Alan Suderman of the Washington City Paper has a good article about police department discipline and some recent happenings in DC. Here’s the main story. And an extra.
I don’t know why, but I always get a kick about being quoted using naughty words. In truth, I don’t actually think Iswear that much. And yet the blue just seem to roll out when I talk to a journalist about, well, the blue
To wit:
As Peter Moskos, the former Baltimore cop with a PhD from Harvard said in LL’s cover story: “It’s the worst of both worlds, because they have all these rules, but then it comes down to whether they want to fuck you or not.”
Good thing he didn’t say that while on the force. He might have gotten fired.
This article reminds me of one of my biggest takeaways from THE WIRE; How much BS cops have to put up with to do their jobs.
My question in the DC example is this: once the department had violated the 55-day rule (which it negotiated and agreed to) and had to bring those cops back, are there no positions where the officers' alleged "inefficiency" would not be a hazard? Some desk job where they would rarely if ever, need to testify? It looks like some of these guys were fired for dubious reasons, but, setting that aside,there must be work in the department for sworn officers who they don't want to testify.
There's always a job in the basement of headquarters. But what are you going to do with the people that you already put there? In a dept. of that size, I don't think it's so easy to find a place for a dozen-plus cops who can't do real police work. You probably don't want them teaching in the academy. Answering 311 is good. So would be dispatch. But those are usually civilian jobs. And sometimes reward jobs for soon to retire officers. Seems unfair to give the bad cops the reward of regular hours.