copwatch@lokmail.com
DISCUSSION FORUM
COPWATCH.com HOME
Dec. 3, 2001
From Jtfigs@aol.com
I was surfing the web and came across this site; found the reforms quite
interesting, but difficult to accomplish. For example, in section 1 (a)
saying all civilian reveiw boards be elected, not appointed, there is a
problem today with getting people just to vote in regular elections. Also,
how big should the boards be? 7 members? 9? 21?
Do you think people will actually want to be police officers if all of these policy's were implimented? Do you think more criminals will be caught?
I have 1000's of other questions, and I have no intention of being a smart ass, just very curious, really wish I had more time to write. If you are wondering, I am a police officer in New York City. I graduated from Brooklyn College (with a 3.4 GPA) as a history major, got a 1050 on my SAT's from high school, and studied constitutional law as well as psycology (though not 50 credits worth) while in college.
Look forward to a serious chat,
Joe
Hi, Joe-
Thanks for your inquiry.
There’s no question that the reforms we recommend would be somewhat difficult to implement. At this stage, we’re primarily enaged in getting the ideas out to the public, so that local community activists around the nation have access to a well-researched and effective agenda. If the ideas are not locally presented, they will never be locally adopted.
Regarding your objection to elected citizen review boards: we really don’t mind if most people don’t vote. In fact, we prefer it. If non-voters are not well informed or interested enough to vote, we’re better off not having their input. Consider also that voter apathy would probably work in favor of the cops, since it would likely be easier to motivate the middle class to elect “pro-police” candidates than to motivate the “underclass” to elect Al Sharptons. On the other hand, if candidates were appointed, Al Sharptons would undoubtedly end up on the boards, thanks to mayors/city councils pandering to the segment of the populace that avidly supports Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, and their ilk.
The size of the boards would vary from city to city. Size would probably be a function of population and tax base, at least to some extent.
Whether anyone would want to be a policeman if these reforms are adopted is as yet unknown. In all likelihood, there would be a reduction in applicants. But if certain other of our reforms were adopted (drug decriminalization, 80th percentile speed limits, etc), there would probably be far less need for cops to get into violent confrontations with citizens, and thus far less exposure to danger and liability.
I’d be happy to answer any further questions.
Cordially,
Mike
Mike;
I don't know if you are aware of this, but New York City already has civlian compliant review boards (CCRB's), and personally I don't think anyone is happy with them, Civlians think they are too linent on the police, police hate them because it's an avenue to bring bogus charges (NOT ALWAYS) against cops that are doing their jobs. There have been cases where civlians have committed perjury and lied to the boards; after proven as lies, these people were not prosecuted for perjury, which they were guilty of.
As for speeding and parking tickets, well; if someone is going over the limit and not weaving in and out of traffic I see no reason to bother them, on the other hand if people think they are in the INDY 500, they should be stopped. Maybe instead of a monetary fine; community service could be implemented as punishment.
Making law enforcement officers write parking tickets is a disgrace and should be stopped, along with qoutas (known as projected goals) for summonses.
Problem is inherently with the system, too many catch 22's. Wealthy people dont want to see drinking in their neighborhoods, yet dont want their kids hassled for underage drinking (or drinking in public if legal age). Others want to see homeless addicts off the street, but dont want a detox center nearby. Of course, no one likes authority unless it benefits them, and people in general dont like to be told what to do by another person--espically carrying a firearm and handcuffs.
Here is something to think about, your organization wants to legalize all drugs--fine. On the other hand you want police to take random drug screening tests before they are hired and durring their career. Now since drugs are legal, what is the basis for giving a test? Of course one has to be fit for duty, but once off duty some officers would be willing to use drugs. Or in your scenerio would police be forbidden to use even if they were legal to the public? Since police recruit from society, how long would people have to be off drugs to be police officers?
I'd hate to think a former crack addict would be eligible to be a cop.
Just something to think about
Joe
Joe-
As I indicated, there are a lot of difficulties associated with the adoption of our reform program. Nevertheless, we will assiduously pursue these objectives, in the hopes that doing so will lead more quickly to our primary systemic objective: an increase in the rate at which cops police themselves. Until decent cops reign in those who misbehave, then no reform we suggest can be too restrictive or difficult. There are too many instances in which the blue wall of silence kicks in, transforming otherwise decent cops into the monkeys who see, hear, and speak no evil. I’ve seen and experienced it firsthand myself. Decent cops must feel compelled to turn in bad cops, or they will (if we meet with any success), be severely punished, as well as tarred and feathered with the reputation-destroying acts of their cohorts.
Regarding the effectiveness of CRB’s, I am not aware of any that possess the powers which we advocate. Any CRB constituted under our rules would be extremely effective.
You raise some good points regarding the “Catch 22” nature of policing v. unrestricted freedom. All of this is clearly debatable. But just as police unions pursue an agenda that is 100 percent in favor of their membership, so there must be organizations that take the other side. Actually, we don’t consider ourselves as being on “the other side”- we’re much more reasonable and rational than most other “anti police” groups, which are often focused on red herrings like racial profiling and gun control. We are not anti-police, but pro-liberty.
The drug issue is also a Catch 22, at least as you have posed the question. Which comes first, legalization for the public, or unpunished use by the cops? Clearly, large segments of both groups are already using. But the public, at least, is not being hypocritical.
Under our drug plan, anyone utilizing any intoxicating substance, (regardless of its legality), who harms the public as a consequence of such use, or whose intoxicant-influenced actions pose a clear and present danger to the public, should be penalized- extremely severely in the first instance, and far less severely in the second.
Under this standard, cops using drugs, even if such use were legal, would nevertheless be seriously liable and criminally culpably for any unjustified harm they caused.
I would not be surprised if there are already many cops who are former crack addicts, and a goodly number who are still crack addicts. I don’t have the stats at my fingertips, but I’ll forward them when I find a citation.
Best Wishes, Mike
> [Quoting Mike’s post] I would not be surprised if there are already many cops who are former crack
> addicts, and a goodly number who are still crack addicts.
Mike, not only is this statement redicluous, it is insulting. Of 1.8 million law enforcement officers that are on duty every day in our country, what do you define as a "goodly number"? Did you mean significant? (if you do the math, 10% of 1.8 million is 180,000). Good luck in finding evidence that supports this.
Joe
Joe:
In a sense, I’m glad that you are insulted by the proposition, since it indicates that you are personally unfamiliar with any cops who fit that profile. However, I stand by the contention that there are cops who currently use crack and other illicit drugs, as well as cops who formerly used crack and other illicit drugs.
Perhaps it is somewhat rash to voice this belief without any evidence at my fingertips. But to argue by analogy, I don’t think you’d deny that alcoholism is a well-recognized and pervasive problem in the ranks. It seems very unlikely that alcohol would be police officers’ exclusive drug of choice.
Regarding the interpretation of my phrasing, I’d say that a “goodly number” is less than a “substantial number”, but equal to a “significant number”. Again, to support this view with another analogy, I feel certain that almost every cop would claim that a “significant number” of cops are feloniously killed each year, when, to judge purely by the numbers, that is not true. (I don’t mean to imply that any given death is insignificant- clearly, the opposite is true, at least in a subjective sense: every single death is “significant” to those who are close to the deceased, if not to everyone else).
I have no doubt at all that there are more many more cops who smoke crack than there are cops who are feloniously killed in the line of duty.
Cordially, Mike
I wish you luck in finding cops (with evidence supporting) who use illicit drugs, if I come across any that use, I will give you their name, shield # and command where they work out of in New York City, so you may post it on your site.
Joe
No luck needed, Joe. Just spent a few minutes searching the web. Here is a link to the Texas State Commission on Law Enforcement, and an excerpt from the site. If my other computer were hooked up to a monitor, I would send you at least a dozen articles about specific cases.
•A survey of 2,200 officers in 29 police departments throughout the U.S. revealed that 23% of the officers had serious alcohol problems and 10% had serious drug problems. (This number is substantially higher than the number estimated for the general population.)
•A study of 6,182 Canadian police officers revealed that 11% drank more than 5 drinks per day, and an additional 13% drank more than 3 drinks per day. Thus, a total of 24% drank at a frequency which, if maintained over an extended period, can be predicted to cause physical damage. With regard to drugs, 37% reported using illicit drugs in their lifetimes. Fourteen per cent said they had used illicit drugs in the past year, seven per cent reported illicit drug use in the past 30 days.
•A questionnaire administered to police officers in Chicago revealed that 40% drank while on duty.
•A study of officers in a major mid-western state revealed that 53% came to work with a hangover, and that an "average" officer drank alcohol on the job almost eight days every half year.
Although this excerpt contains no specific mention of crack, it’s logical to assume that crack is not excluded as one of the problem drugs. Bear in mind the likelihood that a not insubstantial number of the officers responding to these surveys underreported or falsely denied their usage. After all, admitting to illegal or otherwise prohibited behavior is not good for ones self-perception, career, or reputation.
I appreciate your offer to send us information regarding any officers you may personally meet who have problems with illicit drugs. However, it seems possible that you may not be cognizant of such use, particularly since I’d venture to guess that you have a reputation as someone who does not approve of or tolerate drug use.
Incidentally, steroids are classified as illicit drugs absent a prescription, and there’s little question that a goodly number of cops abuse them habitually. As I’m sure you are aware, there are many studies documenting the dangerous effects of steroid use, including the phenomenon known as “roid rage”, in which users become uncontrollably and exceptionally violent, usually with little or no provocation. Do you agree the common contention that cops on steroids are walking time bombs?
Regards, Mike
I'll look through it after I get some rest.
Joe
We've heard nothing more from Joe.