Police Authority, et al: Part II

Rob Pincus

New member
Glenn said:

However, that doesn't mean that the professions can't do a little more self evaluation. The blue wall that we saw on Diallo or Louima is the same phenomena as the white wall in the medical malpractice cases.

Show me one LEO who defended the Louima incident.. let alone enough LEOs to form any so-called "Blue-wall".

When one makes a statement like that with no basis in fact, it undermines the legitimacy of any other statement one might make.

Again and again I see certain people using the tactics of the Antis against LEOs.

Why?

Why is it that several of you are so concerned concerned about limiting police authority that you would sink to these levels?
 
Rob,
I think Ruby Ridge and Waco were the straw that broke the camels back when it came to breaking the natural bond between law abiding people in the firearms community and the police.

HCI publically stated that they wanted to drive a wedge between us. Despite your's, Rich's, Erik's and mine (among others) efforts we seem unable to breach that gap that is dividing us.

I think that many of our friends here at TFL now are personally threatened by the fact that they may have their lives ruined or even ended over an unintentional technical violation of firearms law.

In a thread on SWAT dynamic entrys I asked how many were so outraged when these tactics we used against crack dealers and other types like that before the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban made them realize that "they" could be on the receiving end of a dynamic entry for the mere possesion of a magazine made after September 13 1994. When the other one in their cabinet (made prior to that) was legal. The absolute refusal of the Federal Government to hold the people responsible for Ruby Ridge and Waco accountable for their actions has fed into this to. Every time an incident like that happens, it makes it harder for all of us who wear a badge to do our jobs. A whole class of decent hardworking citizens (TFL members)now rightfully fears that someday they will become criminals because they choose to continue with a hobby or a way of life they have always known.

Have you read the application for the Waco search warrant? Many forum members have. Ever have gun parts and accessories delivered to your home by UPS. Gee, that was some of the probable cause that was used to get the warrant.

You and I know that we wouldn't personally twist the constitution to get an arrest to make brownie points for a promotion. I'm sure most of the anti LE sentiment is not directed personally against us, but is collectively aimed at a system that has had problems and abuses.

The very nature of police work tends to anger some people. People basically don't like being told what to do. I had a woman in the chiefs office once about a parking ticket I wrote her. The chief told her that he was glad someone took the initiative to write some tickets there, before he had to put an order up to enforce the parking too close to the intersection at that location. When he called me in to tell me about the complaint, he told me that "You can't do this job without P*(()&g people off. It's natural, if I have an officer that I never hear a minor complaint about, I figure he's not doing anything."

I think that to bridge the gap we will have to start with some reform of some of the laws, then we will have to bring those people responsible for the past abuses to justice. it goes back to the old, who's policing the police arguement. Only when the public feels that those who are charged with enforcing the laws are kept from abusing the power that the citizens have given them will that confidence and trust return.

I think they are expressing their frustration with the entire situation right now and like it or not, if you carry a badge you are a symbol of the government, worse then a symbol but the muscle of that government.

I wish I had more answers, but I fear that it's going to get worse before it gets better.

Jeff
 
An excellent post Jeff. Obviously, you have put serious thought into the view of those frustrated with the LE community. In fact, you have done a better job of summing up their fears than most of them ever have.
 
Based on my recollection, which could be faulty, there were at least three people in the room when the man was sodomized. If I am correct, two people initially denied that any abuse took place.
As long as there have been police there has been abuse. There is apparently much more today than ever before. To me the increase seems to be a result of the US vs. THEM mentality which seems to have increased by leaps and bounds as a result of the "WAR" on crime or drugs or whatever.
I admit to being an "Archie Bunker American" at times, but it all went down the crapper when the Federal Government began subsidising local PD's. That is when the Boys in Blue became the Military Equivalent. There ARE a lot of good people in law enforcement, but there are a lot of problems that we do not need.

------------------
Better days to be,

Ed
 
Jeff White,

Damned good post, sir!

I too have a fear of going to bed one night a law-abiding citizen and waking up the next morning a felon.

Wasn't it one of President Clinton's White House cronies (Paul Begala) that coined the phrase, "Stroke of the pen, Law of the land. Kinda cool!", in reference to the white house's law-making by Executive Order?

Regards,

Sensop
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Rob:
An excellent post Jeff. Obviously, you have put serious thought into the view of those frustrated with the LE community. In fact, you have done a better job of summing up their fears than most of them ever have.

[/quote]

I would tend to agree with this. Very well said Jeff White, very well said indeed.
 
Rob:

The Blue Wall and Louima from the NY Times

The line wrap may be funky. I understand your outrage as you seem to be a decent guy but before you say I don't know of what I speak,
reconsider. I may make a mistake but I do not
make stuff up knowingly.

February 16, 2000

Police Union Official Concedes Advising Silence on Louima to Officers



---------------------------------------------

By ALAN FEUER

[H] is voice seething with controlled rage, a
high-ranking police union official
grudgingly testified yesterday that he had
told several officers at the 70th Precinct in
Brooklyn to "sit tight" and not talk to
investigators about the vicious assault on
Abner Louima. But he denied that he had
coached the officers in getting their stories
straight.

The union official, Michael Immitt, was
called as a government witness in the trial
of Charles Schwarz, Thomas Bruder and Thomas
Wiese -- three police officers accused of
covering up the assault on Mr. Louima in the
bathroom of the 70th Precinct station house
nearly three years ago.

Mr. Immitt, a trustee of the Patrolmen's
Benevolent Association, was truculent and
angry from the moment he took the stand in
Federal District Court in Brooklyn, answering
difficult questions by a federal prosecutor
with heavy sarcasm and a steady, glaring
gaze.

Under a fierce examination by the prosecutor,
Alan Vinegrad, Mr. Immitt conceded that on
Aug. 13, 1997, four days after the attack, he
met behind closed doors in the station house
basement with the three defendants and Justin
A. Volpe, the former officer who pleaded
guilty last year to sodomizing Mr. Louima
with a broken broomstick. Mr. Volpe's
brother, Officer Damian Volpe, and a police
lawyer, Hugo Ortega, were also in the room,
Mr. Immitt said.

Referring to the attack, Mr. Immitt then
conceded that he had told the officers: "Sit
tight, don't talk about it. Don't talk to
anyone unless something official comes down."
He also testified that after the assault, he
appeared at numerous roll calls at the
station house and told the officers he met
there to keep silent about the incident.

Mr. Immitt insisted that it was not unusual
for union officials to meet with officers
under suspicion of wrongdoing. His advice to
be silent, he added, was part of his role as
a union trustee. "I didn't want anyone else
involved that wasn't involved," he said.

But suggesting that the meeting was held for
a darker purpose, Mr. Vinegrad hammered Mr.
Immitt with a battery of similar questions.
Was the meeting conducted to make sure people
had their stories straight? To make sure that
everyone agreed to keep their mouths shut? To
make sure that the investigation by the
Police Department's Internal Affairs Bureau
would not succeed? Stern but obviously
perturbed, Mr. Immitt answered no to each
question.

Mr. Vinegrad was visibly surprised at one
point when Mr. Immitt testified that he had
no idea when he went to the meeting that Mr.
Louima had been sexually assaulted, even
though on the morning the meeting was held
The Daily News had published a photograph of
Mr. Louima in his hospital bed accompanied by
a banner headline that read "Tortured by
Cops" and a smaller headline beside it
referring to a "sex assault."

"You had no knowledge that the story of this
case was on the front page of The Daily
News?" Mr. Vinegrad asked.

"Correct," Mr. Immitt replied.

Moments later, Mr. Vinegrad asked
incredulously, "You were the union trustee in
charge of Brooklyn South at the time?"

Again, Mr. Immitt said, "Correct."

For days, both sides in the case have been
battling over Mr. Schwarz's role in the
assault. The government contends -- and a
jury in a previous trial has found -- that
Mr. Schwarz restrained Mr. Louima as Mr.
Volpe jammed the broken broomstick into Mr.
Louima's rectum. The government is arguing
that after the assault Mr. Schwarz conspired
with Officers Bruder and Wiese to lie to the
authorities to exonerate himself. Defense
lawyers maintain that there was no conspiracy
about Mr. Schwarz's involvement because Mr.
Schwarz was not involved.

Yesterday, however, the trial focused
directly on the question of a conspiracy to
obstruct justice as the lawyers for both
sides argued endlessly about the three
defendants' versions of what happened on the
night of the attack, Aug. 9, 1997. Unlike the
first trial, which covered the details of the
assault itself, the cover-up trial has mostly
focused on how accounts of what happened that
night have changed over time.

Mr. Vinegrad used his questioning of Mr.
Immitt and other witnesses yesterday to show
instances where Officer Wiese had changed his
story in an interview with Internal Affairs
investigators and that Officer Bruder had
changed his account after retaining a lawyer.

The government contends that these changes
were an effort by the two men to tailor their
accounts to make it seem it as if Mr. Schwarz
was not involved in the attack.



Copyright 2000 The New York Times Company
 
I still haven't heard any cops defending what had happened to Louima.

Obviously, a union official (not a cop) admitted to suggesting that the officers shouldn't talk about the incident. He also testified that there was no dark purpose of conspiracy behind that recomendation.

Even LEOs guilty of crimes still have the "right to remain silent," (although their is case law which dictates that an officier can be ORDERED to speak about an incident, in return for which he gets certain assurances...).

No matter how wrong the act was, I don't think the civil libertarians can fault officers for excercising their civil rights. Nor can one consider the choice to say nothing the same as defending the attack.


So, I stand by my original statement:
Show me one cop who defended the assault on Louima.
 
Glen,
From the article you posted it looks to me like the officers were doing what any other defendent in a criminal proceeding would do. I didn't see anything about anyone condoning it. In fact I'm sure that the officers in the precinct who weren't involved were very happy that they could legitimately say they weren't involved.

Outside of the officers who were in the room when the assault took place none of the other officers in the precinct would have had first hand knowledge. Rather then trying to get everyone in the precinct on the same sheet of music about the story the roll call meetings were probably designed to keep station house rumor and gossip from ending up on the 6 o'clock news and making a very tense situation worse. If the command officers in NYPD weren't doing the same thing (teelling the officers not to talk about it, speculate, etc.) they were being remiss. If you were the department head of a business and a crime like that was committed in your department, wouldn't you want your uninvolved employees not to speculate and gossip? Wouldn't you want to make sure the truth came out? I know the federal prosecuter is wanting to make something more sinister out of it and maybe there is, but I have to agree with Rob, I don't see anything that says any other officer condoned the attack. I hope the guilty receive the maximum sentence...and that will probably be too light. I think that crimes like that committed by public officials ought to fall into the same category as crimes against humanity, because it wasn't just a crime against Mr. Louima, it was a crime against everyone in the city of New York.

If only the Feds would prosecute Lon Horouchi with the same zeal, we might start closing the rift that divides us.

Jeff
 
Rob - I'm getting a little PO'ed with your deliberate misreading and statement of posts.

Go read what I said and try to understand it this time before you claim people are sinking to lower depths.

1. I never said that cops defended the Louima
assault itself. Read it again.

2. I said there was a blue wall. If you don't
think that exists then you don't know
jack squat about the professional
on police culture.

3. You misrepresent two issues in the article.
The union rep told the suspects to be quite
according to their rights.

The article also said:

He also testified that after the assault, he
appeared at numerous roll calls at the
station house and told the officers he met
there to keep silent about the incident.

So the union official was telling potential witnesses to a horrible crime NOT to come forward.

That is the point. I've tried to be respectful in this debate but if you wonder why public respect for law enforcement is dropping, you can just look at actions like this.

You expect the public to come forward, don't you?
 
Dropped a word:

meant to say professional literature.

This debate is getting useless. Police never do wrong, do they? Oops - stop here before rant mode. That would be useless.

I will end with concern for our liberties.
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jeff White:
Rob,
I think Ruby Ridge and Waco were the straw that broke the camels back when it came to breaking the natural bond between law abiding people in the firearms community and the police.


Yep. Unfortunately, local LEOs got lumped in with thefederal guys.

HCI publically stated that they wanted to drive a wedge between us. Despite your's, Rich's, Erik's and mine (among others) efforts we seem unable to breach that gap that is dividing us.

That to me is one of the saddest parts of the whole deal.

I think that many of our friends here at TFL now are personally threatened by the fact that they may have their lives ruined or even ended over an unintentional technical violation of firearms law.

Or that overnight, we become felons for something we already legally own.

In a thread on SWAT dynamic entrys I asked how many were so outraged when these tactics we used against crack dealers and other types like that before the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban made them realize that "they" could be on the receiving end of a dynamic entry for the mere possesion of a magazine made after September 13 1994. When the other one in their cabinet (made prior to that) was legal. The absolute refusal of the Federal Government to hold the people responsible for Ruby Ridge and Waco accountable for their actions has fed into this to. Every time an incident like that happens, it makes it harder for all of us who wear a badge to do our jobs. A whole class of decent hardworking citizens (TFL members)now rightfully fears that someday they will become criminals because they choose to continue with a hobby or a way of life they have always known.

That absolute refusal of the government to allow any consequences to their people even when they blatantly screw up is definitely a big part of it. Personally, I don't think Lon Horiuchi was saved because of any feelings of loyalty on the part of the higher ups, but rather they were scared at what might be revealed at a trial. I know, I'm a cynical cuss. ;) The sad part is that good cops can't speak up on this sort of BS without fear of losing their jobs. Police chiefs and the like are political creatures, are they not? And the current favorite political topic is gungrabbing. I pity the line officer who has to carry out their chief's hare-brained policies.

Have you read the application for the Waco search warrant? Many forum members have. Ever have gun parts and accessories delivered to your home by UPS. Gee, that was some of the probable cause that was used to get the warrant.

Due process? What's that?

You and I know that we wouldn't personally twist the constitution to get an arrest to make brownie points for a promotion. I'm sure most of the anti LE sentiment is not directed personally against us, but is collectively aimed at a system that has had problems and abuses.

Rob, this is so true. Please remember this when you start to see red. I know it's tough! :)

The very nature of police work tends to anger some people. People basically don't like being told what to do. I had a woman in the chiefs office once about a parking ticket I wrote her. The chief told her that he was glad someone took the initiative to write some tickets there, before he had to put an order up to enforce the parking too close to the intersection at that location. When he called me in to tell me about the complaint, he told me that "You can't do this job without P*(()&g people off. It's natural, if I have an officer that I never hear a minor complaint about, I figure he's not doing anything."

:D

I think that to bridge the gap we will have to start with some reform of some of the laws, then we will have to bring those people responsible for the past abuses to justice. it goes back to the old, who's policing the police arguement. Only when the public feels that those who are charged with enforcing the laws are kept from abusing the power that the citizens have given them will that confidence and trust return.

I think they are expressing their frustration with the entire situation right now and like it or not, if you carry a badge you are a symbol of the government, worse then a symbol but the muscle of that government.

I wish I had more answers, but I fear that it's going to get worse before it gets better.


I feel that way too. Please don't give up, though. We need, now more than ever, good cops on the inside. While some here would feel better if every good cop resigned to make a statement, think of who they would get to replace them!

Jeff [/quote]



[This message has been edited by Gopher a 45 (edited March 03, 2000).]
 
Jeff, excellent post with a very good explanation of the frustrations felt by most people out there. There is quite a bit of lumping going on, weather interntional or not I am not sure. On the other hand there is also a lot of taking things personal. I am one of the many people here who often complain and chide no-knocks and like. I have however never picked on individual officers, but rather I have expressed my concern and frustration with the system we have to endure, both as citizens and LEO's. My only criticism of the individials is the obeying orders without question that have lead us to the situation we are in. How many times have we heard in an after the fact interview that XYZ thought that there was something afoul with the warrant, tactics... This is what leads to most of our "fears", that the line officers will not question the orders they are given, even of they feel what they are about to do is wrong. I am more than certain that if the order to go house to house was given we'd have takers.

As for the non-existen "blue wall". I'm sorry to say that in many cases it has and does exist. Just look at the current investigations going on. LA Rampart-years of abuses that went unreported. NYC Street Crimes Unit-Louima, Diallo and who knows what other are under investigation. The fact of the matter is that no matter what we do we will always end up with a few bad apples coming along for the ride. The question is why the good apples do not come forward and speak up. Had one of the Cops not gotten a plea bargain of some sorts he would never have come forward in LA. Surely not ALL of LAPD is crooked, so why didnt somebody else come forth???

Weather you like it or not, participate in it or not, there IS a sense of US vs THEM on BOTH sides of the issue and it feeds upon itself. Not quite sure what can be done about it.
 
Everyone sit back and take some deep breaths.

Wait a couple of days before posting any replies.

LawDog
 
Obviously, things can read into anything, Glenn.

I don't see the Union Officials comments as trying to suppress witnesses, I see it as gossip/rumor control. Obviously, every potential witness would be interviewed not only for the criminal case, but also for the internal investigation. That doesn't meant hey should sit around and gossip (or, worse.. compare stories to get on the "same page") about the case.

No one is questioning the existence of a "Blue Wall". I am saying that the LE family has reacted to the Louima incident with disgust and the Diallo incident with remorse. We all know that it could've been any one of us involved in the Diallo shooting.. but only a monster would've been involved in the Louima incident. Yet, in your original post, you lumped the two together. I could only assume that you were saying you felt that the "Blue Wall" was defending Volpe as it is defending Carrol, et al.

If that is not what you were saying, please make yourself clear. What does this line mean:

Quote- "The blue wall that we saw on Diallo or Louima is the same phenomena as the white wall in the medical malpractice cases."


Taz,

grrrrrrr... again with the Diallo/Louima in the same breath..... The Louima incident had nothing to do with the Street Crimes Unit.


[This message has been edited by Rob (edited March 03, 2000).]
 
Glenn, Taz - I think a (blue, white, grey, purple etc.) line exists in all professions. Most people take an immense amount of pride and their sense of worth from their profession. So it would be natural not to want to air the dirty laundry in public. It doesn't matter if it's looking the other way when a fellow employee dirverts company property to private use, or knowing a fellow researcher falsified a report or not speaking out about another medical persons mistake. Everyone is concerned that their chosen profession is not tarnished by the misconduct of others. In some instances, medical, law enforcement an honest mistake can have the most dire consequenses. Because of the litigious nature of our society many professions are rightfully fearfull of admitting even an honest mistake. Perhaps tort reform would help that.

We live in a world populated by human beings some more honest then others. No profession is perfect. I doubt if you can find an officer anywhere who will say that the treatment Mr. Louima received at the hands of those officers was justified.

So how do we fix this mistrust issue? Eventually all of this stuff comes out, even if there is an organized attempt to cover it up. There are a lot of doctors who have lost their licenses for mistreatment and abuse of patients, but we don't tar ALL doctors with the same brush. Why are we tarring ALL LEOs with the Louima or Rampart brush? If things were as bad as some of you believe (or purport to believe) we would be applying for permits to drive across state lines and there would be no protection against the government. Guys, we're just not there yet! And I think you'll find that most LEOs never want to go there. One of the first things I noticed when I got into law enforcement was what a thin line there was between a free society and a police state. It scared me, and it scares most officers. It doesn't take you long to realize that without the protections that are provided by the consitution someone who wanted to really control things could have an easy job of it.

I think that on LEs side we should be more open with what we are doing and why we do it. A year or so ago, when the idea of an LEO only forum was brought up, I posted against it. There is so much BS out there (much of it perpetrated by Hollywood) about how LE operates that I think something needs to be done to counter it. It's another of those situations in which only the things that go wrong are publicized. We hear about every tragic incident where mistakes are made or misconduct is involved. We don't hear about the thousands of arrests that are legitimate and made with no injury to either officer or suspect.

At the local level you have a lot of control over how your police agency operates. Mayors, Councilmen or Aldermen, County Supervisors are all very concerned about what kind of department they oversee. If you think the officers who serve you are doing their job right, you should talk to the mayor or the chief or your representative (city or county). They will react. You may not get anything done initially, but if you build enough public support the department will react.

Let's keep the dialog open. Let's not divide into two camps and fling insults at each other. If Rob or myself didn't want to be here and discuss these things we wouldn't. It's as simple as that. Here at TFL we are a very diverse group of people united by our love for firearms and the shooting sports. Our professions shouldn't enter into things. I will publically state that there are bad cops and people who shouldn't be cops out there right now armed with firearms and cloaked with police authority. I don't like it but there are. But I will say that you will find the same bad apples in any profession you can name.

Jeff
 
This topic does prove one age-old axiom: "Dont confuse me with facts, my mind is made up."
Here is another quote:
"When people with closed minds debate, all they can do is to repeat their arguments"
and yet another:
"If the shoe fits,wear it"


------------------
Better days to be,

Ed
 
Nice statement, Jeff. I think I will let this thread cool down, not because there are no more arguments to be made.

I stand by what I say about the insular and protective nature of professions. I did not
say that police defended the Louima actions but that being forthcoming with info was not the inital reactions. One can research if you want. I did.

I work in an insular profession that reflexively defends against criticim like the tenure system. If the defensive reflex to defend your group overwhelms the ability to think critically and leads to personal attacks on those who disagree with you, then the debate is useless.

For an interesting article, check out:
http://www.nytimes.com/yr/mo/day/news/national/regional/ny-police-race.html
 
Back
Top