Category: Police

  • Use of Force

    I’m out of the country for a week. So here’s another bit of insight (the 11th) from Adam Plantinga’s most excellent 400 Things Cops Know: Street-Smart Lessons from a Veteran Patrolman.

    The general public doesn’t always understand use of force dynamics in police work. Maybe it’s unreasonable to expect them to. Police departments do what they can to explain them, either through media channels or during periodic citizen police academies. But deep misunderstandings continue to drive a wedge between the cops and the public.

    Now, the public and media provide police oversight. That’s fine, because cops carry guns, drive large cars very fast down busy streets, and take away people’s liberty; you should have oversight. You also understand how people can criticize cops and their tactics without fully comprehending them much in the way you might heap verbal abuse on your favorite NFL team’s offense without ever having played a down of organized football. But it would be nice if the public and media sometimes gave you the benefit of the doubt. While media coverage of police brutality is commonplace, you rarely watch a news story about how officers took a violent suspect into custody using the minimum amount of force necessary even though it happens every day because, after all, what’s interesting about that?

    That being said, you will see cops who have a knack for escalating even the most benign encounter into a fist fight. Maybe they got cut from the high school football team twenty years ago and they’re still looking for payback. Or maybe they’re young and unproven and think that if they are quick to shove some people around, they won’t be perceived as weak. Whatever the case, they seem to want not just to arrest suspects but to teach them a lesson, failing to realize that there isn’t much honor in kicking a guy when he’s already under control. But these officers are in the minority, which is good, because roughing up suspects unnecessarily isn’t just wrong, it’s bad business. You can lose your job, be charged criminally, and become embroiled in a federal civil rights lawsuit. As police, you have to be better than that. And most of the time you are, respecting the law even if the criminals don’t. In the words of one Milwaukee police deputy inspector, “You have to guarantee someone his constitutional rights no matter how much of a puke he is.”

  • Garner’s Death

    I don’t have much to say because I wasn’t sitting on the grand jury. I have no new information. Apparently the good citizens of Staten Island have spoken. From the Daily News:

    After four months of reviewing the evidence, a majority on the panel
    concluded there was not enough there to charge Pantaleo with
    manslaughter, reckless endangerment or criminally negligent homicide. The 23-member grand jury, sources said, was comprised of 14 whites, with the rest being black or Hispanic.

    I wrote about Garner in the Daily News a few months ago and stand by it. And here’s everything I’ve blogged about the incident. And see this in the Times.

    I will add:

    A) I’m a bit surprised that the officer wasn’t indicted. My money would have been on an indictment.

    B) The cop is lucky as hell he killed a guy in Staten Island (as opposed to Brooklyn or the Bronx).

    C) I strongly suspect the officer is a dick. Now this isn’t based on fact but just my own small-minded prejudice. But from my limited experience policing, when you have a group of cops, the cop who first gets physical? The cop who jumps on an unarmed suspect? The cop who, with a half dozen other cops right there still deems it necessary to single-handedly take a guy down? Half a dozen other cops, smart cops, also there at the scene didn’t see a need to get physical right there and then. And one cop decides to get physical? And getting physical is a way you can’t get yourself cleanly out of? From my experience: 9 times out of 10 that cop, the most aggressive cop, is a dick. And 10 times out of 10 the cop who is most aggressive sets the tone for the entire incident.

    But being a dick isn’t a crime. Nor is a chokehold.

    D) But a chokehold is against departmental rules. That officer is now going to be f*cked by the department. It is written.

    E) And yet… I still keep thinking that a fat guy in horrible shape maybe shouldn’t make such a stupid choice as to actively resist arrest. The force stops when the resistance stops. He died. There seemed to be no intent to kill anybody. You might have bad policy, bad tactics, and a tragedy, but even all of that together doesn’t equal a crime.

    F) I would love for just one “progressive” liberal to come out against New York City’s crazy cigarettes taxes and prohibition against selling loosies (individual cigarettes). By one estimate (in the Bronx) 76%(!) of cigarettes are now bootlegged! Prohibition has consequences, particularly — historically and today — for minorities.

    I’m off to Mexico for a week. Comment nicely and stay safe.

  • Would a Grand Jury Really Indict a Ham Sandwich?

    My man Gene O’Donnell (former police officer and prosecutor and current colleague of mine at John Jay College of Criminal Justice) on WNYC’s Brian Lehrer Show. Well worth listening to. Unless, of course, you fully understand what a grand jury is and how it works… which you, like I, don’t.

    Also, if you click through that link, there’s a great chart from the NewsHour that summarizes the witness testimony. For what it’s worth, based on my experience (and much academic research), I don’t put much credence in eyewitness testimony.

  • Racial progress, nicer white people, and black-on-black crime (Or: Why don’t white people care about justice?)

    There is a great interview with Chris Rock in New York Magazine. What stuck with me was his insight that “black progress” is a misnomer. What America has seen over the years (in fits and starts) is “white progress”:

    So, to say Obama is [black] progress is saying that he’s the first black person that is qualified to be president. That’s not black progress. That’s white progress. There’s been black people qualified to be president for hundreds of years. If you saw Tina Turner and Ike having a lovely breakfast over there, would you say their relationship’s improved? Some people would. But a smart person would go, “Oh, he stopped punching her in the face.” It’s not up to her. Ike and Tina Turner’s relationship has nothing to do with Tina Turner. Nothing. It just doesn’t.

    The question is, you know, my kids are smart, educated, beautiful, polite children. There have been smart, educated, beautiful, polite black children for hundreds of years. The advantage that my children have is that my children are encountering the nicest white people that America has ever produced. Let’s hope America keeps producing nicer white people.

    This got me thinking about the common refrain (at least among some people) that blacks don’t care about black-on-black crime. Just because you (and some in the media) keep saying so doesn’t make it true. In fact, the idea that black people don’t care about crime (and its corollary that blacks only care injustice at the hands of police) is so demonstrably false it’s almost absurd to even point out instances of blacks caring about black-on-black crime.

    But I will.

    As this link points out, “You may not have noticed black protests against crime, but that doesn’t mean they haven’t happened.” And even better this and this, which shows specific incidents of protest in Chicago, Harlem, Newark, Saginaw, Gary, and Brooklyn. I’ll also add Baltimore. Coates concludes:

    There is a kind of sincere black person who really would like to see even more outrage about violence in black communities. I don’t think outrage will do it at this point, but I respect the sincere feeling.

    And then there are pundits who write more than they read, and talk more than they listen, and prefer an easy creationism to a Google search.

    Now there is a caveat. People care less, as is reasonable, when one criminal kills another criminal than when an innocent person is killed. But there are plenty of killings to cover all the bases.

    And this is worth watching, this, if you haven’t already:

    (And no, that woman does not have flowers growing out of her head. She’s just standing in front of it.)

    In dealing with black-on-black crime, society has a system to deal with criminals. You kill somebody and (at least in theory) you get found, arrested, tried, convicted, and jailed. That is our justice system at work. It may not be the system, but it’s the system we have.

    But things are different when killings are sanctioned by the state. That’s why so many opponents of the death penalty focus on the fact that we sometimes execute innocent people. Do you think it’s never happened… or does it just not bother you?

    So people are upset about crime. But they’re also upset about justice. The Rodney King riots didn’t happen just because Rodney King got his ass beat. The riots started when the police officers got away with it (at least at first). The protests are about the whole damn system being rigged. Of course people were upset when Zimmerman killed Trayvon Martin. But the real outrage was that Zimmerman got away with it. Justice shouldn’t be something only Al Sharpton shouts about. It’s a basic American value. Especially, I should add, to a group to which it has been historically denied. (And how did conservatives get away with co-opting “freedom” and liberals with co-opting “justice”? It makes no sense.)

    When police officers get away with murder, it’s not only about crime. It’s about justice. Police officers are backed by the state. Police are the law. So yes, it is worse when a police officer kills an innocent person. (And notice I said “innocent” and not “unarmed.”)

    You could ask — especially if you think black people don’t care about crime — why don’t white people care about justice? Where was the uproar over the police-involved killing (and judicial exoneration) of the Reverend Jonathan Ayers? And there are countless other questionable police-involved shootings. And I don’t mean “countless” figuratively as in “a lot”. I mean “countless” literally as in we don’t count them! What’s up with that?!

    All this said, I do think it’s a shame that the whole Ferguson uproar seems to involve an incident in which a police officer probably acted correctly. Especially since there are any number of cases to pick from in which police have killed an innocent person. I also think people are misguided when they see bad police-involved shootings only in terms of race. I also know people are simply ignorant if they actually believe that police don’t shoot unarmed white people (or give them tickets for seatbelt violations)!

    But everybody is upset about crime. Why don’t white people care about justice?

  • How to reduce police-involved shootings?

    I’m not certain what this actually means, but it seems to be working:

    In a wide-ranging interview this week, [Philadelphia] Police Commissioner Charles H. Ramsey said he hoped that the trend reflected the department’s shake-up in training and tactics, which range from adopting a “statement on the sanctity of human life” to emphasizing “reality-based” weapons training for officers.

    Fatal police-involved shootings are down 75 percent. It could be a statistical fluke, but going from 16 to 12 to 3 (in 2010, 2011, & 2012) after actually doing something makes me think the drop is real.

    It’s the “reality-based training for officers” that intrigues me. Anybody know what it is? I suspect it does not start with the assumption that police officers set out to kill black people. I don’t mean that glibly. I mean that in the way there are ways to reduce officer-involved shootings. And it comes through training that focuses on tactics and danger, not race.

    Update: Another good story, this one about Richmond, CA (thanks to Campbell).

  • “Professor” who assisted in Mike Brown autopsy revealed as “fraud, con artist”

    From BoingBoing (whatever that is… but backed up by many other sources). You can’t make this shit up!

    I don’t actually think this changes anything in terms of the actual shooting… but it still seems newsworthy.

  • Why are white people so loud?

    Or (though you didn’t know it) a favorite subject of mine: White People Rioting for No Reason. I’m surprised there is nothing from College Park on the list.

    I have no moral here. Other than you can’t fight stupid.

  • “It’s hard to keep caring”

    A good police perspectivefrom Lt Danie Furseth. I think his points are good… but I seriously doubt this is some contemporary perspective that wouldn’t have been valid 10, 20, 50, or 150 years ago.

    And, since I can’t say it better myself, I will quote my friend and colleague John DeCarlo:

    I have tried to share articles which describe the liberal, conservative and scholarly points of view about the current state of policing in America. Here is a piece written by a working police officer. I think it’s important to be aware of and understand this important perspective.

  • “Finished him off”

    A good article AP article by Holbrook Mohr, David Lieb, and Phillip Lucas about something every cop knows: witnesses make up a lot of shit.

    Some witnesses said Michael Brown had been shot in the back. Another said he was face-down on the ground when Officer Darren Wilson “finished him off.” Still others acknowledged changing their stories to fit published details about the autopsy or admitted that they did not see the shooting at all.

    An Associated Press review of thousands of pages of grand jury documents reveals numerous examples of statements made during the shooting investigation that were inconsistent, fabricated or provably wrong. For one, the autopsies ultimately showed Brown was not struck by any bullets in his back. [emphasis added]

    Ah, those pesky facts. What’s interesting to me is that so many people who read “witness” statements that aren’t true don’t change their opinion after the facts they based their opinion on turn out not to have happened. This is called being blinded by ideology.

  • Who do you believe?

    Let me start by saying we’ll never know for certain what happened when Officer Wilson shot and killed Michael Brown.

    [Update: but we not do have a much better idea based on a DOJ report.]

    No. Seriously. Think about it. You don’t know what happened. I don’t know what happened. So whatever you think, whatever I think… the only thing I can guarantee is that it’s probably not true.

    And this is the problem I have with these situations. Nobody knows what happened, but everybody fills in their ideological world view. “Racist cop shot a black kid down for no reason” vs. “cop attacked by vicious criminal defends himself.”

    Now there are other issues, very real and serious issues related to injustice in America in general. I’m talking about 2.3 million prisoners. And in suburban St. Louis in particular I’m talking about towns that seem to exist largely for the feudal financial purpose of exploiting the residents who live there. I’m talking about towns — majority black, mostly — that bring in 30, 50, 70 percent of their budged on municipal and police issued fines. This is wrong. But those issues don’t actually directly concern the reality of what happened with Police Officer Darren Wilson killed Michael “Big Mike” Brown.

    [But boy would it be nice if we could seriously address and rectify the problems in America without some violent spark? But we as a country don’t seem capable of that.]

    Back to the shooting. Now that we’ve admitted that we don’t know exactly what happened and we never will, let’s stop being so righteous, smug, or disparaging of those who don’t have your same world-view.

    So now let’s get to what we do know.

    When the shooting first happened, I was presented a liberal narrative by a TV producer who stated that an “another innocent black kid, college bound, was walking down the street when he was stopped by police and shot while he was surrendering while his hands were in the air.”

    I responded, “I don’t believe that, but go on.”

    Today we know that narrative I was first presented with wasn’t true. Some say that doesn’t matter. I think it does. If you want a martyred victim, pick a better martyr (and I hate to say it, but there are plenty: Ayers and Diallo jump to mind.)

    Dorian Johnson wasn’t the only witness, but he was there. And since Michael Brown is dead, he’s the only one with a front row seat other than the cop who killed Brown. So Johnson is a pretty good source to have. But Dorian’s version of what happened has changed. I think that matters. If you don’t tell the truth the first time, I’m much less willing to believe you the second time.

    When I was a cop and would ask somebody’s name and date of birth after I pulled them over for some traffic violation, often they would have no ID. Maybe, just maybe, they actually did just forget their valid license. Maybe. Once in a blue moon it happened. I wouldn’t have a problem with that. So I would call in their name and date of birth. And wait. And then nothing would come back. They were not in Maryland’s DMV system. So then they would try again and tell me a second name and/or date of birth. Like I was supposed to believe them the second time? Moskos don’t play that game.

    Anyway, they would get locked up for a violation and failure to have ID. But they were really locked up because they committed a traffic violation, and I couldn’t write them a ticket because I had no idea who they were. And they lied to me about that. CBIF (jail) could sort out their ID. Not my problem. I had other calls to answer.

    Anyway, when Brown was killed many people bought the only narrative then at first presented: college-bound angel shot by racist cop for no reason. Many still do. And it might be true… but it probably isn’t. There actually is evidence that shows this narrative isn’t true. And then of course the narrative changes to match the new evidence. But, like I said, Moskos don’t play that game.

    So we have two narratives. And for the record I have not yet read all the testimony, but I have read all the testimony of Officer Darren Wilson and Dorian Johnson. Have you?

    So here is what they agree on.

    [Before I get into all of this let me say that we also know that the Ferguson Police Department handled this and pretty much everything after this just about as horribly as as police department could. Why didn’t they say anything? Why didn’t they make any attempt to control the narrative? Even if they don’t have a PR person, don’t they at least have friggin’ lawyer?! Why couldn’t they get a crime lab there faster? Why didn’t they handle the valid feelings of outrage more responsibly? Why didn’t they do anything right?! But that is all for another post.]

    1) Johnson and Michael Brown go to a corner store and Brown steals a bunch of 79-cent Cigarillos. These are “blunts” used to smoke marijuana in. This is an unarmed robbery. A yoking, as they say in Baltimore. Now Brown is dead so we don’t actually know this, but Johnson claims he wasn’t expecting this. Maybe he wasn’t. But he doesn’t seem to think it’s a huge deal. He stays with Brown as they walk away.

    2) Walking in the middle of the street, they get stopped by Officer Wilson. By all accounts he curses at the two of them. (Though Johnson says Wilson starts with saying “fuck” and Wilson says he doesn’t till “fuck” till a bit later. Whatever. I’ve seen a lot of cops yell at people in the ghetto walking in the street, and it often involves the police cursing.)

    Officer Wilson tells them to get on the sidewalk. They don’t. For some weird reason they ignore the police officer’s request to not walk in the middle of the street.

    3) Wilson backs up his police vehicle to block/confront them. This quickly escalates into a struggle between Wilson and Brown. But the nature of this struggle is in dispute. Johnson says Brown is trying to get away and being held by Wilson. Wilson says Brown is attacking him in his police car.

    4) Brown, for some reason, is still holding the stolen Cigarillos in his hand and passes them to Johnson.

    5) Brown gets shot at by Wilson while Brown is still at the car.

    6) Brown and Johnson run away, Wilson pursues. Brown gets shot at again.

    7) Brown is shot many times and dies. His body lays in the street far too long.

    Those facts are not in dispute. Much of the rest is. Johnson says Wilson treated them disrespectfully by almost backing into them with Wilson’s marked police vehicle after Johnson and Brown disobeyed Wilson’s order to get on the sidewalk. (Though like Rashomon, much of their seemingly contradictory views can actually be mutually possible… but now I’m getting too deep).

    So now it comes down to who you believe. Yes, I tend to believe police officers because I worked with police officers who told the truth (“within the bounds of reason,” as H.L. Mencken said). This is hard for many people to believe. It’s like people project their own shadiness on police. Lying gets you fired (if you get caught). But the average cop is more honest than the average student or professor.

    So I basically believe Officer Wilson because based on my experience, my training, and my having been a police officer, what he says basically rings true. Now you may think he’s a lying bastard — and you may be right — but, well, I doubt it.

    I’m going to tell you why you should believe Officer Wilson over Dorian Johnson. And yes, this involves relativism, character judgment, moral subjectivity, and all that. But seriously, we’re talking about trust and honesty.

    Here’s what we know about Dorian Johnson, based on his own testimony.

    Dorian grew up around violence and has been shot. I don’t know why. That’s neither here nor there. I’m just putting it out there because that’s a major life event.

    Now he’s got a serious girlfriend and a kid and shares a two bedroom apartment. He wakes up around 7 – 7:30am (much earlier than I do, I should add).

    This is his typical morning:

    I start my morning, I wake up, I take a shower, and ask my girl does she like breakfast, what would she like for breakfast. I head out to go get it. Upon getting breakfast I get me some Cigarillos. I smoke marijuana in my morning when I start my day off, so I was going headed to the store.

    Dorian, to put it mildly, is “not real pressed on time.” “Because like I said, I was still on the verge of looking for new work.”

    So he’s like a Shaggywho can’t cook. I’m not judging. I have no problem with that lifestyle. Seriously. Honestly I’m kind of jealous. To each his own.

    So he goes out in his pajama shorts to buy his girl breakfast and meets up with Big Mike. They decide to “match” (“it is just smoking together basically”). OK.

    They got to a store and Big Mike, to Dorian’s surprise, robs the store. By now it’s close to noon and, can I just mention it’s five hours later and while he says he’s still not stoned he still hasn’t gotten his girlfriend’s breakfast!

    Here’s an interesting exchange with the grand jury:

    Q: Again, I’m not judging you, but somebody just stole something?

    A: Right.

    Q: On the video that we watched, he grabbed ahold of the man?

    A: Right.

    Q: He said something to him and he lunged at him, OK, you are walking down the street?

    A: Yes, Ma’am.

    Q: The police tell you to “get the fuck on the sidewalk”?

    A: Correct.

    Q: And you say “I’m almost home.” You are thinking to yourself we are not doing anything wrong, didn’t you? Somebody did just do something wrong, so that still begs the question why you did not listen to the police?

    Dorian doesn’t really answer that one, but goes on to say they weren’t stressed because he didn’t think they were being stopped for the robbery. See in the criminal’s mind, you’re only dirty while committing the criminal act. In the cop’s mind, the criminal is always dirty.

    So on one hand we have a police officer with a good record and a believable story. He also has evidence of being attacked that fully supports his version of the story .

    On the other hand we have a stoned if charming unemployed slacker who willingly hangs out with a guy who just robbed a store and then ignore a reasonably lawful order from a police officer. Also, he told his girl he’s getting breakfast but failed at this rather simple goal. Also, he seems to see nothing particularly odd with his life style choices.

    Look there is a chance that Johnson’s version of events is true. But really? Odds are slim. There is contradictory evidence. There is strong evidence that Michael Brown did punch Officer Wilson. There is strong evidence that Michael Brown was partially in the police car when Wilson shot him. There is strong evidence that Brown’s hands were not hands-up in surrender when he was shot. Now you can believe what you want. But the factual evidence we have really is, as they say, “consistent with” Wilson’s testimony.

    So no, I don’t believe Johnson’s version that Officer Wilson — unthreatened except for his ego — fought to hold Brown close to himself, and then shot Brown for no reason, and then chased Brown down and killed him.

    Why would you think that is true unless your world view that says society is unjust and all cops are cold-blooded racists?

    I think it’s much more likely that, as Wilson testified, Wilson realized he was dealing with a guy who just robbed a store, Wilson was attacked by said robber, Wilson fought for his life, and Wilson won. It’s happened before.

    So what I’m saying is I don’t know what happened, but it is totally possible that Officer Wilson is a good police officer who, while doing his job, was threatened by a man who did indeed attack him, and reacted accordingly. Why is it so inconceivable that a criminal who just committed a crime would attack a police officer? Is that less likely that a cop killing a black man for no reason? If so, the world really has gone mad.

    Who do you believe?

    I remember late one night I pulled over a respectable middle-aged black woman over because her head lights were not on. She called me racist and then called 911 saying she was being harassed and threatened by a cop: me. She was convinced her head lights were on (her parking lights were on). But they weren’t. Had they been, I wouldn’t have pulled her over. I wasn’t even planning on giving her a ticket (but I had to once she complained, which is a whole other story). Anyway, the call comes out for a cop harassing a driver on Broadway. My sergeant comes over to figure things out. He deals with the situation.

    So it goes to traffic court. I’m there. She’s there. And she’s looking as middle-class church-going 50-year-old hat-wearing respectable as any woman can. I give the boilerplate summary of a traffic stop. She calmly tells a story about how her lights were on and she knew it and she has no idea why she was pulled over by a racist cop. The judge wakes up, because this isn’t normal for traffic court. He asks if I have anything to add. I do. I tell him this was the oddest traffic stop I even had. I go on a bit more, but it comes down to this: I say her headlights were not on; she says they were. I’m sure as snow that that woman believed she was right (after all, she could see the lights on her dashboard). But her headlights were not on.

    It was literally he-said she-said. Now the judge wasn’t there when I stopped her. He couldn’t know for sure. But he believed me. He paused for a moment and actually banged his gavel (not well used in traffic court) and said, “guilty.” I thanked him. She huffed off.

    This is the way our justice system works. We need to believe the word of police officers over the word of criminals. (Or else we need to get rid of police). My word as a police officer was trusted over an honest woman because I was a paid civil servant sworn under oath to uphold the law and constitution. Now you may not believe me. But the judge did. As he should.

    So in the Darren Wilson case the grand jury did not believe there was probably cause to indict the officer. And they were right. Or at least read more testimony than I did before you disagree.

    [Admittedly, the questioning in the testimony wasn’t very aggressive. But then while it may be rare a grand jury doesn’t indict, it’s also even rarer that a grand jury deals with an innocent person! So despite the softball nature of the grand jury, evidence was presented. And, unlike at a trial, and you only needed 9 of 12 to bring charges. They didn’t get that. Why? Because and — do consider at least this possibility that this may be true — Darren Wilson might, just might be a police officer who was doing his job and had to protect his own life.]

    This is where cops and conservatives think Ferguson protesters are crazy. Now *I* don’t think that. Because I think there are lots things worth protesting about in this country. It’s how we make a better country. And there is injustice in America! I even wrote a book about racial injustice and incarceration (no, not Cop in the Hood. In Defense of Flogging is the one you didn’t buy)!

    But none of that means Darren Wilson is guilty of anything. As I said, we don’t know for sure what happened and we probably never will. But do we as society — or do you, individually — really believe Dorian Johnson’s version more than Police Officer Darren Wilson’s?