The Long Painful History of Police Brutality

[AURex 1,984]

This article, with photos, summarizes the past 100 years of struggle against racism and oppression.

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smithsonian-institution/long-painful-history-police-brutality-in-the-us-180964098/

The article includes this graphic (for those too lazy to go read it). Of course, the list is much longer now.

 

 

[homersapien 11,354]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/06/04/after-this-crisis-policing-should-never-be-same/

After this crisis, policing should never be the same

By Tracie L. Keesee 

June 4, 2020 at 8:00 a.m. EDT

Tracie L. Keesee is co-founder and senior vice president of the Center for Policing Equity. She is a 25-year veteran of the Denver Police Department and served as deputy commissioner of training and deputy commissioner of equity and inclusion for the New York Police Department.

As the nation reels from the aftermath of George Floyd’s murder, leaders in law enforcement have an obligation to offer an alternative to the violence and excessive force that Americans are witnessing. The best in the profession already understand that compliance with the law begins with trust, not fear. This moment demands a new way of policing built around that understanding. There is no better time to start than now.

I served as a police officer for almost 30 years in Denver and New York City. I can tell you firsthand that we still have too many officers who subscribe to the belief that specific communities are full of threats to neutralize, not people to serve and protect. A new way of policing, one based on the consent of the community, can never take root in that poisoned soil.

Officers who see only threats are more likely to use force before exhausting other options, increasing the chances of tragedies such as the one in Minneapolis. Officers who don’t see humans first bristle at the simple, pro-human statement that "black lives matter." When the fires die down, law enforcement leaders across the United States need to ensure that toxic beliefs die with them.

I want to be clear: I have served with thousands of deeply honorable police officers who do their absolute best to help people. In my experience, no one joins the force wanting to take a life. And as a black woman in uniform, I understand the tension between law enforcement’s roles in protecting communities and perpetuating racial inequity better than most.

To establish any credibility with black communities, leaders need to state unequivocally what has been obvious to anyone with an Internet connection and a conscience: Derek Chauvin was rightly charged with the murder of George Floyd. Law enforcement institutions that have stood silent in the past have already taken unprecedented steps in the right direction. The Major Cities Chiefs Association, for instance, called Floyd’s death “criminal.” To my surprise, unions that had remained silent about past misconduct proclaimed that “Reverence for life … must be the floor and not the ceiling” for every police encounter.

Acknowledging the truth when police take a life without just cause is a prerequisite. So is acknowledging the historic role police have played in terrorizing black communities, from slave patrols to the enforcement of Jim Crow laws. The latter is well within living memory; police need to account for why many see the badge as a symbol of oppression before they can begin to overcome that perception.

A new way of policing requires new systems for accountability. That includes charging those who enable excessive force such as the three officers in the George Floyd case who were charged Wednesday. Chiefs across the country would tell you that employment panels or arbitration processes frequently thwart their efforts to fire bad actors. In many cases, they need legislators’ help to remove those barriers and prevent fired officers from obtaining a job in a different department.

It is within their power, however, to foster a culture that does not tolerate silence in the face of injustice. Officers who speak out should be commended, not ostracized. And departments can adopt policies that reduce harm, such as prohibiting chokeholds and requiring officers to keep their distance from those who pose no danger to others.

Departments also need to change their composition — especially higher up the chain of command, and especially when it comes to including women. Diversity is no panacea, but I’ve seen how female officers excel at finding collaborative solutions and deescalating dangerous situations. Measures that would enable more women to become officers and climb the ranks, from intentional recruiting to support for child care, would equip departments to better serve their communities.

As the deaths of black men and women continue to mount and the collective pain of a community boils over, some argue that improving policing is pointless — that we’d be better off defunding departments entirely. I can sympathize; this is difficult and, at times, discouraging work. But on the other side of this crisis, we will still need policing in some form. We should strive to align it with the values of communities as much as possible.

And while we work toward a new way of policing, we should also imagine a country that doesn’t use law enforcement as its default response to unaddressed epidemics such as homelessness, generational poverty and substance abuse. Sending guns and badges can’t provide anyone with a home, a job or freedom from addiction. And it certainly can’t compensate for our inadequate public health response to covid-19.

Instead of threatening protesters with police, we could deal honestly with the pain driving people to the streets. That will require real strength and real leadership.

[homersapien 11,354]

Tired of bad cops? First, look at their labor unions.

By Daniel DiSalvo 

June 3, 2020 at 9:57 a.m. EDT

Daniel DiSalvo is a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute and professor of political science at the City College of New York-CUNY.

After every police brutality case like the one involving George Floyd, there are loud calls — this time backed by nationwide protests — for police departments to reform. Frustratingly, nothing seems to change. Among the many reasons for this bureaucratic sclerosis, one often gets overlooked: the power of police labor unions.

The purpose of policing is to promote public safety and uphold the rule of law so that individuals and communities can thrive. The purpose of police unions, however, is to win members better salaries and benefits and to protect their job security — specifically by pushing for safeguards against investigation, discipline and dismissal. These protections can make it difficult for police chiefs to manage their forces effectively and can allow a few bad officers to act with impunity, poisoning an entire organizational culture in the process.

The most notorious example of this problem emerged from Chicago after the 2014 killing of 17-year-old Laquan McDonald by officer Jason Van Dyke. Before that fatal incident, Van Dyke had been the subject of 20 civilian complaints, 10 of which alleged excessive use of force. But under the union rules then in place, the complaints proved toothless. As a task force appointed by Mayor Rahm Emanuel in the wake of the shooting reported, “The collective bargaining agreements between the police unions and the City [had] essentially turned the code of silence into official policy.”

To be sure, many of the protections demanded by police unions reflect the unique challenges of policing. Because of the nature of their work, law enforcement officers tend to have adversarial relationships with the citizens and communities they serve. False or exaggerated complaints are inevitable, and it is understandable that labor representatives would want to protect their members against these threats.

Problems arise when these provisions are exploited to help cover for bad policing. In many American cities, police union contracts limit the amount of time an officer accused of misconduct can be interviewed, who can interview him and when an interview can occur. Houston and Louisville, for example, allow for delays of up to 48 hours before an interview with an officer accused of wrongdoing. On one hand, these rules protect officers who, because they must make statements on the record, surrender as a condition of their jobs their constitutional right to remain silent. On the other hand, this grace period can be used as time for officers to “get their story straight.”

In Baltimore and other cities, labor contracts allow — or even require — expunging officers’ records of past disciplinary actions or accusations of misconduct. In Cleveland, a Justice Department investigation into the police department was stymied because the union contract required the deletion of disciplinary records every two years. At their most benign, these policies deprive supervisors of accurate personnel files, making effective management — and organizational change — impossible. In more troubling circumstances, they allow cops who have violated the public trust to take police jobs in new cities without any record of their past infractions.

Grievance and arbitration proceedings are another obstacle to accountability. These provisions are often the largest part of any contract and are discussed in mind-numbing detail. In New York City, for example, they make up nearly five pages of the police officers’ 29-page contract. They allow both unions and individual officers to challenge personnel actions by superiors. If a sergeant disciplines an officer, the officer or his union representative can appeal to a lieutenant, and so on up the chain of command. If the matter remains unsettled, it can be appealed to binding arbitration. The hassle involved in dealing with grievances can deter supervisors against weeding out poor performers — or even force them to rehire known troublemakers, sometimes with deadly consequences.

Beyond erecting structural obstacles to reform, unions also informally perpetuate some of the most problematic aspects of police culture. Labor leaders have considerable influence over rank-and-file officers, and they don’t always use that influence constructively. As a case in point, the leader of the Minneapolis Police Officers Federation, Bob Kroll, has called the protests convulsing the city a “terrorist movement”; told officers that “the politicians are to blame” for the rioting and the police “are the scapegoats”; and described Floyd as a “violent criminal.” He has also fostered political division in the largely Democratic city; at one point, the union sold “Cops for Trump” T-shirts to raise money for charity.

As tragic as Floyd’s death is, it might finally prompt union leaders to reconsider some of these practices — and to put the mission of the police above job security for officers. In the past several days, many police unions have broken with their usual wagon-circling and openly denounced the actions of the Minneapolis officers involved in Floyd’s death.

Perhaps these labor leaders — and the elected officials on the other side of the bargaining table — will recognize that the rage we see in burning cities indicates a spectacular breakdown in trust between communities and the police. That trust cannot be rebuilt unless police unions are reined in and departments have the freedom to reform.

[McLoofus 35,182]

1 hour ago, homersapien said:

In Baltimore and other cities, labor contracts allow — or even require — expunging officers’ records of past disciplinary actions or accusations of misconduct. In Cleveland, a Justice Department investigation into the police department was stymied because the union contract required the deletion of disciplinary records every two years. At their most benign, these policies deprive supervisors of accurate personnel files, making effective management — and organizational change — impossible. In more troubling circumstances, they allow cops who have violated the public trust to take police jobs in new cities without any record of their past infractions.

I'd be really curious to hear the rationale behind this.

[I_M4_AU 7,773]

1 hour ago, homersapien said:

Perhaps these labor leaders — and the elected officials on the other side of the bargaining table — will recognize that the rage we see in burning cities indicates a spectacular breakdown in trust between communities and the police. That trust cannot be rebuilt unless police unions are reined in and departments have the freedom to reform.

I don’t know how the police unions work specifically, but unions in general are for the dues paying members no matter what.  If a union officer even hinted at giving up a hard fought contract provision without due compensation, that officer would be recalled and another officer would be elected that would keep the contract as is.  Usually, when a contract is negotiated, it is voted on by the membership and that is when the true negotiations starts.  There is a *go along to get along* type of attitude in most unions and you will be *cancelled* for speaking your mind.  A lot like what we are seeing today.

Each police department with their individual unions will have to negotiate and, even though they are separate, other unions will act harshly if one capitulates.  In my opinion, I really don’t know how a public service entity can be organized, but it is what it is.  Another interesting issue will be the pensions of the police and firefighters/EMTs.  In the some states such as Illinois, California and NY the pensions are so underfunded they are about to go bankrupt.  Those states are asking the Federal Government to bail them out.  Bankruptcy would put pressure on these states to re-negotiate the union contracts under bankruptcy laws and that is a pretty big hammer.  It would hurt those states too, but it is a way to correct a wrong.

[homersapien 11,354]

2 hours ago, McLoofus said:

I'd be really curious to hear the rationale behind this.

I just heard about that for the first time last night on PBS Newshour.

I can see how officers could be concerned about such complaints - which is exactly why they should be fully vetted and include the officers rebuttal - but simply making them disappear is a perfect prescription for retaining bad apples.

[homersapien 11,354]

2 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

I don’t know how the police unions work specifically, but unions in general are for the dues paying members no matter what.  If a union officer even hinted at giving up a hard fought contract provision without due compensation, that officer would be recalled and another officer would be elected that would keep the contract as is.  Usually, when a contract is negotiated, it is voted on by the membership and that is when the true negotiations starts.  There is a *go along to get along* type of attitude in most unions and you will be *cancelled* for speaking your mind.  A lot like what we are seeing today.

Each police department with their individual unions will have to negotiate and, even though they are separate, other unions will act harshly if one capitulates.  In my opinion, I really don’t know how a public service entity can be organized, but it is what it is.  Another interesting issue will be the pensions of the police and firefighters/EMTs.  In the some states such as Illinois, California and NY the pensions are so underfunded they are about to go bankrupt.  Those states are asking the Federal Government to bail them out.  Bankruptcy would put pressure on these states to re-negotiate the union contracts under bankruptcy laws and that is a pretty big hammer.  It would hurt those states too, but it is a way to correct a wrong.

I agree, but I think the "elected officials" in question was referring to the Mayors, etc. that are negotiating with the union.

In other words, part of the responsibility for these harmful rules lie with the Mayor who agreed to them.  At least that's they way I took it.

As for pensions, I think they should be a thing of the past.  I would rather see cities pay the police more and provide them 401k's like most everyone else.

Higher pay would also encourage more professionalism than pension benefits IMO.

[I_M4_AU 7,773]

13 minutes ago, homersapien said:

I agree, but I think the "elected officials" in question was referring to the Mayors, etc. that are negotiating with the union.

In other words, part of the responsibility for these harmful rules lie with the Mayor who agreed to them.  At least that's they way I took it.

As for pensions, I think they should be a thing of the past.  I would rather see cities pay the police more and provide them 401k's like most everyone else.

Higher pay would also encourage more professionalism than pension benefits IMO.

My reply was one sided as I have never been in politics, however, have been on the *management* side.  I agree that the Mayors need to take some blame here, but the Mayors are not negotiating from a position of strength.

California’s pension plan for cops is a defined benefit that is based on a rate of return of 7.5% and they aren’t keeping up.  They can convert the pension plan to a defined contribution, but they have to be made whole before they do.  That is the problem, they don’t have the money.  A lot of corporations saw this problem coming and converted before it got too bad.  Some where forced to do it through bankruptcy.  Very few defined benefit pensions left, Alabama teachers are one.

Higher pay would let the Mayors to demand better standards and therefore, better compliance.

[autigeremt 6,569]

End Public Sector Unions! They work for the people, not the union/themselves.