Bad Cop, Bad Cop

On May 25, 2020, in the course of an arrest, Officer Derek Chauvin held suspect George Floyd to the ground so long that Floyd died.  In the aftermath of the Chauvin-Floyd Affair in Minneapolis, I’m seeing an array of responses.  I’ll get back to that in a moment, but first I’d like to clarify a few things.

I have two uncles who were NYPD.   Uncle Tom, who was the husband of my father’s twin sister Mary, served in the Navy in WWII.  He retired and passed away.   Uncle Raymond, my father’s younger brother, was a detective, and he died while we were still living in Paris, meaning no later than 1990.  Neither uncle ever expressed praise for Hitler, Mussolini, etc. and Uncle Tom was even in the US Navy on the Murmansk run, meaning he was up against the Kriegsmarine (German Navy under Nazi Germany).   So count both as non-stormtroopers.   Sadly, both passed away long before I had any chance to discuss any police issues with them.

In October 1995 my buddy Phil and I took a road trip to Flint, Michigan, to buy a 1968 Pontiac Firebird 400.  Along the way we had to take the cab from the Detroit bus station to the airport to get a rental car to go to the seller’s house in Flint.  The cab driver, of African descent, casually remarked that he had attended the Million Man March (probably upon learning we had come up from the DC area).   That march was supposed to draw attention to issues which African-American men were concerned about, which would include police brutality.

In August 2016, San Francisco 49ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick knelt during the national anthem at preseason games, ostensibly to protest police brutality.  As you might imagine, this caused quite a stir. My own impression at the time ("Shut Up And Play Your Football" 9/29/17) was to argue that this was not the appropriate forum to raise the issue.   As noted below, however, if we allow the police free reign to do as they please, we're liable to wind up with fascism.  That may be important enough to justify bringing the issue to public attention by kneeling during the anthem at a football game, ostensibly a non-political context.  So put me down as reconsidering my prior position.

Of course, long before the Chauvin-Floyd incident in Minneapolis, Rodney King had the misfortune, on March 3, 1991, to be pulled over by LAPD and severely beaten, the whole matter caught on camera (the “Holliday video”).  Four LAPD officers, Briseno, Powell, Solano and Wind, were eventually charged and tried in a California state criminal court for the beating.  The jury was almost all white, and acquitted the officers, despite the video apparently showing them beating King when he was on the ground and no longer resisting arrest.  Soon after the verdicts were announced (April 29, 1992), L.A. erupted in riots.  Apparently the local population was extremely upset that these four officers were not found guilty. 

Note: there was a subsequent federal trial, at which Wind and Briseno were acquitted and Powell and Solano were found guilty and sentenced to 30 months in prison.  This was in March 1993, almost a year after the state trial and riots.  Pulling the case out of state court and into federal court was nullified in part by the US district court judge taking positions highly favorable to the police when deciding on sentencing, overturned by the Ninth Circuit (Federal appellate court) then knocked back down in part to the district court sentences by the US Supreme Court, ruling that the trial court judge had sufficient discretion to make his remarkably lenient sentencing decisions.

Suffice to say that we still have a problem with police misconduct in this country, decades after the Rodney King affair in Los Angeles. 

Most police departments are supposed to have a division called Internal Affairs, whose job it is to weed out corrupt cops or discipline cops who get out of line.  Sadly, we’re seeing IA being ineffectual most of the time, mainly because police officers refuse to testify against fellow officers even if they know the accused officers are corrupt.  Moreover, the police unions are a bit too zealous and effective in preventing IA from disciplining errant officers, so the blame might not be entirely upon reluctant comrades – if at all.  For whatever reason, the police seem to be doing a poor job of weeding out the bad cops, and the Floyds out there are paying the price.

The US is full of a wide spectrum of adherents of political beliefs, with the Republicans and Democrats generally in the center.  At the extremes are communists and anarchists on the left, and fascists and Neo-Nazis on the right.  Many extremists realize that their views are in fact, unpopular, and feel their interests are better served voting for whichever major party is closest to their values, as far away as that might be:  communists for the Democrats and Nazis and fascists for the GOP.   That doesn’t mean all Democrats are communists or all Republicans are Nazis, but there are obviously some at the extremes who would qualify.

My experience has been that, on the left side of the spectrum, communists, socialists and anarchists have no problem identifying as such as a matter of pride, and not identifying as Democrats.  That being the case, I’m more inclined to believe a Democrat if he or she denies being a socialist or a communist.

On the right side, however, this isn’t so cut and dried.  The real issue is people who appear a little too eager to make excuses for the police.

Returning to the Chauvin-Lloyd affair, I’m seeing a fair amount of posts on Facebook with the following themes.

1.     Before we canonize Floyd as a saint, we should recognize that he had a criminal record.   Uh, yeah.  This means, that as soon as you walk out of jail or prison, having served your time, the police are privileged to summarily execute you at any time, without question.  Right?   A variation on this is a snide, “how about not breaking the law?”  What happened to “innocent until proven guilty?”  Are the police judge, jury and executioners as well?  If they allege a suspect was committing a crime, do we simply take their word for it?  Are the police privileged to use lethal force on suspects committing non-capital crimes?  Moreover, we’re seeing this business of police planting drugs on innocent suspects and arresting them, even bragging to non-police about the practice.  Egregious behavior like this definitely needs to stop, effective immediately. 

2.     The following police officers [listed herein] died in the line of duty, but are not given the same publicity as Floyd.   Well, I’d imagine their deaths were properly noted and recognized in their hometown newspapers and by their communities, though nationwide we aren’t acknowledging their deaths in the line of duty.   But these were volunteers who faced violent criminals in the course of their duties as police officers.  This is normal, though we’d prefer if no police died at all.  Failing to focus national attention on them is not a conspiracy to ignore or shame them.  Another variation is a meme showing white victims of (alleged) black perpetrators, asking "did their lives matter?"  Well, so long as the alleged perpetrators have been arrested and are being prosecuted (allowing for the same due process everyone else enjoys) - and not simply released and/or ignored, I'd say the meme is dishonest and disingenuous.  

3.     The protesters committed the following acts of looting or vandalism.  No, looters or vandals committed these acts, possibly contemporaneously with a protest.  That doesn’t mean the protesters themselves did this.

The overall trend of these is to equate opponents of the ruling order as dangerous, violent criminals, and to essentially give the police an irrebuttable presumption of propriety, a blank check to do as they please without any form of accountability.  No matter how egregiously out of line the police conduct in question is, these people are determined, as a matter of principle, to somehow find some excuse to justify it.  The end result is to essentially absolve police of any misbehavior under any circumstances. 

Now, I’m sure you if asked these people how they felt about Benito Mussolini, they might give you a blank stare, and if you brought up the Austrian corporal who caused all those problems – or his infamous party with its distinctive swastika emblem – they would angrily deny any connection and resent being accused of anything close to sympathy with the Nazis.  They may well not have a single anti-Semitic bone in their body and genuinely acknowledge the Nazis as evil.   

Well, so what?  If you are going to give the police unlimited power and consider anyone remotely uncooperative as a dangerous criminal to be locked away, you are – drum roll, please? – a FASCIST.   You would be perfectly happy with a police state so long as you yourself weren’t behind bars.   You don’t want to wear a black shirt or a swastika armband, but whether you realize it or not, you fit in with these people.  If you don’t like it, maybe you should reassess your unqualified passion for law enforcement while there’s still a chance to do so – outside of a prison camp or gas chamber. 

Here's another thought.  Those of us with whiter complexions, whose ancestors came here from Europe, not Africa, voluntarily, may be inclined to dismiss the urgency of the topic as the victims of police brutality are more often black than white.  Not our problem, eh?  Not so fast.  If we wind up with a police state because us white folks were happy to let the police do whatever they wanted, sooner or later we're liable to become victims ourselves, if more likely later than sooner.  "Then they came for me..." (Thank you, Niemoller).  

Fortunately, it appears that Minneapolis is taking a hard look at the problem, and a litany of calls to defund police departments is finally shining a more serious light on this issue.  In the NFL, we’re starting to see more players come forth and acknowledge that maybe Kaepernick had a valid point to make, an issue that needs to be taken far more seriously and definitively resolved, because obviously the Rodney King beating didn’t suffice to convince us, nor did the Million Man March.   If we refuse to hold the police accountable when they step over the line, if we make excuses for them no matter how brutal and oppressive they act, we begin to look like a country perfectly willing to accept a police state, i.e. fascism.   I should think we don’t want that… right?

Justice Denied?

Guess what – more civil disorder, thanks to a second instance of prosecutors inexplicably (?) unable to bring indictments against allegedly misbehaving police officers.   Shortly after the Ferguson debacle – even protested in New York City – NYC itself wound up embarrassed after a cop walked free after apparently choke-holding a black man to death – on camera, no less.  Eric Garner, Public Enemy #1, was investigated for bootleg cigarettes.  Clearly a very dangerous man.

Indictment.   This isn’t a conviction, this is merely an official criminal accusation, for which the standard is extremely low, “probable cause.”  Every state has a different criminal procedure, so the specifics vary widely, but generally an indictment is something any prosecutor can get if he asks for it, ESPECIALLY if there is anything close to strong evidence – e.g. videotape – of a crime being committed.  The indictment would fail only if there was practically no evidence at all.   Mind you, the defendant doesn’t have to be implicated beyond a reasonable doubt, that standard is reserved for trial.  The indictment is merely an accusation.

Given how easy it is to secure one, how do we explain the prosecutor in Ferguson, Mr. McCulloch’s, apparent failure to do so against police officers not once but FIVE TIMES, including this one?  Perhaps it’s because his father was a cop, killed in the line of duty.  Perhaps it’s because he wanted to be a cop himself.  Perhaps it’s because he’s a prosecutor, and as such works with and for cops every day.  To expect this man to be objective and go after a police officer accused of killing a criminal is just too much.

I don’t know about the prosecutor in the Eric Garner case, but even Judge Andrew Napolitano, a conservative talk show host, wondered why that indictment failed.  At least this should go to trial.

Mind you, the prosecutors in Florida, who were sympathetic to Zimmerman and reluctant to press charges, at least brought that case to trial.  The same holds true with the Rodney King trial of officers (Koon, Powell, Briseno & Wind) in April 1992 (that travesty appears more the fault of the Simi Valley jury and less that of the LA prosecutors).  To not even get an indictment smacks of extreme corruption.

Personally, I don’t know for certain if Officer Wilson is innocent or guilty.  That would have been for a jury to determine, beyond a reasonable doubt, at a trial.  Why would Michael Brown, who was apparently unarmed, attack Wilson?  Why would Wilson shoot Brown, who was apparently unarmed?  Wilson’s story was that he was immediately threatened by Brown, even to the point where he claimed Brown would take his weapon from him.  In that case, why didn’t he shoot Brown in the arms?  Arnold to John Connor, after shooting a mental institution security guard in the legs, even after Connor had specifically given the Terminator orders “not to kill anyone:” “he’ll live.” 

            And how much times did he shoot?  Six?  There are as many holes in Wilson’s story as there were in Brown’s body.  Plus, the delay in picking up Brown’s body, the delay in filing reports, the delay in disclosing Wilson’s identity, all elements which pile up and look extremely unprofessional – as if the police department was in cover-up mode, because they knew Wilson screwed up – big time.   Bottom line is that there was much more than enough evidence to satisfy a probable cause standard, and thus an indictment, and thus a trial. 

Now we have the NYPD closing ranks around a cop, Daniel Pantaleo.  Even after the police themselves (!!!) ruled Garner’s death a homicide, somehow we’re deprived of even an indictment. 

Christopher Dorner.  You may recall the manhunt in LA for this “rogue” LAPD officer who issued a rambling manifesto before being surrounded in his cabin and taking his own life.  According to Dorner, he was fired from LAPD for making a false report against a fellow officer, Evans, who he accused of beating a handcuffed, mentally ill suspect.  An LAPD investigation concluded that Evans had not done so.  Dorner appealed the termination all the way up to the California Supreme Court, and at each level the LAPD decision was affirmed. 

            Dorner’s manifesto alleged, among other things, that (1) LAPD is extremely racist and that he was routinely called a “nigger”, yet such activity was ignored and accepted; (2) that the superiors at LAPD responsible for the Rodney King beatings were not only still on the force, but had been promoted; (3) that LAPD does not hold its officers accountable for mistreatment of civilians, closing ranks to protect its own – Dorner’s crime was not filing a false report, but filing a report at all. 

            Unfortunately for Dorner, he also saw fit to call out to various celebrities, e.g. Charlie Sheen, in what appears to be an effort to solicit their support for his cause.  The result, though, was that the celebrities in question ignored him, and the press mocked him for doing so without addressing any of the substantive issues raised in his manifesto.  Without retroactively re-trying Dorner’s specific case, certainly the events in the recent past indicate that Dorner’s complaints about LAPD should be re-examined objectively. 

Thin Blue Line.  I saw this bumper sticker around fairly often: a black rectangle with a thick blue line crossing horizontally in the middle.  This is a cop callout, symbolizing the role of police in keeping law & order amidst the darkness of crime in society.  Often the police perceive themselves as the only defenders of justice against a rampaging horde of violent criminals.   Is the black of the rectangle also supposed to imply the race of their opponents?  Possibly, but not necessarily.   But the cops consider themselves to be a sacred fraternity.  Internal Affairs (the PD section responsible for disciplining cops and wiping out corruption) seem to be pariahs.  Ratting out a fellow cop is verboten. 

            Examine “Magnum Force” (1973), the 2^nd “Dirty Harry” Callahan (Clint Eastwood) film.  A radical subset of the SFPD, including officers portrayed by Robert Urich, David Soul, and Tim Matheson, turn vigilante and begin taking out mob figures who somehow managed to escape the criminal justice system.  Assuming Callahan to be sympathetic, they attempt to recruit him, without success.  As frustrated and disappointed as Harry might be with the obvious shortcomings and inconsistent success of the system, he’s still sworn to uphold it (notwithstanding chucking his badge at the end of the first movie).

            “Serpico” (1973) is a similar story – although in this case, actually true.  In his case, Serpico was trying to stop corruption in the NYPD, which was widespread and open.  But no one helped him, he was ostracized, and almost killed when his fellow officers refused to back him up on a drug raid in a violent part of town; presumably he was “set up”.    

Bad Cops.  Every profession has its “bad apples”.  There are bad lawyers, bad judges, bad doctors, bad accountants, bad chefs, bad talk show hosts, bad actors, bad interior designers, bad priests, etc.  Cops are humans, humans are imperfect, and thus make mistakes, some not quite so honest.  It used to be that if a cop went bad, an innocent person went to prison based on perjured testimony or phony evidence.  Now it seems the court and prisons are cut out of the deal, and the bad cops simply fast-forward to being executioner as well. 

            The Bar takes attorney discipline extremely seriously.  They do NOT want outsiders coming in to discipline their own, so they are scrupulous about weeding out bad attorneys.   But it seems the police close ranks and protect their bad apples, shielding them from discipline and prosecution.  The prosecutors do their part by weaseling the indictment procedure in favor of suspect cops.  And the result is a police force which is no longer accountable to its own people.   “To care and to protect” – but who protects us from them?  Is this a good thing?  Is the Thin Blue Line worth it?   Many of us would disagree.  Not all cops are bad, of course, but those who are should be held accountable.  

  

Riots.   After the King verdict was announced, LA erupted in riots which lasted for 5 days and killed 63 people.  “Dark Blue”, the movie with Kurt Russell, features some of that.   At the original riots in Ferguson, the police made obvious use of military vehicles and weaponry, compromising their legitimacy and helping Rand Paul’s chances in 2016.  This time around the armored cars and Urban Assault Vehicles seem to be stowed away – at least away from the cameras. 

            On the other hand, the rioters attack their own neighborhoods, loot their own stores, and help themselves to merchandise which has no real connection to Brown’s shooting.   I see the NYC protestors seem to be the more Ghandi non-violent types, laying down, holding hands across the West Side Highway, deliberately avoiding violent confrontation with the police but still making a nuisance of themselves to everyone else in NYC.  The indiscriminate violence of the Ferguson crowd is liable to further entrench the Red State Reactionaries who take the police at their word and firmly believe Wilson and Pantaleo must be 100% innocent. 

Civil Suits.  Even without criminal charges or convictions, the victim’s relatives can still bring a civil suit against the police, for wrongful death.  Since the civil action is completely different and has a much lower standard of proof – preponderance of the evidence – the lack of an indictment or conviction in the criminal case is not necessarily a bar to a civil recovery.   Garner’s estate has filed a $75 million civil suit against NYPD; it is highly likely that Brown’s family will do so against the Ferguson PD.  In addition to Federal charges and convictions against the same 4 LAPD officers, Rodney King successfully sued LAPD and won $3.8 million, something which no one ever seems to mention.

Solutions?

1)         The most obvious is to use independent, outside investigators and special prosecutors to handle these matters.  The local DA cannot be trusted to do this.  Should we act surprised when these clowns cover for their cop buddies?  Enough. 

2)         Federal charges.   In some sense the Feds do this when they come in and bring their own charges, as they did against the Rodney King officers.  Maybe Eric Holder can finally be useful for a change.

3)         Civil Remedies.  Recall also, as noted above, that Rodney King walked away with $3.8 million, so not only did he survive, he earned some measure of justice.  That’s $3.8 million more than I have. 

Justice denied? – STAY TUNED.