't said a peep about that, and even if they did, they would skew it. Ironically, (correct me if I'm wrong) Murdoch just recently got hammered in Australia due to him defending something that someone under him said in a negative light, regarding light skinned Aborigines, my point being, that one always has to do further research in order to get the full picture (of which you both do an excellent job of doing). What I know, I know because I've either lived it or heard and seen enough of it to know that it's happening, much like everyone knows that the girls carry illegal items for the male members of gangs. You can't see it immediately, but you know it goes on.
Me? I belong somewhere where there aren't any police officers, not because I don't like them nor respect them. I do like and respect them. I just don't want them hindering what I always have and should be doing for myself.
That's where I'm at. I feel other people should be that way too. There would be an initial flood of dead idiots, followed by MUCH less crime. There is nothing Leftist, Liberal, evil, or crazy about that approach. To me, it's the sanest choice that retains maximum freedom.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31702


« Reply #396 on: October 04, 2011, 02:27:38 PM »

"As an example, were these complaintants isolated female drivers stopped by the accused officer at night, or were they girlfriends of known gang members who were searched as part of an arrest of those gang members? (Often female gang associates are used to carry weapons, knowing they are less likely to be frisked by male officers) Knowing that would be important. Criminal groups will often complaint-bomb effective officers to take them out of service. Was that what happened here? There is not enough information in the article to make an informed judgement."

"You are a powerful and effective advocate who can relentlessly back up what he says with specifics-- a VERY rare quality"  grin 

I would offer that you remember that you have invested A LOT of living and a lot of time developing your thinking about these issues-- a lot more than most people.  Be gentle with them as you enlighten them/me  cheesy
Logged
Hello Kitty
Guest
« Reply #397 on: October 04, 2011, 07:55:11 PM »

Ramos is guilty. He clearly overstepped his bounds. GM is very intelligent. The jury will tell who is right and wrong in this as this is a case of black and white proportions. Unfortunately, the "guilty" verdict that will come from this will be attributed to the massive media coverage being biased against law enforcement and people not understanding an officer's job or the public's lack of training rather than where the blame belongs which is clearly on Ramos' shoulders.
I just want to say that in advance because it will come to pass exactly in that manner.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12140


« Reply #398 on: October 05, 2011, 12:18:28 AM »

Ramos is guilty. He clearly overstepped his bounds.

Wow. Who needs trials or evidence?  rolleyes
Logged
Hello Kitty
Guest
« Reply #399 on: October 05, 2011, 01:14:45 AM »

I'm just saying how this will play out. Wager?
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 6 7 [8] 9 10 ... 12 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!