HUFF Releases Evidence of SCPD Profiling, Joins National Police Brutality Protests

And today the Blue Wall of Silence endures in towns and cities across America. Whistleblowers in police departments — or as I like to call them, “lamp lighters,” after Paul Revere — are still turned into permanent pariahs. The complaint I continue to hear is that when they try to bring injustice to light they are told by government officials: “We can’t afford a scandal; it would undermine public confidence in our police.” That confidence, I dare say, is already seriously undermined.

Things might have improved in some areas. The days when I served and you could get away with anything, when cops were better at accounting than at law enforcement — keeping meticulous records of the people they were shaking down, stealing drugs and money from dealers on a regular basis — all that no longer exists as systematically as it once did, though it certainly does in some places. Times have changed. It’s harder to be a venal cop these days.

But an even more serious problem — police violence — has probably grown worse, and it’s out of control for the same reason that graft once was: a lack of accountability.

I tried to be an honest cop in a force full of bribe-takers. But as I found out the hard way, police departments are useless at investigating themselves—and that’s exactly the problem facing ordinary people across the country —including perhaps, Ferguson, Missouri, which has been a lightning rod for discontent even though the circumstances under which an African-American youth, Michael Brown, was shot remain unclear.

Today the combination of an excess of deadly force and near-total lack of accountability is more dangerous than ever: Most cops today can pull out their weapons and fire without fear that anything will happen to them, even if they shoot someone wrongfully. All a police officer has to say is that he believes his life was in danger, and he’s typically absolved. What do you think that does to their psychology as they patrol the streets—this sense of invulnerability? The famous old saying still applies: Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. (And we still don’t know how many of these incidents occur each year; even though Congress enacted the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act 20 years ago, requiring the Justice Department to produce an annual report on “the use of excessive force by law enforcement officers,” the reports were never issued.)

It wasn’t any surprise to me that, after Michael Brown was shot dead in Ferguson, officers instinctively lined up behind Darren Wilson, the cop who allegedly killed Brown. Officer Wilson may well have had cause to fire if Brown was attacking him, as some reports suggest, but it is also possible we will never know the full truth—whether, for example, it was really necessary for Wilson to shoot Brown at least six times, killing rather than just wounding him. As they always do, the police unions closed ranks also behind the officer in question. And the district attorney (who is often totally in bed with the police and needs their votes) and city power structure can almost always be counted on to stand behind the unions.

by Frank Serpico

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/10/the-police-are-still-out-of-control-112160_full.html

If this is the *nineteenth* national day of protest, then I think we can safely say it's not working. Maybe it's time to up the ante, don't you think?

Although my opinion about whether or not police brutality exists in our community is more measured that some, I respect the fact that Homeless United for Friendship and Freedom is asking the difficult questions regarding this and other issues. By these persistent actions, they are raising the questions that must be asked about police procedures and policies and the new "prison-industrial complex" that is building jail and prison cells in our country at an unprecedented rate. And while mainstream society seems comfortable with the policy of separating whole segments of our population from their liberty, HUFF has joined the prison abolition group Sin Barras in standing up against the very foundation of this policy.

Both groups are asking why our country imprisons a greater percentage of its citizens than any other country in the world. They are asking why Black Americans who comprise 12% of the population compose 40% of all prison populations. They are asking why 65% of all those incarcerated are non-violent drug offenders. They are asking our President why the federal sentencing guidelines for crack cocaine are 18 times that of the punishment for powder. They are asking why our county jail is operating at 120% capacity at a time when the State of California is under a federal consent decree to reduce the overall prison population by 30,000. The are asking why, in consideration of the fact that the consent decree is based on a finding by the court that the level of medical care provided to prison inmates violates their constitutional protection against cruel and unusual punishment, our county jail has decided to outsource its medical care and place it beyond local control. And they are asking why our young African Americans residents are being racially profiled to a point that can no longer escape notice.

It has been truly said that a community cannot arrest its way out of crime; and it most certainly cannot incarcerate its way out. It has also been said that the war on drugs and the unrestrained rush to build more jail and prison cells to warehouse offenders has created a new "Jim Crow" which has effectively bound and shackled an entirely new generation of young Black Americans. I say that the reach of this new Mr. Crow is broad enough and insidious enough to shackle us all. And that is why we must all start asking the questions that are being asked by HUFF and Sin Barras. And we must all begin asking them today.

Perhaps Steve is blinded by the TBSC company he covets? Pleich is certainly capable of posting on Indybay, selectively, while completely ignoring pointed questions on Indybay...

http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2014/09/14/18761632.php?show_comments=1#18761947

https://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2014/10/19/18763009.php

A federal judge has accepted the settlement between the U.S. Department of Justice and the city of Portland on reforms intended to improve the way police deal with mentally ill people.

U.S. District Judge Michael Simon said Friday he wants annual progress reports, and he set the first such hearing for September 2015.

The Justice Department began an investigation three years ago to examine whether Portland police engaged in a "pattern or practice" of excessive force when dealing with the mentally ill. Agency officials concluded such a pattern exists, and they began negotiating with city leaders on reforms.

[...]

In a news release from the coalition, the Revs. LeRoy Haynes, Jr. and T. Allen Bethel said the judge's approval is "a major step to creating a true community policing culture within the Portland Police Bureau in light of the national attention on deadly force and excessive force by the police department in the Michael Brown death in Ferguson, Missouri."

http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2014/08/federal_judge_accepts_agreemen.html

I have recently read the very excellent treatise by local journalist John Malkin on the need for citizen oversight of law enforcement. But that work was completed in the early 1990s and the more I read John's observations about law enforcement, public safety and the role that citizens can play in both, the more I wondered what relationship that template and those observations had to present day Santa Cruz and to our common interest in the protection of individual rights, efficient community policing and the pursuit of public safety. Taken together with the recent revelations of police profiling in our community, the need for such a board is more pressing than ever.

In my time as a city resident and candidate for public office, I have seen a growing concern for public safety coupled with an expanding public mandate for law enforcement to use whatever means and methods they thought best to insure the safety of our community. Indeed, one does not need to be a social scientist to understand that the dynamic balance between protections of individual liberties and the need for public safety has shifted dramatically over the past few years. Particularly in light of the horrific incidents of violence that visited our city in the recent past, I have watched our elected officials support a marked and noteworthy increase in the number of sworn officers serving in the police department while seeming little concerned about the chilling effect heightened police presence inevitably brings. But it is not the expansion of the police department or the overarching presence of law enforcement in our community that concerns me most. It is the almost complete lack of citizen participation in the development of these policies and the complete absence of civilian oversight of this ever-expanding aspect of our community that occupies my thoughts and prompts these observations.

In his treatise, John rightfully observes that police officer training is almost entirely devoted to intelligence gathering, weapons proficiency and police procedure. They are only tangentially trained in nonviolent conflict resolution and community relations. And here I will say that this is not their fault. The officer on the street is only as good as the training he or she receives and clearly they are not receiving the kind of training and input that would create not only an enlightened police force mindful of individual liberties, but a more efficient one as well.

Every incoming police administration in recent times has called for a policy of community partnership to bridge the perceived divide between law enforcement and the citizenry it is sworn to serve. In point of fact, if this chasm were not real and existing, there would be no need to call attention to it as a matter of departmental policy. But what the department has failed to recognize is that our community also knows a few things about public safety. It knows that law enforcement alone cannot make the community safe. It knows that true public safety can only be developed and sustained in an atmosphere of trust and accountability. It knows that individual liberties are a bedrock value that must be honored and preserved. And it knows that community engagement is the foundation of wise and forward thinking public safety policy. So the question becomes: If we accept these statements as true, how are we to actualize them in ways that best benefit our community? And this brings us full circle to my original question: Do we have a present need for a Citizens Public Safety Review Board?

My answer is “Yes”.

I respectfully suggest the creation of a civilian review board tasked with oversight of our police department. Understand that when I say “oversight” I do not mean control. Such a board would be committed to ensuring that the City of Santa Cruz has a police department that acts with integrity and administers justice fairly and evenhandedly. However, to insure the independence of such a body, the board would directly consult with and advise the police department and would pass along advisory opinions to council for informational purposes only. That is the only way to “depoliticize” the process while creating a clear line of accountability between the community and the police department. This is a bold notion and one that requires the full measure of trust, accountability and community partnership that I have previously alluded to.

As so what form will this new, modern Citizens Public Safety Review Board take? If, as we say, the board is to be composed of citizen representatives charged with the review of police policies and procedures, it cannot, for example, be restricted to consideration of already completed internal police investigations into allegations of police misconduct. A truly reformist board must be given the power to conduct parallel investigations to supplement and inform those conducted by Internal Affairs. Although ultimate decisions would continue to be the province of the department and its chain of command, a civilian review board with independent investigative authority would have the power to make recommendations to the Chief concerning disposition and discipline.

On issues of operational policy and commitment of resources, any such board would need to have direct input to achieve any degree of real effectiveness. The obvious benefit of this input would be that resource allocation and priorities would more accurately reflect the community’s concern about how best to police and make safe our city. For example, if the board felt that public safety would best be served by spending more money on gang suppression and less on petty theft investigations, resources could be allocated accordingly. If the board recommended more money be devoted to the investigation of sexual assaults and less to enforcement of downtown behavior ordinances then that too could drive fundamental reallocation of resources. These are matters upon which reasonable minds will surely differ and will ultimately be the product on a long and comprehensive public input and review process. But it is a conversation we must have if a truly effective oversight process is ever to become a functional part of protecting individual liberties and preventing racial profiling while making the community safer as a whole.