On Unequivocal Support for Law Enforcement

Discussion in 'Ethics, Morality, & Justice' started by Tiassa, Jan 29, 2015.

  1. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    37,884

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Remember: Unequivocal Support of Law Enforcement is Required

    "Sadly, the bloodshed will most likely continue until those in positions of power realize that the unequivocal support of law enforcement is required to preserve our nation." Fraternal Order of Police

    In the wake of last month's shooting of two police officers in New York City, the Baltimore City Fraternal Order of Police decided to get political, blaming "politicians and community leaders" for the killing. "Sadly", the Order wrote, "the bloodshed will most likely continue until those in positions of power realize that the unequivocal support of law enforcement is required to preserve our nation."

    Unequivocal support of law enforcement.

    The news out of San Francisco, via CBS (KPIX)↱:

    San Francisco's public defender has released a video showing police arresting a deputy public defender outside a courtroom for intervening in an interaction between police and her client.

    The video shows Deputy Public Defender Jami Tillotson refusing to step aside as a man identified as San Francisco Police Inspector Brian Stansbury tries to take a cellphone picture of him in a hallway at the Hall of Justice on Tuesday ....

    .... Tillotson, an 18-year veteran of the public defender's office, is calm throughout the video and does not resist officers. She continues to assert she is representing her client as she is led away.

    According to Public Defender Jeff Adachi, Stansbury arrested Tillotson for refusing to let her client be questioned without the presence of his attorney.

    In a press release, Adachi called the arrest 'outrageous' and said after Tillotson was lead away she was handcuffed to a wall in a holding cell for approximately an hour.

    Rob Nagle↱ of The Examiner reported:

    According to the public defender, Stansbury was the subject of a federal civil rights lawsuit that was filed against him by another San Francisco police officer for alleged racial profiling, which is what Adachi has accused Stansbury of doing in the Hall of Justice Tuesday. The man he was trying to interview and photograph was African American.

    It's unclear if Tillotson will actually face charges in the case.

    She was released from custody under penal code 849b, [Officer Albie] Esparza said, which usually means there is insufficient evidence for making a criminal complaint.

    It still is an active criminal investigation, however, Esparza said.

    "Time is on our side," he said.

    In many jurisdictions there exists a sad question of whether or not public defenders are adequately funded to provide their clients a proper legal defense.

    In San Francisco, the police are apparently attempting to simply make it illegal for a public defender to represent a client.

    So, what was that about requiring unequivocal support for law enforcement?
    ____________________

    Notes:

    WBAL. "Baltimore police union releases statement on NYPD shootings". 21 December 2015. WBALTV.com. 29 January 2015. http://www.wbaltv.com/news/baltimore-police-union-releases-statement-on-nypd-shootings/30341292

    KPIX. "San Francisco Deputy Public Defender Arrested For Intervening Between Police And Her Client". 28 January 2015. SanFrancisco.CBSlocal.com. 29 January 2015. http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/20...or-intervening-between-police-and-her-client/

    Nagle, Rob. "Adachi blasts deputy public defender's arrest; police say arrest was lawful". The San Francisco Examiner. 28 January 2015. SFExaminer.com. 29 January 2015. http://www.sfexaminer.com/sanfranci...ice-say-arrest-was-lawful/Content?oid=2918182
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Russ_Watters Not a Trump supporter... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,051
    Definitely a bad statement, but the inverse is equally bad (or worse, since it actually exists!) and currently causing big problems.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Randwolf Ignorance killed the cat Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,201
    I would imagine that said "unequivocal" support should include handing over your cash and other property to the police upon request. Otherwise we are facing Armageddon, right?

    Freethoughtproject:

    Washington, DC – Earlier this month, Attorney General Eric Holder announced that the administration would be reforming the government’s asset forfeiture program, and in some cases, preventing police organizations from confiscating people’s money and assets.
    The audacity of even contemplating "preventing police organizations from confiscating people’s money and assets" - no wonder Holder is despised in some circles.

    Recently, The National Sheriffs’ Association made a statement saying that they were “deeply disappointed” by the fact that asset forfeiture would be called into question in any way. The statement went on to say that the proposed reforms would “reduce law enforcement capability to respond to 911 calls,” as well as “work on major crimes, drug cases, human trafficking, and other threats to public safety.”

    Police will no longer be able to respond to 911 calls if we do not support their theft of private property - hmmm...

    Washington Post:

    Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. on Friday barred local and state police from using federal law to seize cash, cars and other property without evidence that a crime occurred.

    Holder’s action represents the most sweeping check on police power to confiscate personal property since the seizures began three decades ago as part of the war on drugs.

    Since 2008, thousands of local and state police agencies have made more than 55,000 seizures of cash and property worth $3 billion under a civil asset forfeiture program at the Justice Department called Equitable Sharing.

    The program has enabled local and state police to make seizures and then have them “adopted” by federal agencies, which share in the proceeds. The program allowed police departments and drug task forces to keep up to 80 percent of the proceeds of the adopted seizures, with the rest going to federal agencies.
    Quite the cozy little arrangement. I can see where half a billion dollars a year might put a dent in the budget. Maybe they'll have to cut back on "the war on drugs" a bit. Whatever will they do with all that military grade armament that they have acquired? We can't just let that stuff sit around unused - what a waste...
     
    zgmc and cluelusshusbund like this.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,270
    This cannot be right, surely..

    I take it the officer and the police are unaware of the 6th?

    What were they thinking?
     
  8. Randwolf Ignorance killed the cat Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,201
    Unfortunately it all too often is right Bells. I have personally seen it happen to business associates of mine as long as twenty five years ago. The people involved were accused of violating 18 U.S. Code § 981 - Civil forfeiture, specifically (A)(1)(D)(v) "[violation of] section 1341 (relating to mail fraud)" All well and good, especially if the allegations were true. But the neat trick is the way they perfect this asset seizure - simultaneously initiating civil and criminal proceedings (under R.I.CO.), then offering to drop the criminal side if a "settlement" is reached on the civil side. Of course, prior to this point the authorities have physically carted away all office equipment, vehicles, furniture, etc. - including any and all records they can get their hands on. Coincidentally, access to those records would be required to answer the charges being levied - too bad.

    Simultaneously, all funds are frozen - personal as well as corporate. This leaves one in the interesting position of defending themself while both hands (and feet) are tied behind the back. Faced with potentially harsh criminal penalties most people acquiesce and sign the AVC (assurance of voluntary compliance) agreeing to permanent forfeiture of all seized assets and promising "never to do it again" (whatever it was in the first place). Interestingly, these settlement papers generally begin with the statement "While no wrong doing or violation is admitted to, the parties hereto find it in their best interest to..." give the government everything they own. Without a conviction or admission of any guilt whatsoever.

    The allegations in the cases I am personally familiar with involve unfair or deceptive trade practices (false advertising, etc.). The whole process takes about a year, during which time the "fleecee" is deprived of all resources and means of making a living. After enough wear and tear, the "perps" wave a white flag of surrender. This form of governmental theft is kind of resource consuming so more recently law enforcement has cut to the chase and gotten quite blatant about just stealing the cash from everyday private citizens upfront - without the bother of even a pretext at due process - the ACLU has gotten involved:

    Morrow v. City of Tenaha, et al.
    March 5, 2013
    Beginning in 2006, under the guise of looking for criminal activity, the police in Tenaha, Texas stopped, searched, and often seized property from Blacks and Latinos traveling through town with no suspicion of criminal activity.

    The police threatened that if the travelers did not turn over their cash and other valuables, they would be arrested on money laundering charges and, in some instances, have their children taken by Child Protective Services. If they turned over the cash, they would be let go. Unsurprisingly, many victims simply turned over their money. Law enforcement officials used the seized assets to enrich their offices and themselves and justified their actions via Texas’s permissive “civil asset forfeiture” statute. Those people who wanted to recover their money needed to hire lawyers to challenge the seizures, a process that was expensive and not practical for many. Several individuals affected by this practice joined a class-action lawsuit against Tenaha and several city and county officials, challenging these illegal stops and seizures. The ACLU joined the case, Morrow v. City of Teneha, et al., in July 2012.​

    I had mentioned earlier the predicament of being told to defend yourself after having all assets and records seized. Of course, it's a little different when the shoe is on the other foot:

    ACLU Opposes Texas D.A.'s Attempt To Use Seized Assets To Pay For Her Own Legal Defense
    October 2, 2009
    Top County Law Enforcement Official Accused Of Illegally Seizing Cash From Minority Motorists

    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
    CONTACT: (212) 549-2666; media@aclu.org

    AUSTIN – The American Civil Liberties Union and the ACLU of Texas today filed a brief with the Texas Attorney General's office opposing a request by Shelby County District Attorney Lynda K. Russell to use money she allegedly seized illegally from motorists to defend herself against a federal lawsuit accusing her of stripping drivers – almost all of them black – of their property without ever charging them with a crime. The brief also argues that either the county or state, both of which have refused to defend Russell, must be accountable for Russell's actions and cannot decline to represent her.​

    Naturally Texas is right there in the forefront but it's by far not the only state...

    New Mexico Law Enforcement Agencies Racially Profiling for Profit
    May 24, 2012
    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
    CONTACT: (212) 549-2666; media@aclu.org

    ALBUQUERQUE, NM – Today, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of New Mexico announced that it has reached a settlement with the United States government, reclaiming $16,925 on behalf of two African-American men who allege that New Mexico State Police, the Albuquerque Police Department, and Homeland Security stopped them because of their race and then seized their money without evidence of wrongdoing. In September, 2010, New Mexico law enforcement twice detained Stephen Skinner and Jonathon Breasher—a father and son on a road trip to Las Vegas, NV—subjected them to racial insults and allegedly colluded with federal authorities to seize nearly $17,000 in cash. Neither Stephen nor Jonathon were charged with a crime.​

    And the beat goes on...

    Law Lets I.R.S. Seize Accounts on Suspicion, No Crime Required
    ARNOLDS PARK, Iowa — For almost 40 years, Carole Hinders has dished out Mexican specialties at her modest cash-only restaurant. For just as long, she deposited the earnings at a small bank branch a block away — until last year, when two tax agents knocked on her door and informed her that they had seized her checking account, almost $33,000.​

    The Internal Revenue Service agents did not accuse Ms. Hinders of money laundering or cheating on her taxes — in fact, she has not been charged with any crime. Instead, the money was seized solely because she had deposited less than $10,000 at a time, which they viewed as an attempt to avoid triggering a required government report.

    “How can this happen?” Ms. Hinders said in a recent interview. “Who takes your money before they prove that you’ve done anything wrong with it?”
    I guess it has finally gotten so out of hand that A.G. Holder is attempting to put a stop to it - but, there is still a long way to go...

    Despite Holder's Forfeiture Reform, Cops Still Have A License To Steal

    Contrary to what you may have read recently, Attorney General Eric Holder did not put an end to civil forfeiture, a form of legalized theft in which the government takes property allegedly linked to crime without even charging the owner, let alone convicting him. Nor did Holder stop civil forfeiture by the federal government or by the Justice Department. He did not even eliminate the Justice Department’s Equitable Sharing Program, which lets police dodge state limits on forfeiture. Instead Holder restricted part of that program: “adoption,” where a state or local law enforcement agency seizes an asset and then asks the Justice Department to pursue forfeiture under federal law. Holder’s reform was a step in the right direction, but not nearly as big a step as much of the press coverage implied.

    In an order issued last Friday, Holder said adoption from now on will be limited to “property that directly relates to public safety concerns, including firearms, ammunition, explosives, and property associated with child pornography.” Judging from the DOJ’s new instructions to agencies seeking adoption, that list is exhaustive, and it notably does not include drug cases, which account for a large share of forfeitures. That is good news, since it means cops cannot seize cash or other property based on vague, unsubstantiated suspicions that it is somehow related to drug activity and then use adoption to keep up to 80% of the loot.​

    So, what, indeed, happened to Amendment IV? It seems to have evaporated along with the American dream... (except for the 1% of course)
     
  9. Photizo Ambassador/Envoy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,519

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  10. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,270
    You have managed to shock me into silence, Randwolf.

    I knew that the police often seized proceeds of crime in the US, but this is going beyond that.

    And I thought my home state seizing the proceeds of crimes (from drug sales, extortion, etc) from bikie gangs, usually upon their arrests during or after said crimes, here were bad. We have nothing on the States.

    That is absolutely obscene.

    From what I am reading here, if they aren't being charged and there is no evidence of illegal wrongdoing, the assets and money should be returned. And they are not returning it?

    That is theft!
     
  11. Randwolf Ignorance killed the cat Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,201
    In theory, yes, they have to give it back. In practice you have to fight to accomplish that. In the larger cases that I have been privy to, where broad seizure of all substantial assets occurred, that is simply not practical. If you are running a substantial business doing thousands or hundreds of thousands of dollars a week and are accused under the statutes I cited above, your hard assets physically removed and your banking frozen - with what do you fight?

    I am only peripherally aware of the incidents leading to the current push for reform but the methods employed by law enforcement seem similar, albeit on a smaller scale. How many people have the fortitude and resources to hire legal representation and devote the time and energy to recover - oh, say... a car that was impounded because their teenage son was caught smoking marijuana while driving it?

    Justices Weigh Rules on Recovering Seized Assets
    By
    JESS BRAVIN
    Updated Oct. 14, 2009 12:01 a.m. ET
    WASHINGTON -- Every year, police agencies seize more than $1 billion of cars, cash and other goods linked to drug crimes. The Supreme Court will hear arguments Wednesday on how hard it should be for owners to try to recover that property.

    Police typically get to keep much of what they seize, although owners can fight forfeiture in court. On Wednesday, the central issue will be whether owners are entitled to a prompt, informal hearing to argue that they should get their property back while waiting for a formal forfeiture proceeding that could be scheduled months or years in the future. At present, some states impound the property during that lag time and provide owners no recourse. Critics say many innocent owners just give up during that period, and states then are free to sell their cars and other items.

    The justices will hear a case from Chicago involving six different property owners, including Tyhesha Brunston, who loaned her Chevrolet Impala to a childhood friend who was later arrested in the car and charged with possessing drugs.

    "Words can't describe how mad I was" at him, says Ms. Brunston, 30 years old. "He was not supposed to be smoking marijuana in my car."

    RELATED ARTICLE
    Illinois law allows "innocent owners" to reclaim seized property. But in practice they may have to wait months -- or in Ms. Brunston's case, three years -- before recovering their cars.

    Last year, the Seventh U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago ruled that the Constitution requires that owners get a more timely chance to seek return of their property.

    The appeals court ordered a trial judge to work with city officials and lawyers representing Ms. Brunston and other owners of seized property to fashion "some sort of mechanism" to test whether seizures were valid.

    "The hearing should be prompt but need not be formal," the court said. A neutral judge or hearing officer would decide whether the owner got possession of the property during the lengthy period before the more formal forfeiture proceeding was held -- something like a property equivalent of a bail hearing before trial.

    The Cook County state's attorney appealed the decision. The Justice Department, 20 states and several organizations representing state and local government have backed the appeal.

    "It's really about government bullying," said Craig Futterman, a University of Chicago law professor representing Ms. Brunston and other owners in the case.

    For law enforcement, "forfeiture has become a multibillion-dollar business across the nation," he said, noting that Chicago netted nearly $14 million through asset forfeitures in 2008. "With those powerful interests in taking and seizing and keeping property, there needs to be some kind of check," he said.​

    Read more at The Wall Street Journal...
     
  12. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,270
    I have nothing...

    Absolutely nothing..

    How can this be legal? From what I am seeing, there are no checks and balances in place. And because the police benefit from such forfeitures, it is revenue raising at its worst.

    This is on such a large scale.

    Seizing property on what are, or should be, misdemeanor offenses, just wow..

    And then directly benefiting from those seizures. It is exceptionally unethical.

    And these are the police officers who are demanding unequivocal support? It's highway robbery.
     
  13. Fraggle Rocker Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,690
    One of the most popular targets for forfeiture are cars. The pigs love to grab a Ferrari or other fast car, paint it black and white and install the lights and siren. The owner may eventually get it back, but by then it's five years older, has 200,000 additional miles on the odometer, surely has a few dents, and is worth one-tenth of its original value.
     
  14. Russ_Watters Not a Trump supporter... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,051
    Do you have any references to such an incident? I'd like to read more about it.
     
  15. Randwolf Ignorance killed the cat Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,201
    A quick google search gave this one - so you suppose it's the only one? Maybe...

    Police look to seize Ferrari
    Car driven by man alleged to be intoxicated
    by Steve Horrell

    The Edwardsville Police Department could find itself in possession of a 2004 Ferrari convertible if a forfeiture case against the man they arrested for allegedly driving it drunk is successful.

    The July 19 traffic stop resulted in both criminal and civil charges being filed against 31-year-old Wayne J. Lam, of Glen Carbon.[/B]​

    Here's some more fun reading:

    Here Are The Ridiculous Things Cops Bought With Cash 'Seized' From Americans

    There are some disturbing aspects to a police tactic known as civil forfeiture, which lets cops make money from seizing cash and property from alleged criminals, as detailed in story by Robert O'Harrow Jr. and Steven Rich at the Washington Post.

    The Justice Department's Equitable Sharing Program allows local police departments to keep 80% of the stuff seized during drug raids and other investigations. While it sounds unbelievable, police can seize your assets even if you're never convicted of a crime as long as cops believe you obtained the property illegally.

    You can go to court to get it back, but that's a long and expensive process that's just not realistic for a lot of people.

    Meanwhile, police departments can use the money to boost their budgets. The article in the Post suggests that much of this money doesn't go to practical crime-fighting gear. In some departments civil forfeiture cash has paid for military-grade equipment that might be more suitable for a war zone than a US city or town.

    The military gear includes an armored personnel carrier costing $227,000 in Douglasville, Ga. as well as a $1 million mobile command bus in Prince George's County, Maryland and a $5 million helicopter for Los Angeles cops.

    Then there the more frivolous things civil forfeiture cash buys, like a $637 coffee maker for cops in Amarillo, Texas and $5,300 worth of “challenge coin” medallions in Brunswick County, North Carolina.
    ...​

    OH WAIT, here's another Ferrari - or three. And a Lamborghini...

    Maryland police seek federal help to take ill-gotten gains
    Critics say asset forfeiture program can hurt innocent people

    February 16, 2013|By Ian Duncan, The Baltimore Sun
    In another major case, the DEA is seeking more than $2 million that it believes is in the bank accounts of a California company that allegedly sold synthetic marijuana to head shops in Maryland.

    After reports of civil forfeiture abuses, Congress passed new rules in 2000 that shifted the burden of proof from the property owner to the government and gave people more time to challenge the government action. Under the old system, it took the owner of a Florida house three years to prove that drug dealers had used its dock without his knowledge.

    In criminal cases, prosecutors regularly use forfeiture to deny resources to drug organizations and cleave the convicted from their ill-gotten lifestyles.

    Baltimore County businessman Rodney Hailey, convicted of defrauding an Environmental Protection Agency program of $9 million for selling credits for biodiesel fuel he was not actually producing, was stripped of a fleet of luxury cars that included a Lamborghini, three Ferraris and two Bentleys.​

    Hope that helps...
     
    Last edited: Feb 2, 2015
  16. Russ_Watters Not a Trump supporter... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,051
    Thanks, but I was actually more interested in the painting it, putting lights on it and driving it 200,000 miles part.
     
  17. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    37,884
    It's an historical artifact pushed from (traditionally-defined) conservative cause to cause. Having said that, we should note that it is centrism in America that ignores this issue; left and right, liberal or conservative, civil asset forfeiture is, like eminent domain, an issue of concern all over the political spectrum save a glaring hole squar' in the middle.

    The underlying political device is to punish.

    But working backwards from today, we have the War Against Terror; many of the presuppositions about law and justice that allowed such reckless overreach found their justifications during the Drug War; and those justifications were derived from relics of Civil Rights; and those in turn from labor and the Red Scare. The common theme is that in each of these chapters is that there were reasons the people could be convinced to accept why it was okay to cross the line. It's all a version of the ticking time bomb argument.

    With CAF the argument sounds a bit like an argument in considering terrorism; the ostensible point to cut off the flow of finances and assets so that it cannot continue to do damage after the individual is neutralized. Because it was just that important, the people have been generally willing to accept otherwise insane circumstances. Part of the reason public sympathy is trembling in centrist quarters right now is that we've spent a ton of money on the Drug War, incarcerated however many people, and have every appearance of having only made the problem worse. It wasn't just the inefficacy, but the combination of that inefficacy alongside cost estimates that made voters taxpayers pay attention.

    Thus, crazy escalations from possession to trafficking in order to warrant seizures. Seizure before conviction. Variable obligations to return seized assets after acquittal or dropping of charges. The point was to take a pound of flesh out of suspects, regardless of whether or not they were convicted, and with no real respect toward whether or not they were actually guilty.

    And people could be convinced that this was okay.

    Some of it was racism―the thought of dangerous black and "Mexican" drug dealers on the loose, won't somebody please think of the children?―but the most part of it really was the standard back and forth between what is actually right and what feels better and how do we justify the latter.

    And the right thing to do, as with so many collective or institutional discussions, lost.
     
  18. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    37,884
    Fault Lines: SPD Grapples Basic Questions of Right and Wrong

    What side do we take? After all, if we are expected to give law enforcement our unequivocal support, which part of law enforcement do we back?

    To wit, let us begin with Ansel Herz↱, for Slog:

    Seattle police chief Kathleen O'Toole fired a 10-year veteran of the department today for making advances on women he encountered on duty. A termination letter was delivered to him by hand this morning, the Seattle Times reports.

    In a disciplinary report obtained by the Times, O'Toole wrote that Officer Peter Leutz initiated "unnecessary, unprofessional, and highly inappropriate additional communications" with three women last summer. The report (PDF) cites an investigation by the Office of Professional Accountability into Leutz's conduct, which uncovered 14 "possible victims" of his misconduct.

    One of them reported a stolen bike. Another was having an argument with her boyfriend and spending the night outside her apartment. Leutz used information gleaned from his police work and texted the second woman on his personal cell phone. He sent texts to a third woman, who he'd pulled over for a traffic stop, at least 109 times, asking at one point, "did u feel something when we locked eyes." When she said she wasn't interested in him romantically, he kept texting her, according to the OPA.

    The SPD Chief also explained, according to Herz, that Leutz's defense of his actions "left [O'Toole] more convinced of the need to fire him". Chief O'Toole explained, "This was serious and repeated abuse of authority, and an unsettling pattern of behavior."

    Perhaps it seems strange to pit Anne O'Toole against the Fraternal Order of Police in Baltimore, but even where the Seattle Police Officers' Guild would hope to figure right from wrong in order to attempt the right thing, the rank and file are furious. Mr. Herz↱, earlier this week, also reported on the challenges facing SPOG president Ron Smith:

    The head of the Seattle police union that represents rank and file officers says he faced a backlash after he told his officers to get with the times or get out of Seattle.

    "If you don't like the politics here," Smith said to his fellow officers in a no-holds-barred interview with The Stranger on February 18, "then leave and go to a place that serves your worldview."

    Because that kind of critical talk is so rarely heard from police union officials, his comments made national news, and earned him plenty of plaudits. Wonkette covered the story this way: "Decent Seattle Police Union Head Risks Getting Thrown Out Of Police Union."

    Sure enough, some of the union's 1,300 officer-members were outraged by the ultimatum, Smith told me yesterday at a press conference announcing SPD's new cadre of assistant chiefs. They were pissed off about the fact that he'd spoken at all with a reporter from, god forbid, The Stranger.

    I asked what happened after the interview. "We had a membership meeting [six days later] that went for four hours," Smith said. "I stood there and listened to all their concerns... There were some calls for me to step down."

    Indeed, Mr. Smith's approach is, as he suggests, "a little bit different than people from the past". He also notes that he has received thanks from rank and file officers.

    But here's the thing: A police chief and a union boss do not a police force make.

    It is very easy to back O'Toole and Smith at this point, and the Department Chief seems intent on addressing those things she can; while Officer Leutz's dismissal might seem a small event to many who advocate broader police reform, neither should we overlook the fact that this small event exists at all. Herz explained:

    Officers who do things wrong, embarrass SPD, or violate community trust will be held accountable, O'Toole said. "I appreciate that the union leadership feels the same way."

    In recent months, O'Toole has instituted a new, strongly worded social media policy. And within six hours of my February 6 report on Officer Sam Byrd's troubling Twitter comments, O'Toole placed him on administrative leave pending an investigation.

    But the real meat of reform has to be grinded out in contract negotiations with SPOG, which are ongoing. Critics question whether Mayor Ed Murray, who SPOG endorsed and who appointed O'Toole, will go soft on the union in the negotiating process. One city hall insider close to the negotiations, which are shrouded under a confidentiality clause, said the city's negotiators aren't pushing hard for a range for reforms. And Murray largely missed the opportunity to advance the reform process during 2014, according to the department's accountability auditor.

    Smith himself has vowed to fight to keep in place an utterly discredited appeals process for disciplinary decisions handed down by the chief.

    For her part, O'Toole appears to be hoping for more "extraordinary leadership" from Smith.

    "The old days of contentious labor relations—I think that's counterproductive," O'Toole said yesterday. "We sit on opposite sides of the table during collective bargaining and on disciplinary hearings, but by working together, we're able to accomplish so much more."

    Another mark of SPOG's potentially fresh turn is its entry into the the King County Labor Council, a nominally left-wing network of public and private sector unions.

    In the February issue of SPOG's internal newsletter, a front-page article identifies Officer Tom McLaughlin as one of the union's two new delegates to the council. "I'm sure at times we'll feel right in the lion's den," he's quoted as saying, "but I'm also sure we will also be building some new foundations and strong alliances. This will be especially important as we are in contract negotiations."

    So how does one unequivocally support the police, here? I mean, that much seems a fair question. To the one are a couple of outliers, but both hold leadership positions. To the other we have an unknown mix of rank and file officers who either appreciate their union boss' attempts to improve community relations or demand his ouster.

    Such is the problem with representatives of the police community, such as the Fraternal Order of Police in Baltimore, demanding unequivocal support for law enforcement. Because, after all, if an officer can't use his badge to sexually harass the people he investigates, America will collapse.

    You know, we have a local talking point: The office of the Mayor of Seattle is a dead-end job; nobody goes on to higher office from there.

    And it's kind of true. In my lifetime, the Seattle Mayor's office has been the end of the electoral line for every mayor. I think we have to reach back to the nineteenth century.

    But recent years have given rise to another question: Who would want to be the chief of the Seattle Police Department?

    This is not an enviable position; nor is the task one the rank and file officers tend to appreciate. We can only wish the best of luck to SPD Chief O'Toole and SPOG President Smith. But what do we make of the rank and file who would reject reforms? Are they the proverbial "few bad seeds"? And just how many of them are there? And what support, unequivocal or otherwise, do we really owe those who would struggle to preserve criminality and injustice as a characteristic of police work?
    ____________________

    Notes:

    Herz, Ansel. "Seattle Police Chief Fires Officer for Hitting on Female Crime Victims". Slog. 13 March 2015. TheStranger.com. 14 March 2015. http://bit.ly/19l38Ql

    —————. "Seattle Police Union President Faces Down Calls for His Resignation". Slog. 12 March 2015. TheStranger.com. 14 March 2015. http://bit.ly/1HTw90I
     
  19. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    37,884
    Twenty-Two Years Later ....

    After twenty-two years on death row in Arizona, Debra Milke is exonerated:

    On Monday, a judge ruled that the Arizona woman is innocent and dismissed all charges against her.

    This makes Milke only the second woman exonerated from death row in the United States.

    More importantly, the judge's decision finally clears Milke after years of legal back-and-forth in a case where she steadfastly maintained her innocence.

    Key to the case's dismissal was prosecutorial misconduct, mainly that of a detective, Armando Saldate, who said Milke confessed to the crime to him -- even though there was no witness or recording.

    Prosecutors withheld from the jury Saldate's personnel record which showed instances of misconduct in other cases, including lying under oath.

    The two men with whom Milke was accused of conspiring were tried separately and are still on death row.


    Ahmed and Botehlo↱

    Chief Judge Alex Kozinski of the Ninth Circut explained, "The Constitution requires a fair trial. This never happened in Milke's case."

    The judge further ruled that the state deliberately "failed in its constitutional obligation".

    Question: Why should the detective and prosecutors not serve prison time?

    After all, if we owe our law enforcement officials unequivocal support, then they have done nothing wrong by lying and hiding evidence in order to send an innocent person to prison under threat of execution for over two decades.

    How long should these bad seeds spend in prison? A twenty-two year minimum sounds about appropriate.

    Law or justice? It's a pretty straightforward choice.
    ____________________

    Notes:

    Ahmed, Saeed and Greg Botehlo. "Debra Milke, who spent 22 years on Arizona death row, has murder case tossed". CNN. 24 March 2015. CNN.com. 24 March 2015. http://cnn.it/1FA5qsb
     
  20. Photizo Ambassador/Envoy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,519
     
  21. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    37,884
    'Tis a good song. I could have sworn I was one of two people left on the planet who listened to The Seeds. It's good to know there's a third.
     
  22. Photizo Ambassador/Envoy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,519
  23. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,270
    Police brutality..

    Police officer with a history of planting false evidence..

    Unarmed black man in a nice car, stopped for no valid reason and white police officers beating the crap out of him, putting him in a choke hold and then punching him and kicking him in the head..

    Nothing unusual there.
     

Share This Page