Hey, there! Log in / Register
Cops who hate the public don't inspire people to help the cops
By adamg on Mon, 11/17/2008 - 8:25pm
Bobby reports on a cop with attitude in Dorchester:
Today, as I was leaving the apartment to get some food, there was a police cruiser facing the wrong way parked out front. Two officers, standing over the car, were looking at a piece of paper. "Everything ok, guys?" I asked. One of them looked up at me, crooked his eyes, and demanded, brusquely, "You live here?" "Yes," I replied, caught off guard somewhat by his tone. He paused, unable to contain his disgust at the fact that I would live here, and continued, "Do you know where [such and such] is?" "No." "Ok, well it's not your concern then." ...
Neighborhoods:
Free tagging:
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
civil service
Civil service should be redone so the Boston Police can hire quality canditates instead of hiring whom civil service requires them too.
A little accountability
would go even further than changing the hiring practices. It isn't necessarily who they are hiring that is the problem here: it is the inability to systematically evaluate officers at regular intervals and remove the bad apples that is the problem.
posit
Ask yourself this:
What motivation do rank-and-file and command have to reduce crime? Answer: None. If the crime level drops, guess what happens to funding and staffing levels? In a union shop? I don't think so.
The only time you see the full force of the department brought to bear are when a)an officer is the victim or b)community outrage is significant and reporters come knocking (ie, a young kid or someone elderly, or someone popular/well respected.) B happens less and less as TV stations deal with backlash from rich white people in Wellesley who don't want to hear about 13-year-old kids getting shot south of the river or east of Cambridge while they're eating dinner.
The first solution that pops to mind: pay based off performance (unlikely to *ever* happen; BPA was happy to permit citywide riots in 1919 when they didn't get their pay raise, and that was when the department wasn't fully unionized.) I've worked at a few companies where everyone gets a bonus at the end of the year based off company performance. Too bad that if pay and performance ever get linked, expect to get fully chewed out if you want to have a report filed for anything that isn't open-and-shut...instead of the current partial-chewing-out.
kind of like teachers
getting bonuses for improvement of students. Not easy to do and not the right thing to do.
Very hard to rank "drop in crime" with performance. The last thing you want is cops going out and looking for 3 arrests a night. That means more profiling and more harrassment.
And lets not forget that a crime rates do not correlate with police performance. There might be some socio-economic factors outside the control of law enforcement on this one...
Gaming the system
I have never seen a situation where the recipients didn't game performance bonuses / management by objective. I've seen executives at my company do astoundingly unethical things to meet objectives tied to their bonuses.
I doubt Brett would be happy with the results of giving bonuses based on arrests.
If bonuses were tied to the crime rate, not only would most of the differential be tied to economic swings, but you'd create a financial disincentive to reporting. "Oh, now, wouldn't you know it, the crime rate has dropped again..."
I agree, Brett is always
I agree, Brett is always screaming about how hard the cops come down on people around Boston. Just wait until it means a 2,000 or more bonus if they hit their crime stat numbers. Anyone who remotely looks like a threat will be taken care of before they become an issue. Sure crime would go down but it would also result in profiling (since a higher rate of minorities are criminals), then the best place to crush the numbers down is in that area, next thing you know it you have all sorts of innocent hispanic and black kids being arrested for jay walking or hanging out with friends playing ball at the local park. You would also see the cops intimidate these kids, maybe not arrest them, but make them feel very uncomfortable so they go to someone elses precint.
Then you add in the suppression of reported crimes "ok, let me go file this right now *rip rip*, yeah yeah we will find him dont worry about it." Just look at Revere, Woburn and Everett after the flaggers showed up to work, the cops came down pretty hard on those guys. Lets not open up that can of worms.
arguing with you is like wrestling with a pig
I agree, Brett is always screaming about how hard the cops come down on people around Boston.
Stop making shit up. Find one post where I complain about legitimate enforcement? My complaints center around trumped up charges, brutality, and ambivalence.
Then you add in the suppression of reported crimes "ok, let me go file this right now *rip rip*, yeah yeah we will find him dont worry about it."
Is there an echo in this room? I already fucking said that in my original comment.
You should not wrestle with
You should not wrestle with a pig, you get dirty and only the pig enjoys it.
Well if we were to base it off of your assesment of the situations then I can not find one. I just find it hard to believe any one person has witnessed so many instances of police brutality, when I myself have witnessed one instance in the past 10 years...
No need to swear fella, time to sit back with some hot cider and calm down those nerves.
Legitimate enforcement?
If you're complaining about it, it's because you don't consider it legitimate.
Trumped up charges?
What exactly do you mean by "trumped up" charges?
Charges with really bad hair
You're fired!
straw man, hello
Very hard to rank "drop in crime" with performance. The last thing you want is cops going out and looking for 3 arrests a night. That means more profiling and more harrassment.
Did you notice the part in my comment where I noted problems (pretty obvious ones at that) with pay-for-performance myself?
However, I never said "drop in crime". I said "performance." Nor did I suggest anything remotely like what you're talking about. It's an extreme to pay "per arrest" that would never be considered constitutional. A more sensible approach would be tracking reports of crime that go unsolved, and arrests that result in convictions (to cut the current problem with police getting slap-happy with charges and "letting the courts sort it out", which is the most absurd attitude I've ever seen. Talk about ignorance of the problem you create.) We already have a problem with police discouraging reporting of crime, so regardless of how you address performance on crimes that are reported, we need to address reporting issues.
And lets not forget that a crime rates do not correlate with police performance. There might be some socio-economic factors outside the control of law enforcement on this one...
That's like saying, "well, the sub shop line varies depending on the time of day, so there is no correlation to employee performance." Bullshit; a child could understand how to evaluate that situation. If crime gets bad because the economy is in the shitter, you work harder at your job just like the guys in the sub shop work harder at lunch hour. Then again, your profession is full of people who think they're entitled to sit in cars playing with their blackberries at $50/hour.
Crime rates absolutely do correlate with police performance...just in a way that requires at least some basic understanding of statistical analysis. There are a lot of smart people at the FBI and other organizations that have this stuff down pat.
I despite Guliani, but the man was at least partially right about one thing: not blowing off 'petty' crime is important. I'm tired of hearing about how wacky tobbacy is a "gateway drug", from the same people that can't be bothered to file a report about a car getting broken into or someone getting punched in the head. Then we act all surprised when jerks who were running around punching people in the head learn they can do so, and decide to start stabbing people...
good thing you dont work in human services
because we would all be in trouble. It would be great to live in the fantasy world you would like to (or probably do) live in where things are easier said than done.
"If crime gets bad because the economy is in the shitter, you work harder at your job just like the guys in the sub shop work harder at lunch hour. Then again, your profession is full of people who think they're entitled to sit in cars playing with their blackberries at $50/hour"
Can you tell me what "working harder" for a police officer means?
"I despite Guliani, but the man was at least partially right about one thing: not blowing off 'petty' crime is important"
And you realize the more you do this, the more of the chance there is of people resisting arrest and getting hurt by the same goon cops you want to hate?
Lets remember that Stalin had one of the best law enforcement programs in history. You would have loved it there.
Bonuses for public employess?
Oh yeah, that's a great idea. There's enough politics, favors, and corruption going on in city halls. Now, you actually want to add some legitimacy to it by letting some politician give a friend/supporter of theirs a bonus? Not with my tax dollars.
In your model Brett
In your model Brett, if it was determined by ther DA that David Woodman died becuase of a beating he took from the BPD, would the nine officers at the scene not get their bonus or would the whole departement not get their bonuses. I wonder if you're setting up a scenario where cops would have a disincentive for coming forward and telling the truth... likt the one we have now.
criminal vs performance
In your model Brett, if it was determined by ther DA that David Woodman died becuase of a beating he took from the BPD, would the nine officers at the scene not get their bonus or would the whole departement not get their bonuses.
If the DA determined he died because of the beating by BPD, they should be off the payroll and sitting in a jail cell awaiting trial*. I'm not aware of any job where "performance evaluations" address criminal behavior, and I didn't suggest it either.
*Pete Nice talks about a federal investigation in the Woodman case, but color-of-law violations almost never result in charges. In '04, the Justice department investigated and referred 240 cases of color-of-law violations to federal prosecutors. Barely 1% were actually taken, out of cases that were practically put on silver platters with engraved invitations.
"Pete Nice talks about a
"Pete Nice talks about a federal investigation in the Woodman case, but color-of-law violations almost never result in charges. In '04, the Justice department investigated and referred 240 cases of color-of-law violations to federal prosecutors. Barely 1% were actually taken, out of cases that were practically put on silver platters with engraved invitations."
Oh so the Feds must not know what they are doing? Another case where everyone else is wrong but Brett is right.
where does color of law fit in?
I was joking about the bonus.
Pete Nice doesn't seem to be up on this case. Here's what I read about investigation. (Pete doesn't think reading constitutes actual knowledge about an issue.)
1. BPD detectives and Suffolk Attorney DA are investigating.
2. The FBI (US Attorneys Office) does a post investigation revue for any civil rights violations.
3. Former US Attorney now private attorney Donald Stern is reviewing procedure - he'll provide a legal memorandum stating whether BPD procedure: smashing a suspect to the ground, cuffing them, grinding their face in the pavement and leaving them face down is problematic from a legal perspective.
4. Commissioner Davis briefly mentioned he's considering using civil rights attorneys to witness preparation meetings and mob control, and righting reports about how the police performed from a civil rights perspective.
#3
"smashing a suspect to the ground, cuffing them, grinding their face in the pavement"
If those are the facts then there is a 100% chance these cops will go to federal prison. So you are all set right? Justice is done!
I mean, you did read that the suspect was "smashed" to the ground without reason, and you know that they were "grinding" the suspects face in the pavement. I mean, you read that right? So if you read that, it means it is a fact, and these cops will (and should) go to prison.
Pigs fly
I wrote "Pigs fly" so I guess it must be true...see where this is going? I wish these people who are not witnesses to any of these "injustices" would quit acting like everything they hear or read is true. With video cameras everywhere cops do their best to keep from hurting people. Why risk losing a job?
what do you mean bostonian?
You saw the last post didnt you? Someone read that the kid face was smashed in the ground? Looks like justice will be done! We can all relax now.
What I meant
was that the person who wrote that post that you responded to is naive if they believe everything they read.
better "naive" than ignorant, bostonian
If naive is reading and deciding what seems to be more true when there are conflicts, I'm guitly. Better naive than ignorant bostonian.
Ignorance means you don't know something
And, if you weren't there, then you don't really know happened do you? By saying "what seems to be more true" you show that you are both ignorant and naive. Everyone has an agenda and what you read in articles is usually a reflection of that agenda. So, it is wise not to believe everything you read.
unecessary force used in arrests
On the night David Woodman was arrested another young man was arrested. He too was forced to the ground, cuffed and left face down. He claimed he was punched twice in the face and kicked when he was cuffed and facedown on the sidewalk. The force with which these citizens were dropped and the practice of leaving arrested citizen’s face down may need policy review. There are some studies that indicate lying facedown with one’s armed secured puts their respiration under stress.
It would appear that both citizens’ worst transgression was not obeying orders. In addition, David Woodman had a smart mouth and an open container, which may have been beer, but he was not otherwise a threat or looking for trouble. The other young man was about the same age. He had been at Remington’s. He wanted to get to his car and go home. His transgression appears to be asking the policeman to reconsider his order to walk around the block to get to his car. He was subdued with force.
yep.
evaluation is one of the most difficult areas of police supervision.
Do you really think you can remove somebody....
just because they are a bad apple? Or just because their people skills aren't up to snuff? Not a chance. This is a union, and dismissing any worker that belongs to any union is next to impossible. Maybe if they commit a crime, you've got a chance, but being a little gruff with the public? No way.
boston chief
Remember the Boston Chief said he wasnt going to try to fire the Boston cop who was arrested for domestic violence (and I believe convicted) because he said he would lose the case?
theres another problem.
brett, swirly, pete
blah blah blah
Nothing for you 2 C
blah, blah, blah. Nothing for you to see here. Move along.
something has to change in the police culture
There are always exceptions and I'm sure there are wonderful people on the force. However, most of my interactions have been similar. They're just gruff and rude. But here's something that should get them going: My experiences with NYC police officers have been better. They're friendlier, more intelligent-seeming, and actually seem to like their jobs! Maybe a friendly rivalry will get the BPD back in shape.
BTW, now that I live in Lynn, I can say that the Lynn Police are friendlier and easier to deal with than Boston - so it's not a region-wide thing. What's the deal, Boston?
An Effective Professional Example
In San Francisco, residents of the Castro neighborhood recently tired of being followed and harangued and decided to run out a number of preachers who had taken over several street corners. The residents claimed that the preachers were following them around and "witnessing to" them, using name-calling and intimidation tactics. They felt they were being harassed every time they left their houses.
The police were caught in the middle of the situation, protecting each side from the other while safely escorting the preachers from the area.
See how the cops very professionally handle this very highly charged environment here.
So when people are
So when people are celebrating or protesting in the public way, the police don't have to take them down with force, demand they lay flat ont their stomachs, shove their faces into the pavement, cuff them and leave them facedown until they get picked up by the wagon? That procudeure is not the only way to handle a crowd? You know we're just one step away from putting bags on their heads and letting them sit for hours before we take them off to
Abu Ghraibcity jail.re: Cops
All this talk about paying cops for performance is akin to mercenaries owned by the town/city/state. A horrible idea.
There simply needs to be anonymous feedback and consequences. Like when a cop shoots a girl in the eye and she dies, he should be fired and all involved (proximate and but-for causation).
Or when a bunch of cops detain a kid after the Celtics win and they die, that's homicide, and there are 1+ cops that should be tried for homicide, or at least fired!
There's no accountability, so the police force then has power over the populace and can commit crimes themselves, or generally be a group of thugs that terrorize communities. Just ask Bobby.
Forces that cannot be controlled should be destroyed.
In twenty years ...
In twenty years, will we have a spate of bad cop movies (again), only this time set in the post-9/11 era with lots of romanticized steroid dealing and tasers?
Hmmmmmm...not sure about that.
I don't think that this:
is the solution. The police force needs to be shaken up and to undergo some drastic changes. Better training in crowd control, racial & ethnic sensitivity, and not so much access to super high-tech weapons which can permanently maim and/or even kill.
Accountability by the police department, as well as by the mayor, and the bringing of cops who abuse their power to justice, disciplined and/or dismissed from the department if and when necessary, instead of protecting wrongdoers.
Join the force?
The only reason someone would be a cop is because they want to assert power and authority over other people.
Because if you go into the force trying to be "just" and "serve" your community, you're going to end up working for corrupt powermongers and you'll have to "get their back" when they break the rules, and then you're one of them. So these guys don't exist.
Yay police union! 3 cops in the same stretch of road in Brookline today, watching 1 jackhammer. That's $120/hour for one jackhammer. Justice!