ANTI-SEMANTICS
Regular readers of this newsletter may remember an article from PPR #3 regarding police who "have to" kill. In that piece, we analyzed the phrase "have to kill" and pointed out that there is always a choice, even if it means you may lose your own life.
In the July Rap Sheet, considerable space is devoted to recently ousted Portland Police Association [PPA] president Jeff Barker's crusade against an Oregonian headline he found to be inappropriate: "Police kill man inside his home." Barker's statement to the press noted that the "inflammatory word 'kill' seemed to imply the police acted criminally rather than in self-defense." Actually, if you analyze it, the word "kill" is really quite appropriate. The word "murder" could also be considered here, since one person deliberately took another person's life, but perhaps the Oregonian felt that there may have been justification for the killing. A headline like "Police shoot man in self-defense and, unfortunately, the man dies" really does a disservice to the English language.
Barker also thinks that the phrase "inside his home" implies "it was somehow wrong to 'kill' a man in the sanctity of his domain, though the man in question was pointing a rifle at the officer from just a few feet away." Here again, using the word "kill" in quotes makes one wonder whether the police are really ready to take on the responsibility of making life and death decisions if they cannot admit that shooting a person to death is the same as killing them. But on the issue of the "sanctity of his domain" is really a cultural matter. There are many who believe their private property cannot be violated by state officials and are willing to defend that right with violence. We at Copwatch practice non-violence, but would call to the reader's attention the actions of the British against the European Colonists here in America. At what point does government involvement become tyrannical oppression? The incident was a domestic dispute, and the man's wife had apparently been telling the police the situation was resolvable when the man in question grabbed his gun to get the police off his porch. Since we were not there, it is difficult to judge the officers' sense that danger was imminent, but press reports do show that the man's wife did not think the shooting was appropriate.
Barker states that Oregonian reporter David Austin agreed the headline was "inflammatory and wrong," but noted that editors put the headline on his article. Barker rightly points out that the headline was designed to sell papers and extends his sympathies to the family of the dead man. But his thinking seems more muddled when he expresses bewilderment at a reporter asking why Portland Police have a reputation for shooting first and asking questions later. "What planet was this guy from?" Barker writes. It is only fair that if he is asking others to consider the police perspective on shootings that he try to understand public perception.
Again on the issue of police "having to kill" someone, Barker made a point that "every officer dreads the day he or she may be required to use deadly force...the vast majority of us go our entire careers without being placed in a situation where there is no choice but to use deadly force." Repetition of the concept that there is no other choice does not make it true, though it may help stifle the debate. There is always a choice.
Barker points to the current grand jury system as a way to ensure police are not abusing the use of deadly force, despite the fact that a police officer has never been brought up on criminal charges for use of lethal force. He criticizes the concept of public inquests as "kangaroo courts" involving "cheering sections" where decisions are "based on emotion". Here the use of these words could be considered inflammatory and unfounded, but at least we can't argue that the Rap Sheet is just trying to sell papers.
ON THE SUBJECT OF PUBLIC INQUIRIES
In the August Rap Sheet, Duke Smith writes an argument against the Oregonian's editorial calling for public inquests into allegations of police misconduct. The Oregonian wrote that we don't know the truth "because police in Portland investigate their own actions." (Bravo to the Oregonian for shedding light on an important issue for once.) Smith points to the "Civilian Review Board, DA's office, City Commissioners and grand juries" as proof that police are under scrutiny. But this ignores the fact that the information gathered by all those bodies is presented to them by the police...exactly the point the Oregonian was trying to make. He then goes on to claim that Portland's accountability standards are a model for the country, which is too bad for San Francisco, Berkeley, New York, and other cities which have Police Review Boards that hire their own non-police investigators. Smith invites the Oregonian to conduct their own investigations, saying that investigating police misconduct is an open process.
Smith also criticizes the Oregonian for wanting the public inquiries just so they can sell papers. He makes the astute connection that as long as news reporting is "tied to the marketplace" there will be biased reporting. He even goes so far as to say that "the time will come when it will be socially and economically unacceptable to throw a processed tree onto your driveway or porch." While he's sounding pretty progressive, he fails to see how the laws and consequent police actions serve to uphold the very same marketplace. But hey, it's a start.
INTERNAL AFFAIRS: SHIFTING ATTITUDES
In the last few issues of the People's Police Report we have noted that the police writing for the Rap Sheet seemed to feel that there were far too many "frivolous" Internal Affairs [IA] complaints being filed. In the July issue, former PPA President Jeff Barker writes that there are fewer such complaints. He says that Internal Affairs is handling more of them (as opposed to taking up the time of precinct commanders). Barker notes that "frivolous, spiteful or fabricated" complaints "consume man hours"--and waste tax payers' money. He does not mention frivolous, spiteful or fabricated police actions or who pays for those.
In the June issue, Barker describes the process of being interviewed about an incident, which may be for an IA complaint or part of a criminal investigation. He focuses on the right of an officer not to incriminate him or herself, and points out that if forced to answer a question as an employment requirement the answer cannot be used in criminal court. We at the PPR hope that the police recognize the importance of the right to exclude evidence improperly gathered: while due process seems to slow down their sense of swift justice when civilians are involved, when they are on the other side, the bill of rights looks awfully nice.
An article in September's Rap Sheet by John Brooks encourages officers to be more thorough in their paperwork to make the Internal Affairs process easier. In the same issue, Jeff Barker throws out a lot of terms (CYA, MSR and W-3 or Willie-Three forms) without layman's explanations. The gist of Barker's piece is the same--doing good paperwork up front makes it easier for officers if complaints come up later on.
This is an encouraging sign in a lowering of defensiveness against citizen complaints. We will keep you posted if things shift again.
RANDOM NOTES
As usual, there have been many tidbits in the Rap Sheet we'd like to share but can't go in- depth.
Here are some samples:
JUNE: A report on a female officers' conference in Texas includes the astute observation that female officers tend to "quiet down a situation while males tend to escalate it."
JULY: A letter invites PPA members to an FBI steak fry. The schedule included a firearms shoot from 3-5 PM followed by a hospitality tour and dinner.
AUGUST: An article titled "Citizen Complaints: Crazy, but true" by Michelle McJunkin.
SEPTEMBER: An article by Bob Gross on Auto Theft gives helpful hints on how to spot and pull over a stolen car: Cars "driven and occupied by unsavory characters...are always worth a second look and a pretext stop." We plan to ask the Bureau its policy on pretext stops--words implying that there's no real reasonable cause but some other pretext such as headlights, seatbelts or some other minor infraction is used as an excuse. Or maybe being unsavory.
SOCIAL QUANDARY
The Rap Sheet has been printing several articles over the last few months about sex crimes and child abuse. The articles for the most part show a sensitivity to the victims and a growing understanding by police of the nature of these awful crimes. The May issue even has Loren Christensen, whose work we have featured prominently in this column, quoting a book on sex crimes stating: "By surviving the crime [of rape], the victim becomes a living testimonial to a type of crime that society is not prepared to deal with." However, Christensen only interviews 2 male detectives and leaves out important point-of-view information such as the fact that the mother of an abused child might be afraid for her own life in bringing a perpetrator to justice. He also listed a complete family history of abuse...and gave the family's name. We're sure that some of these oversights were results of his interview and not a general lack of sensitivity.
But again on a good note, the June article on Child Abuse by Detective Connie Veeker ends with an "anonymous saying": "A hundred years from now it will not matter what my bank account was, the sort of house I lived in, or the kind of car I drove...but the world may be different because I was important in the life of a child."
Now that the police are becoming attuned to the tragedies of abuse, we need to ask ourselves, is it appropriate for society to turn over these problems to the armed agents of the state, or should we be building a sane, cooperative community where such crimes are unthinkable to begin with?
See you next issue.