TheAgitator.com
More Professionalism
Friday, February 1st, 2008The Seattle Post-Intelligencer investigated police complaints filed in the city and found that–surprise!–they aren’t taken all that seriously.
The Seattle Police Department hasn’t disciplined any officers for unnecessary force in the past 18 months, during a time when it ruled on at least 161 force cases. During that same period, 12 other excessive-force complaints resulted in supervisory intervention with officers.
The last batch of sustained force cases occurred in the first few months of 2006, when three cases dating from 2004 and 2005 resulted in discipline, including a suspension, a suspension that was held in abeyance for good behavior and two reprimands.
The department takes disciplinary action in about 1 percent of cases where a complaint of unnecessary force is made. It sustains other allegations about 10 percent of the time, records show. Other types of complaints include abuse of authority, false arrest and discourtesy.
The article cites one plaintiff’s attorney in brutality cases who says the higher percentage of non-excessive force cases are upheld because they rarely result in significant discipline for the officer or liability for the city.
The investigation was spurred by a recent police brutality incident in which the city paid $185,000 to the victim, then promoted the officer in question to lieutenant.
A study in Chicago showed similar disinterest in complaints against the city’s police, even when it comes to police shootings.
I’d be interested in a breakdown of how many complaints have video of the event and then the percentage of disciplinary actions that have video of the event. My guess? The events with video will have a disproportionately higher discipline rate.
If the PD’s in question aren’t/weren’t selling fast food to fatties than all is well.
Cops. Yeah.
One has to ask how did the system of checks and balances on police get set up so that they investigate their own? That is a recipe for corruption, cover up, and abuse, and all of the police know it. All police departments across the country need to have a citizen review board that is rotated (so corruption doesn’t set in on the citizen review board), and their decisions and recommendations need teeth so that cops that do these horrible things are FIRED, no questions asked, charges are brought, and then they have a trial — JUST LIKE THE REST OF US. Years of service and awards don’t negate beating someone, groping someone, intimidation, lies to ruin someone’s life, theft, etc. These are all crimes that you and I have charges brought against us, then we have a trial.
The corruption runs very deep.
Seattle has a citizen’s review board, (OPARB) that examines “random” closed internal investigation case files performed by the officer-staffed Office of Professional Accountability (OPA). However, the OPARB has no authority and does not get a choice of what files to review, it also has a difficult time determining what the files mean because of the alterations made to protect officer identities. There is also a civilian auditor, but he has no authority either and is often ignored.
Two review panels were formed last year after the chief ignored OPA recommendations and exonerated officers in brutality cases and after one officer got cleared on a technicality negotiated by the police union (SPOG) that sets a 180 day limit on investigations.
The review panel results were mentioned here, wherein one of the 29 suggested reforms included the automatic assumption of termination upon findings of officer dishonesty… However, the union has successfully overturned all reforms up to this point through complaints to the state labor board (PERC) and refuses to negotiate on oversight reforms until at least 2010.
Just thought I would clarify for you, and I agree with your assessment, particularly because members of the SPD OPA are street officers (who are union members) who are forced to work in that department and not recruited from volunteers, and they complain publicly about having to be in the “rat department”. Does not inspire much confidence, huh?
er, I think at this point we all know it’s us (citizens) vs. them (state sponsored grifters/criminals, in blue). Maybe we should have a uniform…. Grey?