Baltimore Riots

[caulfield12]

This was actually before they went to the mall. This was when they were showing the liquor stores, the cell phone store and the CVS being ransacked.

 

Two different groups.

 

The mall situation began at 3 p.m.

[EvilMonkey]

This assumes that police management would label police who 'rough up' people as "bad cops" and would get rid of them if it weren't for the unions. I don't see any evidence for that.

OK, so lets just do nothing then, since this won't magically solve the problem instantly.

[StrangeSox]

OK, so lets just do nothing then, since this won't magically solve the problem instantly.

Stripping officers of their collective bargaining power won't change police culture and police management's views.

[EvilMonkey]

Stripping officers of their collective bargaining power won't change police culture and police management's views.

Read, I never said eliminate the unions. YOU did.

[LDF]

I wouldn't think it was. But what about the stuff that never makes it to IA? Where they 'talk' the person into not pressing the case or something? I am sure there are a lot of incidents that don't get reported. I also know that there are a lot of made up cases of violence against cops, which I am sure makes it difficulty for IA and supervisors. During all that Occupy stuff, there were emails going around telling people that if they were arrested to claim they were beat up and/or otherwise abused, even if they weren't. it happens.

you can not make a case of something that has never been brought to light.

 

second, many patrols cars have internal camera in the cars.

[caulfield12]

Stripping officers of their collective bargaining power won't change police culture and police management's views.

 

It would only make them feel more threatened and "cornered," just like making the same threats (taking over, whether it's the state or Federal government) against under-performing "inner city/urban" schools usually has the same effect on their staff morale.

[Dick Allen]

Two different groups.

 

The mall situation began at 3 p.m.

And the guy on the scene said the average age was 16 or 17, he wasn't at the mall.

[Balta1701]

It is part of the problem, sort of. The rules negotiated with the unions. But the departments and their municipalities are equally responsible for allowing those rules. So even that part of the problem is 50/50.

I've got to agree with this. It may not apply nationwide but in the cases where we've seen these problems -NY, MO, etc, the police unions protecting the current system has been part of the problem and that is one of several things that has to somehow be overhauled.

[StrangeSox]

Read, I never said eliminate the unions. YOU did.

Weakening unions so that police management can fire people who they deem "bad cops" more easily won't change what criteria police management uses to judge who's a "bad cop."

 

I can't imagine that if police management actually wanted to curb these "rough rides" or if the CPD wanted to shut down their torture warehouse that the union would be the ones standing in the way. More likely, management either openly or tacitly approves of these sorts of things up to a certain point in the chain of command and then maintains deliberate ignorance and plausible deniability above that.

[caulfield12]

Weakening unions so that police management can fire people who they deem "bad cops" more easily won't change what criteria police management uses to judge who's a "bad cop."

 

I can't imagine that if police management actually wanted to curb these "rough rides" or if the CPD wanted to shut down their torture warehouse that the union would be the ones standing in the way. More likely, management either openly or tacitly approves of these sorts of things up to a certain point in the chain of command and then maintains deliberate ignorance and plausible deniability above that.

 

And then, when, for example prisons are privatized....the abuses gradually worsen because there's even less public accountability.

Edited April 28, 2015 by caulfield12

[NorthSideSox72]

This assumes that police management would label police who 'rough up' people as "bad cops" and would get rid of them if it weren't for the unions. I don't see any evidence for that.

It does no such thing. You made that assumption. Read my post again. I said those rules protecting cops in ways that aren't good, are PART of the problem. And they are.

 

[illinilaw08]

That's a problem, and the best way to weed that out is City Hall forcing changes from the top down. Which again would be black democrats in a city like Baltimore.

 

Didn't see this posted earlier in the thread, but, in my opinion, a pretty balanced take from The Atlantic.

 

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archiv...utm_source=SFFB

[StrangeSox]

It does no such thing. You made that assumption. Read my post again. I said those rules protecting cops in ways that aren't good, are PART of the problem. And they are.

No, the assumption is implicit. If these rules are part of the problem of police violence, then they must be protecting these cops from something. If management doesn't actually view this sort of behavior as "bad" policing and doesn't actually want to fire or discipline these cops, then these rules aren't protecting them from anything on this issue. Changing them wouldn't make a difference unless management actually would like to do something about it.

[NorthSideSox72]

No, the assumption is implicit. If these rules are part of the problem of police violence, then they must be protecting these cops from something. If management doesn't actually view this sort of behavior as "bad" policing and doesn't actually want to fire or discipline these cops, then these rules aren't protecting them from anything on this issue. Changing them wouldn't make a difference unless management actually would like to do something about it.

You're making a strange leap here. You seem to be saying the rules are not part of the problem? The rules that are there in part to do exactly what you are railing against? You've lost me.

 

[Jenksismyhero]

So if the major or city council was white, like in LA during the Rodney King and OJ Simpson debacles...then it would make it, what, worse?

 

Who was leading the city during the Rampart investigations?

 

You're telling me that the culture of the police force is set by the mayor and Democrats?

 

REALLY?

 

http://article.wn.com/view/2015/04/20/Majo...gns_After_Firs/

 

If that's your example, then Parma, Missouri, is an easy counter-example to cite.

 

Should I keep going?

 

I dunno that it would make it "worse," but I think the argument that this is a systematic problem caused by white people 50 years ago becomes weaker. In Baltimore you've had systemic issues, but you've also had black leaders and democrats in power for decades. They're just as much of a failure to the black folks as white people were in the past. In other words, unlike Ferguson, this isn't strictly about race. It's more about poverty/crime.

[StrangeSox]

You're making a strange leap here. You seem to be saying the rules are not part of the problem? The rules that are there in part to do exactly what you are railing against? You've lost me.

I'm assuming that there aren't union rules authorizing police abuse but instead provide some sort of due process protection for disciplinary action up to and including firing.

 

The rules protecting the officers only matter here if they're preventing police management from making changes that they would otherwise like to make. I'm asking why we're assuming that police management isn't perfectly fine with these "rough rides." Because if they approve or at least turn a blind eye to it because they don't care, then union rules are irrelevant.

 

edit: maybe I'm misunderstanding here. can you lay out what rules (generic reference is fine) were standing in the way of reforming BPD culture?

Edited April 28, 2015 by StrangeSox

[EvilMonkey]

I'm assuming that there aren't union rules authorizing police abuse but instead provide some sort of due process protection for disciplinary action up to and including firing.

 

The rules protecting the officers only matter here if they're preventing police management from making changes that they would otherwise like to make. I'm asking why we're assuming that police management isn't perfectly fine with these "rough rides." Because if they approve or at least turn a blind eye to it because they don't care, then union rules are irrelevant.

I noted earlier that it would take some 'want to' from management, but that you need to start somewhere. You instead went with a 'it won't solve it by itself so it won't work' answer.

[Jenksismyhero]

Someone was trying to directly link the "police culture" in Baltimore with African-American leadership and/or Democrats.

 

If that's true, logically....then white administrations where white officers are committing crimes against minority populations (such as Hispanics/Mexicans in the Southwest) are even guiltier.

 

I'm not saying one caused the other, i'm saying one was caused by white people in the past, but in the decades since the culture hasn't been changed even though non-whites and democrats (the saviors of the minority) have been in charge.

[StrangeSox]

I noted earlier that it would take some 'want to' from management, but that you need to start somewhere. You instead went with a 'it won't solve it by itself so it won't work' answer.

1) Why not start with creating a "want to" from management?

 

2) I went with a "I see no reason to see why this would solve anything at all, seems irrelevant" answer. When the LAPD went through reforms in the 1990's, was weakening the unions a necessary part of the process?

[Jenksismyhero]

I think it's fair to do the same characterization of both sides. If 10% of the protestors are actively criminals and are "uncivilized thugs", both terms used in this thread, then the police don't get to brag because their bad number is 5%. Either you use the broad brush to paint both sides or we can drop it and actually focus on how things get to this point so often.

 

You're all over the place here. Why is it bad to call kids throwing rocks/bricks at cops and setting things on fire thugs? Where has anyone, me specifically, said that everyone in baltimore is a thug? Clearly we're all talking about specific people here.

[Jenksismyhero]

Didn't see this posted earlier in the thread, but, in my opinion, a pretty balanced take from The Atlantic.

 

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archiv...utm_source=SFFB

 

Yeah I agree with a lot in there, but here's my one issue: He's asking why we're not as outraged about police brutality as we are about the riots. And I think the answer is pretty simple: we're watching it live, as it happens. We can see the smoldering cars and buildings. We can see the kids hurling brick and bottles. With police brutality we don't, or rarely do, and when we do, generally there is a fair bit of outrage.

[Dick Allen]

You're all over the place here. Why is it bad to call kids throwing rocks/bricks at cops and setting things on fire thugs? Where has anyone, me specifically, said that everyone in baltimore is a thug? Clearly we're all talking about specific people here.

I agree. And people who steal things from stores, burn buildings and cars and throw rocks and bricks at policemen and firefighers are, by definition, criminals.

Edited April 28, 2015 by Dick Allen

[Texsox]

Who in their right mind would want to be a cop in this environment? Now take away any job protections. What mythical person are we left with to take the job?

 

And that IS a problem. By making the job attractive for a quality candidate, you also leave open the poor candidate to stay. I'm not certain there is an easy solution. But making the job less appealing to quality candidates doesn't seem like a step in the correct direction.

 

Also, have we now set a pattern that any event like this must must be met with a violent protest bigger than the previous? This is not a good path either. It's dangerous for everyone.

 

There was a great point that I think was kind of tossed aside earlier in the thread. When we think that the protesters are protesting white power we tend to over simplify. This also points to people who do have power versus the powerless. Money = power in America. When there are no legitimate and useful means for average citizens to see results they take to methods outside the "system". So we have looting and violence. There are lots of problems here that all need to be addressed.

[NorthSideSox72]

Who in their right mind would want to be a cop in this environment? Now take away any job protections. What mythical person are we left with to take the job?

 

And that IS a problem. By making the job attractive for a quality candidate, you also leave open the poor candidate to stay. I'm not certain there is an easy solution. But making the job less appealing to quality candidates doesn't seem like a step in the correct direction.

 

Also, have we now set a pattern that any event like this must must be met with a violent protest bigger than the previous? This is not a good path either. It's dangerous for everyone.

 

There was a great point that I think was kind of tossed aside earlier in the thread. When we think that the protesters are protesting white power we tend to over simplify. This also points to people who do have power versus the powerless. Money = power in America. When there are no legitimate and useful means for average citizens to see results they take to methods outside the "system". So we have looting and violence. There are lots of problems here that all need to be addressed.

There are lots of ways to address that problem - of the right people wanting to become cops.

 

Let's tell a story of two departments I happen to know some things about: New Orleans and Denver.

 

Even before Katrina, New Orleans was generally recoginized as the most poorly-run and corrupt large city department in the country (or among them anyway). Now let's look at their hiring and training practices. Their qualifications are (or at least were, haven't checked lately) basically 21 years old, high school diploma, no felony or serious misdemeanor convictions, and physically able to do the job. And their pay? Just above minimum wage. Officers usually make more money working private security off duty with no controls to speak of.

 

Now look at Denver, generally considered one of the best departments in the country and with among the highest rates of citizen happiness with their performance. They require a degree (2 or 4 year, or 2 years' worth towards one if former military), no criminal convictions whatsoever (traffic violations are OK to a limited extent). They also are known for doing more in-service training than most departments. And they are paid better than almost all their cohort cities, with cops starting (last I checked) somewhere in the 50's per year or maybe 60k. They offer tuition reimbursement for graduate school or finishing bachelors, and they only allow outside contract work via their own internal agency. Now that's expensive of course - their approach is to have fewer officers per capita than other departments, but better ones. They get much better candidates that way. And by being business-smart and internalizing overtime and outside private work, they get more revenue too.

 

That's just one parallel example. You can make things better if you want to. When you talk to Denver cops about why they like that department, the union doesn't even come up.

 

[Balta1701]

You're all over the place here. Why is it bad to call kids throwing rocks/bricks at cops and setting things on fire thugs? Where has anyone, me specifically, said that everyone in baltimore is a thug? Clearly we're all talking about specific people here.

Because when I push you to apply the same word to a police department that murdered a guy and has paid out millions of dollars in settlements for police brutality you slither away.

 

Is the Baltimore police department full of thugs?