Join In On The Action "Register Here" To View The Forums

Already a Member Login Here

Board index Forum Index
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 12 Aug 2016, 2:15 pm

freeman3 wrote:They might be winning the prosecutions in the Gray case, but the Baltimore PD gets withering criticism in the DOJ report.

http://civilrights.baltimorecity.gov/si ... -FINAL.pdf


Sorry, but the DOJ analysis is not all that meaningful to me. There is an anti-cop bias a mile-wide at the DOJ.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 12 Aug 2016, 2:16 pm

freeman3 wrote:Regarding getting of bad cops, I have to chuckle at how Brad seeks to blame liberal beliefs (unions) for causing problems with police because they cannot get rid of bad cops. Anyway, obviously I don't have first-hand knowledge with regard to how police agencies work to get rid of bad cops--I'll defer to DF on that--but I see a couple of difficulties: (1) the police (along with the fire department and the military) are increasingly treated as a superior class (not by minorities of course but by white middle-class and up communities)--this makes it difficult for any external control of police because they have strong political allies to resist such interference, and (2) even good cops want to make it very tough to get rid of a cop; they have very valuable pensions and they want to have tenure-like protection from being fired. Teachers like tenure, even good teachers who would be never fired. Unless you are going to get rid of cop pensions, the police are going to resist getting rid of bad cops except in egregious cases. Put another way, they would rather tolerate having some not so good cops rather than risk getting fired and losing their pension because they have a supervisor who doesn't like them. (And no I am not advocating getting rid of police pensions but the higher the stakes are with regard to getting fired, the higher the bar the police are going to want with regard to getting rid of a cop.)


Sorry, none of that is true.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 12 Aug 2016, 3:19 pm

Re Baltimore, I'll go with this:

By changing the police department, Rawlings-Blake means having the federal government tell the city how to police. According to the Washington Post, Baltimore plans to enter into a consent decree with the Justice Department — in other words, a court order, absent any litigation over Baltimore’s policing practices, that binds the city to police the way the feds want it to. This will mean, among other things, an end to the proactive policing of high crime neighborhoods that helped dramatically reduce crime in Baltimore (above which more below).

Baltimore’s new police commissioner Kevin Davis is on board. And why not? He serves at the pleasure of Rawlings-Blake and the liberal African-American who will succeed her. And he doesn’t want to take on the U.S. Department of Justice.

Anyway, Baltimore’s police force has already backed away from the kind of proactive policing DOJ wants to eliminate. The process began with the backlash that followed Freddy Gray’s death, the unwillingness of Rawlings-Blake to back the police, and the unjustified prosecution of six police officers by Marilyn Mosby.

Since the police backed off, violent crime in Baltimore, including murder, has soared. If the city would support its police force, officers presumably would again become a fairly effective presence in high crime neighborhoods.

But that support wasn’t forthcoming even before the DOJ issued its report. In any event, with the police force shrinking due to demoralization, it’s doubtful that that the force is capable of policing as proactively as before.

Now back to Martin O’Malley. As mayor of Baltimore (from late 1999 until early 2007), he implemented the “zero tolerance” policing that the Justice Department deplores. He did so in response to a major crime wave, which his policies helped reverse.

How does O’Malley respond to criticism of his policing policy? In two ways. First, he points out that violent crime dropped precipitously during his time as Baltimore’s mayor. Second, he notes that after he implemented zero tolerance policing, he was reelected mayor and then won two terms as governor with the overwhelming support of Baltimore voters.

How does O’Malley respond to the Justice Department’s report? Unapologetically:

Make no make mistake about it — enforcement levels rose when we started closing down the open air drug markets that had been plaguing our poorest neighborhoods for years. But after peaking in 2003, arrest levels declined as violent crime was driven down.


O’Malley focuses, naturally, on policing during his time as mayor, a period not included in the data DOJ relied. Did policing take a turn for the worse after O’Malley left office? Conceivably.

But if it did, the remedy would be to return to the practices — proactive policing coupled with training and other reforms — that prevailed under O’Malley. The remedy is not to back away from proactive policing in high crime neighborhoods just because blacks heavily populate them.

Unfortunately, the Obama administration isn’t focused on the effective policing of these high crime areas. It simply wants fewer blacks arrested.


and this:

If you concentrate on policing neighborhoods with lots of blacks (because crime is prevalent there) you’re going to stop lots of blacks. And if you police these neighborhoods aggressively, many of these stops won’t result in finding contraband because, among reasons, criminals will be deterred from carrying it around.

Now, the DOJ report has been made public and my suspicions about it are confirmed. Heather Mac Donald has the details.

She asks:

What, for example, goes on in those two [predominately black] districts accounting for 44 percent of all stops? Might they contain a vastly disproportionate number of criminal victimizations? Is open-air drug trafficking terrorizing the law-abiding residents there? We never learn.


The DOJ makes much of a finding that blacks make up 87 percent of those charged with resisting arrest in Baltimore — an offense that may involve some subjectivity in charging? Mac Donald writes:

It is simply beyond the ken of the attorneys in DOJ’s Civil Rights Division that perhaps blacks make up 87 percent of resisting-arrest charges because they resist arrest at a higher rate than their population ratios, but consistent with their crime rates [blacks account for 86 percent of all crimes charges; they account for 90 percent of murder victims].

Ed Norris served as deputy commissioner in the New York Police Department and as the Baltimore police commissioner from 2000 to 2002. The “level of violence in the streets here [in Baltimore] and the willingness to fight with the police is much worse than what I experienced in NYC,” he says. “It really does need to be seen to understand what it’s like here.”


With the police backing off thanks to pressure from city politicians, Black Lives Matter, and now the Justice Department, we can expect an even greater willingness by punks and criminals to fight with officers.


In other words, this is all political garbage and the end result of the DOJ's consent decree will be more crime, not less. Well done!
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 15994
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 13 Aug 2016, 5:11 am

The cop who accidentally shot and killed a civilian volunteer at training had been let go by his previous PD for excessive force in 2014, had a complaint against him last year for setting a dog on someone, and has a very high rate of cases dismissals due to process and rights violations?

Was it the union, or the PD, or both that kept him in employ, a guy too dumb to realise that having a live weapon on a training course might be a bad idea?
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 7374
Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

Post 13 Aug 2016, 9:30 am

I am not refuting the fact that this officer should have not been on the force. As to your question, I don't know. Probably both entities.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 15994
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 17 Aug 2016, 2:01 pm

bbauska wrote:I am not refuting the fact that this officer should have not been on the force. As to your question, I don't know. Probably both entities.

So should anything be done to bring the police (and their unions) to their senses?
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 7374
Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

Post 18 Aug 2016, 3:50 pm

danivon wrote:
bbauska wrote:I am not refuting the fact that this officer should have not been on the force. As to your question, I don't know. Probably both entities.

So should anything be done to bring the police (and their unions) to their senses?


Yes. Manslaughter for the officer, firing from the position, and suing the union if it attempts to maintain the officers' position with the force.

I would hope that you would feel the same way when unions of other professions attempt to keep their members protected. Perhaps with a teacher and rape of a student?
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 15994
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 19 Aug 2016, 2:27 pm

bbauska wrote:
danivon wrote:
bbauska wrote:I am not refuting the fact that this officer should have not been on the force. As to your question, I don't know. Probably both entities.

So should anything be done to bring the police (and their unions) to their senses?


Yes. Manslaughter for the officer, firing from the position, and suing the union if it attempts to maintain the officers' position with the force.

I would hope that you would feel the same way when unions of other professions attempt to keep their members protected. Perhaps with a teacher and rape of a student?
As a union rep, there are things that we provide. Just like defence lawyers, we don't get to walk away just because the client is guilty. They are entitled to representation, and we aren't supposed to prejudice a case.

My role is to ensure that the employer abides by their own rules (and the law) when disciplining someone. If there is a case, and if the employer uses due diligence, then they will be sacked or at least have to leave. If the employer fails to apply their own policies fairly or within the law, then they open the door to being challenged. Not that it will necessarily alter the outcome but it can.

However, if an employee is convicted of a crime, then over here it would be hard to argue that the employer has to keep them on. Of course, recently I had a case where someone was accused of a crime (charged and bailed to appear for trial) but as yet unconvicted. they wanted to dismiss for gross misconduct based on the publicity (only local and while naming the employee, there was no mention of their employment).

We were able to point out that recently a senior exec director had not only been charged, but convicted, of a crime, and that the publicity had been national and identified the employer. And had remained in post for some time afterwards.

The member is no longer employed, and is as yet still awaiting trial. But we have shown the company that they need to apply their rules fairly or they face risks.

So, back to your hypothetical. If a teacher has raped a student, then that should be a dismissal. Obviously if convicted. Potentially before then (but there are arguments that this could prejudice a trial), but at the very least they should be suspended from the moment that the allegations are made.
User avatar
Emissary
 
Posts: 1543
Joined: 15 Oct 2002, 9:34 pm

Post 25 Aug 2016, 7:09 am

Deaf Motorist shot and killed by cop....

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/25/us/nc-trooper-being-investigated-for-shooting-of-deaf-man.html?module=WatchingPortal&region=c-column-middle-span-region&pgType=Homepage&action=click&mediaId=thumb_square&state=standard&contentPlacement=11&version=internal&contentCollection=www.nytimes.com&contentId=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com%2F2016%2F08%2F25%2Fus%2Fnc-trooper-being-investigated-for-shooting-of-deaf-man.html&eventName=Watching-article-click&_r=0

I'm sure the family is excited about the opportunity they now have to sue right?
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 25 Aug 2016, 12:14 pm



I don't have access to the NYT. Another source:

Daniel Harris had arrests in several states on minor charges, including three for resisting police officers. But those charges in 2010 in Florida and 2008 in Denver were dropped. He pleaded guilty to interfering with or resisting police in Watertown, Connecticut, in 2010. Details of the arrests were not available.

Sam Harris cut short a prearranged interview with The Associated Press after a reporter asked for more information about the police confrontations and if that was what made him more afraid of officers, walking away and motioning for his interpreter to come with him back to the family home.

Authorities have released few details about the shooting, including why Trooper Jermaine Saunders fired at the end of the 10-mile chase that started about 6:15 p.m. Aug. 18 when Harris did not pull over as Saunders, with blue lights on, tried to stop him for speeding on Interstate 485 near Charlotte.

The Highway Patrol's last statement Tuesday asked for patience as the investigation unfolds.

Saunders, 28, has been placed on administrative leave. Authorities said Wednesday he is black and he became a trooper about two years ago. Harris, 29, was white.


I'm just going to be patient and let the investigation unfold.
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3646
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 25 Aug 2016, 1:12 pm

Arizona police seem to be mighty jumpy...

http://crimeblog.dallasnews.com/2016/03 ... icer.html/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/pos ... 1d57b52917
User avatar
Emissary
 
Posts: 1543
Joined: 15 Oct 2002, 9:34 pm

Post 20 Nov 2016, 9:37 pm

More assassinations and attempted assassinations of police today..

http://bearingarms.com/bob-o/2016/11/20/attempted-assassination-st-louis-police-officer/

These incidents are only going to continue to increase.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 21 Nov 2016, 7:26 pm

dag hammarsjkold wrote:More assassinations and attempted assassinations of police today..

http://bearingarms.com/bob-o/2016/11/20/attempted-assassination-st-louis-police-officer/

These incidents are only going to continue to increase.


There is a wave of this and it is making LE hyper-aware.

It's also more than a little disappointing to hear almost nothing from the President.
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3646
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 21 Nov 2016, 8:12 pm

It's immoral and wrong for innocent police officers to be shot in retaliation for unjustified of force by other police officers. And I think the president should say that.

By the same token I think the president should be doing more to try and reduce the number of unjustified police shootings which is causing such anger. I would start with a national commission that takes a comprehensive look at the problem and comes up with reforms. It is very scary when police start getting assassinated--we have to do something. How about several hundred FBI agents in a task force dedicated to trying to stop whoever is doing this?
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 21 Nov 2016, 9:37 pm

freeman3 wrote:It's immoral and wrong for innocent police officers to be shot in retaliation for unjustified of force by other police officers. And I think the president should say that.


It is immoral for some people to say that the "unjustified (use) of force by . . . police officers" is widespread AND based on race. Those myths have been permitted to linger in the public arena long enough for some people to take action. We have a President who lauds BLM, but can't quite bring himself to summon genuine outrage over the murders of police officers. Even when he speaks of it, he puts a huge asterisk on it (see his Dallas speech).

By the same token I think the president should be doing more to try and reduce the number of unjustified police shootings which is causing such anger.


The number of demonstrable unjustified shootings is not as significant as you imply. Every shooting has to be looked at individually because the circumstances are rarely the same.

What is remarkable is that there has not been a spike in panic shootings even while officers are getting murdered at an increasing rate.

It is very scary when police start getting assassinated--we have to do something. How about several hundred FBI agents in a task force dedicated to trying to stop whoever is doing this?


AG Lynch did issue a statement on the shootings. Now, actually doing something? Probably not.