Copinthehood.com has moved to qualitypolicing.com

  • Jackpot!

    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.

  • Flogging Gains Steam

    There’s a bill to bring back corporal punishment(seemingly in lieu of incarceration) in Montana. It ain’t gonna happen, but still…

    Speaking of which, did I mention — gosh, no, I didn’t think I did — that In Defense of Flogging is out in paperback? Already? Where does time go? You might be thinking, “So light. So tidy. So cheap. Such a pretty orange cover. It actually fits in my pocket!”

    So why don’t you go and buy a copy? It got rave reviews, and yet you didn’t buy it. Because you were waiting for the paperback. So now is your chance!

    It’s only $12.59!

  • Earl Weaver, RIP

    “In five years, who’s going to be in the Hall in Fame?!”

    You, Earl, you gonna be in the Hall of Fame.

    “Little did I know 15 years ago, how deeply attached I’d become to this city. I came here in 1968 when urban areas were being demolished by riots and fires … but, after the turmoil subsided, it didn’t take me long to find out I was in a baseball town.”

    Here’s the obitin the Sun.

  • Stop and Frisk

    A federal judge ruled that some of the ways the NYPD conducts their “Trespass Affidavit Program” are unconstitutional. The NYT reports, “The judge ordered the police ‘to cease performing trespass stops’ outside the private buildings in the program unless officers have reasonable suspicion, a legal standard that requires officers to be acting on more than just a hunch.”

    So the judge basically ordered the NYPD to follow the law and the constitution. You’d think that would go without saying, but apparently somebody had to say it. The ruling is well stated and actually pretty mild. It doesn’t ban the program or stop and frisks. It bans illegal stop and frisks (which, of course, were already technically illegal).

    Of particular note, the judge criticized the check-the-box system in which officers tic, “furtive movements” as a basis for the stop. The NYPD set up this system to make the forms idiot proof. But most cops aren’t idiots. And maybe those that are shouldn’t be on the street.

    It is likely that the NYPD will have to go back to what is generally accepted standard practice everywhere else: articulating in words their reasonable suspicion for a stop. That’s the way it should be.

    I find it curious that the NYPD defends the system by saying this is what landlords want. It would be a lot better of the program was conducted at the behest of the residents. I don’t think most tenants, particularly poor tenants, see their landlords as looking out for the best interests. Landlords own buildings to make money, not to serve the best interests of their tenants.

    As a side note, and quite worrisome assuming it’s true:

    The judge expressed concern over a department training video that she said incorrectly characterized what constituted an actual police stop. In the video, a uniformed narrator states “Usually just verbal commands such as ‘Stop! Police!’ will not constitute a seizure.”

    The narrator explains that the encounter usually qualifies as an actual stop only if the officer takes further steps such as physically subduing a suspect, pointing a gun at him, or blocking his path. “This misstates the law,” Judge Scheindlin said of the video, which has been shown to most of the patrol force.

    To say only that this “misstates the law” is quite generous. That the NYPD would incorrectly educate its officers on such a basic issue… well I’d like to think it simply ain’t so, Joe.

    A “stop” (for which reasonable suspicion of crime is needed) occurs when a person cannot or reasonably believes he or she cannot leave. Because it is illegal to disobey a lawful order, reasonable suspicion kicks in the second a cop says “stop” or “come here.”

    This decision could be a win-win for the police and the community if the NYPD rises to the challenge by discouraging illegal quota-based stops based on “hunches” while continuing to encourages and support officers who perform legal stops. The risk (I think it’s a small risk) is that NYPD will know throw up its hands and stop policing. But nothing in this decision bans legal and effective policing.

  • Ah, the good ol’ days

    Some of my old police friends my recognize these stories from Slate.com, which are taken from Ray Fisman and Tim Sullivan’s soon-to-be bestselling The Org: The Underlying Logic of the Office. Tim knows my story well, since his help and editorial vision made Cop in the Hood the rip-roaring success it is.

  • Bang Bang, My Baby Shot Me Down

    More murders in Chicago. Fewer in NYC. Clearly something is going on. But generally you’ll hear nothing but crickets (or winter winds) blow through the ivory towers. It’s a real shame. These days, most academics will (almost reluctantly) concede that effective policing may play a roll in reducing homicide. And yet still very few academics would dare consider the hypothesis that aggressive — yes sometimes even unpleasant — policing may actually prevent homicides. (And, yes, you can and should be polite and respect the law and state and federal Constitutions at the same time as policing effectively and aggressively. Police work is harder and more dangerous when police go out of the their way to piss off people).

    As some academics may be afraid of digging deeper because they’re afraid of what they’ll uncover. Better to round up the usual suspects of poverty, gangs, racism, drugs, etc. But the NYPD does itself no favors by not giving a damn what people think: “Everything is under control. No need to look here. Keep moving.” But academics and the NYPD need each other. Certainly they do if any lessons are to be learned from the NYPD and applied elsewhere.

    You can’t just “do it like they do in New York” because we don’t know what about what they do in New York works. Is it Compstat? Stop and frisk? Broken Windows? Foot patrol? Zero Tolerance? College-educated police officers? Community policing (whatever that means)? Hot spots (actually, we do know that this works)? Better public housing? Mandatory prison time for illegal gun possession? Decreased incarceration? More immigrants? More eyes on the street? Getting rid of lead? Who knows? But let’s say that one thing the NYPD does pretty well these days in keep homicide numbers low. Well one thing academics do pretty very well is test theories and break things down into parts. There’s a lot going on here. It would be nice to systematically figure out what works. We need to understand these parts so that effective police tactics and strategies can spread to other cities.

    In the meantime, it’s like we’re swinging at a piñata, blindfolded. We took a few swings and feel some contact. But in the end all we see is candy in the floor. So we scoop some up and forget about what we actually did.

  • Bang Bang, That Awful Sound

    Chicago’s 2012 murder total was 532. NYC’s total number for 2012 was 417. Even in absolute numbers this is significantly lower than Chicago! Amazing. The comparable homicide rates for NYC and Chicago are 5 and 20 per 100,000.

    Homicides in New York City declined 19 percent from 2011 (just to remember: in 1990 2,245 people were killed in NYC). To get such a substantial drop on such a low (by US standards) homicide number needs some explaining. Chicago saw a 23 percent increase from 2011.

    Had the New York numbers gone up and the Chicago numbers gone down, you’d hear sage mumblings from chin stroking academics about regression to the mean (which, of course, assumes there is a mean (average) homicide rate toward which to regress… but I digress). I’ll tell you what the answer isn’t: people in New York just loved each other more; while clearly hate was on the rise in Chicago.

    [More tomorrow]

  • Bang Bang, I Hit the Ground

    Remember that fear mongering from last year?

    “Which one?” you might say.

    The one about more police officer getting killed? Forty officers were shot and killed in 2008. In 2011 that number increased to 67! Even the New York Times go in the act: “72 officers were killed by perpetrators in 2011, a 25 percent increase from the previous year and a 75 percent increase from 2008.” There was lots of talk about a new environment in which criminals felt more “emboldened” to assault law enforcement officers.

    I was asked about this a few times last year and said bullshit (I wasn’t quoted). It was probably just a statistical spike (albeit one with a lot of dead police officers on the end of it). Part of the reason I didn’t think this was a trend was that in 2007, 66 officers were shot and killed. Maybe 2008 was the aberration.

    Well the good news is that the number of officers shot and killed went down from 67 in 2011 to 47 in 2012. Sometimes it’s best to just be lucky.

    Update: Three offices were shotand injured last night in NYC.

  • Bang Bang, He Shot Me Down

    Eleven people were shot in Chicagoearly New Year’s Day.

    Nine were shot New Year’s morning in New York City.

    Happy New Year.

    Meanwhile, best I can tell, nobody was shot in Baltimore! The Baltimore Sun gives a crude but useful breakdown of basic homicide demographics for the 217 killings in Charm City in 2012. Of note:

    A low Baltimore clearance rate of 47%. Yes, this does mean that more than half of murderers get away with murder (at least for a while). The real clearance rate for the year — if you remove the cases from prior years closed this year — is even lower, 35 percent. The actually odds of getting convicted for homicide in Baltimore? I don’t know. But it’s low.

    As for the victims and killers, the numbers are typical. More than 4 in 5 killed with a handgun. 90% are men. 94% are black and 5% white (Baltimore is about 65% African American). A promising sign is that Baltimore is now about 5% hispanic, and yet only 1 homicide victim was hispanic.

    One-third of victims (more than I would have suspected) were over 35 years old.

    83% of victims had criminal records. 24% were on parole or probation at time of death (this is why some people actually do live longer in prison). 38% of victims had been previously arrested for a gun crime. Of known suspects, 45% had gun-related priors for gun crimes.

  • Understanding the NRA World View: The Media is the Problem.

    I listened to the NRA press conference with interest. It was strangely moderate, by NRA standards. Your opinion of what was said probably comes down to whether you want to live in a more armed or less armed society. I prefer less. That said, I’m happy to have students with guns in my school. I feel safer (actually, I don’t think it about it much at all, but I don’t feel less safe) knowing there are some armed off-duty police officers in my class. Armed security does have a role in society. I’m just not convinced that place is every elementary school.

    What many of my liberal friends may not grasp from the press conference is how the NRA reflects the Conservative World View. Conservatives who have internalized this world view may not fully understand it either. (Mind you there’s a Liberal World View, too, but that’s not the subject du jour.) I don’t post this to fault the conservative world view, but to educate the clueless.

    To me, the key that NRA vice-president LaPierre was preaching to his fans came when he said, buried in his speech: “With all the foreign aid, with all the money in the federal budget…” This is a conservative talking point that his little to do with guns. It’s just there to press all the right [right’s?] buttons. People believe that a huge chunk of their tax dollars are wasted on “foreign aid.” In truth, such aid a tiny fraction (almost a rounding error) of the federal budget.

    The conservative world view believes in good and evil. There is a strong dose of religion. There is a non-relativist idea of right of wrong. There is a strong defensive sense of people being out to get you. There’s an attempt to place blame. There is a heavy does of fear. Much of the conservative world view can be reprised with, “Be afraid. Be very afraid.”

    Another idea is the concept of true evil. I tend to see this as religiously based. Liberals like to think of people needing help and support. Call it New Testament. Conservatives like to believe in Good and Evil. Call it Zarathustrian (though you can call it Old Testament if you don’t want to google Zarathustra). Here’s the NRA:

    The truth is that our society is populated by an unknown number of genuine monsters — people so deranged, so evil, so possessed by voices and driven by demons that no sane person can possibly ever comprehend them. They walk among us every day.

    It’s almost zombie like. And when the zombies come get to get me, even I’m gonna want a semi-automatic by my side.

    One of my first introductions to this world view was in the police academy. One thing (along with a nostalgic longing for corporal punishment in child rearing) really struck me: the demonization of the media. This surprised me, but it’s part of the reason for the rise of the ideologically “anti-mainstream media” Fox News. There’s a market there. (It was also why it was so fun to see their version of the truth collapse on election night.)

    I’m pro-media. I grew up in a pro-newspaper household. In school I was taught the importance of freedom of the press. My uncle was the fine editor of many a-fine newspapers in Red and Blue states. I started writing for real — in print and for the public to see — for The Evanstonian, my high school newspaper.

    I do not believe the media is the problem.

    In the NRA press conference, the “media” was called out by name nine times. These shootings, according to this conservative world view, is the fault of the media.

    Mind you we all love scapegoats. Because otherwise we’d have to blame ourselves for the our problems. And that’s no fun.

    How can we possibly even guess how many [copycat killers are waiting in the wings], given our nation’s refusal to create an active national database of the mentally ill?

    This one may not reflect a conservative world view. Regardless, I would like to highlight this statement about the mentally ill and also that the NRA is calling for the creation of a national database on US citizens. This is both horrible and strange.

    …address the much larger and more lethal criminal class: Killers, robbers, rapists and gang members who have spread like cancer in every community in this country.

    It’s not that this criminal class doesn’t exist. I don’t deny it (though it’s pretty small). But to say they “spread like cancer in every community.” Be afraid. Be very afraid.

    And here’s another dirty little truth that the media try their best to conceal: There exists in this country a callous, corrupt and corrupting shadow industry that sells, and sows, violence against its own people.

    Again, the conspiratorial tone about the media. Them East Coast elites are all in cahoots, don’t forget. This time they’re marching hand-in-devil’s-hand with [be afriad, be very afraid], “the vicious violent video game [industry]” [da dum]! It’s their fault, along with the “media conglomerates [who] compete with one another to shock, violate and offend every standard of civilized society.”

    And throughout it all, too many in our national media, their corporate owners, and their stockholders, act as silent enablers, if not complicit co-conspirators…. and fill the national debate with misinformation and dishonest thinking.

    He sounds like an Occupy person speaking here, doesn’t he? Seriously.

    The conservative part is believing that the media isn’t just ignorant (like liberals are), but rather that they do actually know “the truth” and insist on purposefully feeding us lies.

    [For instance, the media doesn’t know their gun facts well and often confuse automatic and semi-automatic weaponry. This is true, by the way. But such ignorance is hardly to blame for the downfall of civilized society.]

    Then LaPierre talks about 20,000 gun bans already in existence, which, alas, isn’t true. But oh well.

    [Reminds me of Animal House: “The Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?” “Don’t stop him. He’s on a roll!”]

    When you hear your glass breaking at 3am, and you call 911, you won’t be able to pray hard enough for a gun.

    Conservatives always talk about “when” and not “if” someone breaks into your home, robs, or rapes you. It’s the culture of fear. Be afraid. Be very afraid. If somebody does break into my home, I’ll tell what I’m not going to do: waste time praying.

    LaPierre also said this:

    How have our nation’s priorities gotten so far out of order. Think about it. We care about our money, so we protect our banks with armed guards. American airports, office buildings, power plants, court houses, even sports stadiums are all protected by armed security.

    We care about our president, so we protect him with armed Secret Service agents. Members of Congress work in offices surrounded by Capitol Police officers. Yet, when it comes to our most beloved, innocent, and vulnerable members of the American family, our children, we as a society leave them every day utterly defenseless, and the monsters and the predators of the world know it, and exploit it.

    At first glance this makes sense. I took me a bit longer to figure out what is wrong with this logic.

    The president and flying are special events. They doesn’t affect most of us on a day-to-day level. People who handle and transport large amounts of money are particularly at risk of robbery. They need to protect themselves and “target harden.” And anytime you get tens of thousands of random people together, it’s good to have a few cops around. Nobody argues with that.

    And out of all of that, none of it affects our day-to-day lives unless you work in a bank, are a professional athletes, or the president. What the NRA is advocating — what they have always advocated — is that we bring guns into our day-to-day lives. What the NRA does not understand is the most people do not want to. And what’s more, we do not have to.

    Most Americans want to live in a society where their six year old is not protected with a gun. Why? Because then we’ve let the terrorists win. The world simply isn’t that evil. America isn’t so evil. At least not unless Americans are so much more intrinsically evil (or so much stupider and thus demonically influenced by the media, movies, and video game conglomerates) than the rest of the civilized world. It is possible to live without a ubiquitously armed society.

    Let’s remember that in large parts of the world — England, Ireland, Japan, Scandinavia — even police don’t need to carry guns. Though I doubt we’ll ever see a time when the majority of police in America are unarmed, the whole point of civilization remember that such a world is possible. If we forget that and abandon our ideals, we will have entered a true dark age.

    What says the NRA?

    Is the press and political class here in Washington so consumed by fear and hatred of the NRA and America’s gun owners that you’re willing [to die at the hands of “evil monsters.”]

    Consumed with fear and hatred? Perhaps the NRA doth protest too much, methinks!

    [My answer, not that you asked: ban guns that use magazines. Keep your six shooters. Keep your shotguns. No more glocks (in civilian hands). No more semi-automatic assault rifles. Regulate and ban guns to the limits of the 2nd Amendment. Also, just for the hell of it, I’ll make a prediction and say all this brouhaha will create no real change in our gun laws or public safety. And we’ll just keep having these things happen again and again.]