Ferguson conflict - What is the problem, and how to solve it?

[Ten oz]

Well, now that he knows about the problem, and has done nothing about it other than rousing speeches, B. Obama is obviously also guilty by association, and should be fired.

These kind of solutions get silly pretty quick, don't they ?

Failed sarcasm. There are many people who will be swayed by these issues in 2016.

[overtone]

Now, let me ask you... What benefit is there in firing them and then just rehiring them back?

That's how you get rid of the department. You aren't firing them from their jobs - you're getting rid of their jobs. And you aren't hiring them "back" - you are hiring them into a new and different police department. Only the ones you want - if any.

 

There probably aren't any, in the Ferguson department. But you seem so concerned about the possibility I just pointed out that the matter is easily handled.

 

As every large corporation has discovered, that's by far the best way to handle systemically corrupt and malfunctioning departments. It greatly simplifies and speeds the process of inculcating a competent and successful culture and standard procedures that work. It's cheaper, it works better, and it sends a message to the other departments. That's why they do it.

Edited March 27, 2015 by overtone

[iNow]

That's how you get rid of the department. You aren't firing them from their jobs - you're getting rid of their jobs. And you aren't hiring them "back" - you are hiring them into a new and different police department.

This is another distinction without a difference you're here now making.

 

It greatly simplifies and speeds the process <snip> It's cheaper...

How is it simpler and cheaper to process the termination paperwork, submit the separation forms to the government, share data with the unemployment commission (then actually process and distribute the unemployment checks themselves), collect badges and guns and other equipment, conduct exit interviews, disable key cards, eliminate systems access, and all of the countless many other transactions that occur when the employment of a worker is terminated ... How is that "simpler" and "cheaper" than it is to just keep the innocent and good officers in their current positions unchanged?

 

Recall too that hiring (whether refining or hiring into a "new" organization) has its own set of costly processes between creating requisitions, performing interviews, conducting background checks, processing drug screenings, verifying I-9 paperwork with DHS, completing W-4s and sending to the IRS, processing benefits forms, setting up 401K and pension distributions, completing insurance enrollment and transporting that information to downstream providers, entering direct deposit paperwork and validating routing information, organizing certifications and delivering required training, establishing systems access and creating user profiles, ordering and configuring equipment, and all manner of other rather expensive, labor intensive, and time-consuming onboarding activities.

 

So explain to us... How is this approach you're proposing supposed to be "simpler" and "cheaper" than just keeping the innocent and otherwise good officers in their current roles unchanged? Even a cursory review of what would be involved here suggests that the exact opposite outcome would be realized (more complex and much more expensive).

Edited March 28, 2015 by iNow

[overtone]

How is it simpler and cheaper to process the termination - - -

Recall too that hiring (whether refining or hiring into a "new" organization) has its own set of costly processes - - - -

 

Because you have to do all that anyway, in the case of a systematically corrupt department, so you aren't saving yourself any work; because questions of competence arise in the case of any officer truly unaware and "innocent" of the behavior of the entire organization they were working for and the employees they were working with, and are difficult (and time consuming) to answer; because all those bureaucratic hoops are made simpler and faster and cheaper by dissolving the entire department (you simply disable the entire key card setup, and install a new one, for example); and so forth.

 

There's a reason that large corporations do that, routinely, when faced with this kind of situation. It's much more difficult, expensive, and time consuming to fire a large number of people one at a time, for cause, individually, than it is to dissolve a department. And it is hardly any more trouble to hire a couple more people when you already have to hire a full department's worth. It's especially easy to hire a few extra if you have somehow identified a couple of people you want to keep from the wreckage - they are easy hires. Meanwhile, you have created a clean slate for setting up your new department - the difficult chore of changing the way stuff is done is avoided.

The only practical way to keep a few "innocent" but somehow in their obliviousness still capable and desirable officers in Ferguson, if there are any (we have no evidence of their existence, and plenty of reason to think otherwise) is to select a few scapegoats or example bad guys and fire them, while keeping everyone else. That is my bet for what happens, btw.

Edited April 1, 2015 by overtone

[iNow]

Because you have to do all that anyway

No, actually. You don't. That's been my point.

 

You haven't defended your position in any meaningful way, overtone. You've merely repeated it.

 

Can you / will you do better?

[overtone]

Because you have to do all that anyway

No, actually. You don't. That's been my point

Your point is in error.

 

If you are sorting out and keeping officers individually, you are evaluating them individually, doing the work of firing them individually. All of them. If you are firing an entire department except for a couple of innocents you intend to discover and winnow out to keep, that is the entire amount of work you wanted to avoid - each fired officer has been determined to be a non-keeper, shown to be justifiably fired compared with the couple you wanted to keep; the entire force except for those couple has to be replaced by individual hires; and the new hires fit into a carefully and knowledgeably remodeled version of the old situation with the couple you kept.

 

That isn't even worth it if you have some kind of good reason to believe they exist, which you do not.

 

 

That is why corporations don't do that. With a rotten apple situation, you only need to justify firing a few, and your small number of new hires slot into an existing functional operation. With a rotten department situation, it's far cheaper and faster to dissolve the department - if subsequent performance is your overriding concern.

 

Two reasons this will not happen in Ferguson: 1) There is no good source of new hires. The white population of the area in the socioeconomic class from which police officers are drawn is racially bigoted in ways essentially identical to the current hires, the black population from which police officers would be drawn is systematically deficient in basic education and politically requisite independence from criminal association; very few desirable hires will move to the area for the job. 2) Officially acknowledging the nature of the problem with the department is politically impossible - it would mean acknowledging the nature of the politics of the community, which is one of those simple truths whose public statement will cost any local politician their career.

 

My guess is that Ferguson rehab will have to be done piecemeal, by firing a couple of examples and continually leveraging on the rest to modify their behavior over time, getting lucky in the hiring of effective token blacks, and thereby breaking long-term bad habits of thought and action both in the existing officers. That is the most expensive and least effective way, and will take a generation to take what effect it has, but it's politically possible.

 

I also suspect that effective reform - performance improvement, in the corporate sense - is not actually desired by the people making the decisions here.

Edited April 6, 2015 by overtone

[iNow]

You're free to disagree. I, however, am more comfortable standing up for my values and principles, namely that the innocent should be protected whenever possible and not punished for convenience or due merely to suggestions of guilt by association.

[swansont]

This is another distinction without a difference you're here now making.

 

I think it isn't. I believe the point here deals with the particulars of how you could go about this action.

 

Within a government bureaucracy and also with a union, it's not unusual that firing someone for cause requires a lot of supporting documentation — there are usually fairly strong worker rights in play. I imagine Ferguson is no different. You have to demonstrate that the person was incapable of performing their job — unsatisfactory evaluations, attempts at improving deficiencies that did not work, etc. Given the situation, that documentation probably doesn't currently exist — e.g. was anybody officially admonished for racist emails? Short of an employee caught in blatant criminal activity or something else that violates their employment contract, AFAIK it's a time-consuming mess to fire someone.

 

But most systems have methods for downsizing already in place. You have a reduction, and typically people without seniority are let go. There's much less quibbling to be had, here, unless they are qualified to do some other job and could laterally transfer within the government. (probably not going to happen in a town government. There is only one group doing police work). If you are able effectively de-fund the police department (and I have no idea if there is a statutory requirement involved here), then the positions simply have to go away. Senior positions are bought out and/or those people can be made to (or strongly encouraged to) retire.

[iNow]

A fair point, regulations and protections for government jobs tend to be more rigid than those in the private sector or in any "right to work" state, but again nobody is going to eliminate or defund the whole department. That department will remain, just with different leadership and/or composition and/or rules of engagement.

 

Further, they're not starting from scratch when trying to decide who has earned a termination and who has earned protection from it. I don't disagree it would be simpler to just slash and burn everyone, I just feel it's unnecessary and reeks of mob justice, especially given the existence of evidence, records of complaints, performance reviews and evaluations, and the report and underlying info already aggregated and compiled by the DoJ.

 

Is it harder to protect the innocent? Of course, but level of difficulty isn't a currently relevant metric, IMO.

[overtone]

I just feel it's unnecessary and reeks of mob justice, especially given the existence of evidence, records of complaints, performance reviews and evaluations, and the report and underlying info already aggregated and compiled by the DoJ.

It was a mob operation. The patterns of behavior were entrenched throughout the entire department, and there is no record of internal opposition in the slightest.

 

If there are any innocents embedded within, capable ones - police officers capable of doing their job well for years while never noticing the behavior of their superiors and fellow officers all around them - then one could hire them into the new department, no problem.

 

But the department itself - that entity - has earned termination many times over. There is no injustice in dissolving it, as a whole. The ethical difficulties come into play if you don't do that, not if you do. There are serious moral and ethical issues in play when one maintains the Ferguson police department's oversight of the abused citizenry even after exposure.

 

And the issue is not governmental inefficiency and bureaucratic hassles special to civil service jobs - dumping this department wholesale would be routine in the private sector. It's done all the time.

 

The issue is what one regards as "performance", how one evaluates the doings of the Ferguson police department. And the people making these decisions do not, in my suspicion, think that performance has been the miserable failure it looks like to the non-bigot.

Edited April 6, 2015 by overtone

[iNow]

It was a mob operation. The patterns of behavior were entrenched throughout the entire department...

I was, of course, referring with my comment to the reaction of you and others here and the manner by which you're advocating "justice" be served, not to the activities of the Ferguson police.

 

Also, since misunderstanding seems rampant in this thread, be clear that I am not defending the heinous acts that took place and sickening behavior we found to be so common among officers and leaders in that department.

[iNow]

There have been more police shootings of black kids since Ferguson than I care to count, but one in South Carolina just resulted in a cop getting charged with murder. At least this time onlooker video had actually had an affect on the outcome.

 

Pulled over for broken tail light. Kid for some reason decided to run. Cop shot him repeatedly in the back. Eight times. Then, the cop threw his taser to the ground so it would look like there was a struggle, walked over and cuffed the dead kid while yelling at him that he was under arrest. No resuscitation attempted. His fellow cops looked on. Shooter is now being appropriately charged with murder, even though he wore a shield on had chest. Video at the link.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/08/us/south-carolina-officer-is-charged-with-murder-in-black-mans-death.html?_r=0

 

The shooting unfolded after Officer Slager stopped the driver of a Mercedes-Benz with a broken taillight, according to police reports. Mr. Scott ran away, and Officer Slager chased him into a grassy lot that abuts a muffler shop. He fired his Taser, an electronic stun gun, but it did not stop Mr. Scott, according to police reports.

 

Moments after the struggle, Officer Slager reported on his radio, Shots fired and the subject is down. He took my Taser, according to police reports.

 

But the video, which was taken by a bystander and provided to The New York Times by the Scott familys lawyer, presents a different account. The video begins in the vacant lot, apparently moments after Officer Slager fired his Taser. Wires, which carry the electrical current from the stun gun, appear to be extending from Mr. Scotts body as the two men tussle and Mr. Scott turns to run.

 

Something it is not clear whether it is the stun gun is either tossed or knocked to the ground behind the two men and Officer Slager draws his gun, the video shows. When the officer fires, Mr. Scott appears to be 15 to 20 feet away and fleeing. He falls after the last of eight shots.

 

The officer then runs back toward where the initial scuffle occurred and picks something off the ground. Moments later, he drops an object near Mr. Scotts body, the video shows.

 

On another note, police in the US have killed more citizens in the last month than police in the UK have killed in the last century:

 

[moth]

Does anyone else feel like we'll be hearing about the benifits of private sector police forces soon?
Do those "gated communities" with security at the entrance already have private police?

[Endy0816]

Do those "gated communities" with security at the entrance already have private police?

 

Those are likely Private Security Officers that you are seeing. Generally they can detain but not arrest and are focused more on deterrence than apprehension.

 

Does anyone else feel like we'll be hearing about the benifits of private sector police forces soon?

 

If it is done right, it can work out well. You don't see this 'police can do no wrong' attitude when private security officers screw up. Good economic incentive not to. Needs to be contract based with direct/community oversight to ensure policing is in line with community standards.

[StringJunky]

More wood for the fire: http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-32213482

 

 

A white South Carolina police officer has been charged with murder after video emerged of him shooting a black man running away from him.

State investigators arrested North Charleston police officer Michael Slager on Tuesday after viewing the mobile phone video of the shooting.

 

Authorities say victim Walter Lamer Scott was shot after the officer had already targeted him with a stun gun.

 

The US Department of Justice is set to launch an investigation.

Edited April 8, 2015 by StringJunky

[moth]

If it is done right, it can work out well. You don't see this 'police can do no wrong' attitude when private security officers screw up. Good economic incentive not to. Needs to be contract based with direct/community oversight to ensure policing is in line with community standards.

 

I was imagining mall cops, casino guards, and bounty hunters.

 

Do you know of anyplace private security is routinely used to police public spaces other than crowd control?

 

[swansont]

More wood for the fire: http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-32213482

 

 

It's quite telling that the story was different before the video surfaced.

 

http://www.postandcourier.com/article/20150406/PC16/150409558/1268/north-charleston-police-say-officer-who-fatally-shot-man-pulled-him-over-because-of-brake-light

 

A lie about performing CPR, and there's the apparent planting of the taser near the victim, with another officer present.

[StringJunky]

 

It's quite telling that the story was different before the video surfaced.

 

http://www.postandcourier.com/article/20150406/PC16/150409558/1268/north-charleston-police-say-officer-who-fatally-shot-man-pulled-him-over-because-of-brake-light

 

A lie about performing CPR, and there's the apparent planting of the taser near the victim, with another officer present.

 

The taser got slung in the initial struggle and not near where he fell, didn't.it? If that copper didn't have a gun, he would have run after him which he should have done. What's wrong really is, it seems, that the gun is the first resort and not the last in a US policemans' arresting repertoire. A baton/truncheon should have been ok in that situation to manage it, if needed.

Edited April 8, 2015 by StringJunky

[imatfaal]

 

The taser got slung in the initial struggle and not near where he fell, didn't.it? ....

 

If you watch the video on the NYT website that iNow linked to a few posts further back they slow down and magnify the video and one can clearly see the officer dropping whatever he picked up from the site of the struggle next to the body.

[StringJunky]

 

If you watch the video on the NYT website that iNow linked to a few posts further back they slow down and magnify the video and one can clearly see the officer dropping whatever he picked up from the site of the struggle next to the body.

That will be the taser won't it?I don't know how I missed reading iNows' post.

There have been more police shootings of black kids since Ferguson than I care to count, but one in South Carolina just resulted in a cop getting charged with murder. At least this time onlooker video had actually had an affect on the outcome.

 

Pulled over for broken tail light. Kid for some reason decided to run. Cop shot him repeatedly in the back. Eight times. Then, the cop threw his taser to the ground so it would look like there was a struggle, walked over and cuffed the dead kid while yelling at him that he was under arrest. No resuscitation attempted. His fellow cops looked on. Shooter is now being appropriately charged with murder, even though he wore a shield on had chest. Video at the link.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/08/us/south-carolina-officer-is-charged-with-murder-in-black-mans-death.html?_r=0

 

 

 

On another note, police in the US have killed more citizens in the last month than police in the UK have killed in the last century:

 

When you look at the two photos, a copper with a gun visible doesn't feel like they are protecting the public first and they don't look approachable. The UKs armed officers shoot to kill though ...no half-measures.

[imatfaal]

That will be the taser won't it?...

 

I was trying to make no inferences as to what it was

 

Although I now note that I assumed that the dropped object was the same object that the officer can be seen retrieving and I am not sure I could say that with any justification.

[swansont]

 

I was trying to make no inferences as to what it was

 

Although I now note that I assumed that the dropped object was the same object that the officer can be seen retrieving and I am not sure I could say that with any justification.

 

Presumably at some point an inventory was made of what was found near the victim, so if that list is made public we should be able to narrow that down.

 

 

AFAIK shooting an unarmed fleeing suspect in the back is generally not within the realm of reasonable force, and moving evidence of any kind is also unlikely to be proper procedure. Obviously the shooter should be put on trial. I want to know what's going to happen to the other cop who helped with the coverup.

[StringJunky]

 

I was trying to make no inferences as to what it was

 

Although I now note that I assumed that the dropped object was the same object that the officer can be seen retrieving and I am not sure I could say that with any justification.

That's your law training showing. Is it murder? If this was under British jurisdiction.

[Ten oz]

@ StringJunky, but point but here is the United States if you can articulate that you fell fear for your life than you can kill. The likelihood of actual jeopardy to safety isn't any sort of benchmark. It is an incredible cynical standard that shows little respect life IMO. Not only that but fear is not always rational. Fear can be heightened by things like low visibility, silence, a cool breeze, a black cat in the road, and many other factors that may not play any role in situational safety.

 

While a baton or restraining holds may work "what if" arguments often get made. Low probability outcomes are used to explain why anything other than use of a firearm would've been too risky. it is akin to the "you can't prove there is no god" argument. Many have a trained apathy. Acknowledgement that we can never know for 100% what would have happened is information enough. Maybe Michael Brown was going to run back and kill the policeman with his bare hands. No one can prove he wasn't. The policeman said Michael Brown had a very scary look on his face. Said he looked like a demon. Case closed!!!

 

How do we solve it? I think identifying that there is a problem is the first step. Many Americans are misinformed and or uninformed. Gun culture and the idea of gun ownership as a patriotic duty of sorts has corrupted the truth. Most of the people I know (I know a whole lot of gun owners) believe that gun ownership in a community improves safety. That places with more rigorous laws experience more crime. They also tend to believe assualt and murder stattistics are at all time highs when the opposite is true. We need leadership in government that is brave enough to fail. Candidates and elected officials that don't shy away from addressing the issue because they fear losing certian votes or NRA backing. When enough people speak up a national debate will be had and slowly attitudes will change.

[StringJunky]

@ StringJunky, but point but here is the United States if you can articulate that you fell fear for your life than you can kill. The likelihood of actual jeopardy to safety isn't any sort of benchmark. It is an incredible cynical standard that shows little respect life IMO. Not only that but fear is not always rational. Fear can be heightened by things like low visibility, silence, a cool breeze, a black cat in the road, and many other factors that may not play any role in situational safety.

 

While a baton or restraining holds may work "what if" arguments often get made. Low probability outcomes are used to explain why anything other than use of a firearm would've been too risky. it is akin to the "you can't prove there is no god" argument. Many have a trained apathy. Acknowledgement that we can never know for 100% what would have happened is information enough. Maybe Michael Brown was going to run back and kill the policeman with his bare hands. No one can prove he wasn't. The policeman said Michael Brown had a very scary look on his face. Said he looked like a demon. Case closed!!!

 

How do we solve it? I think identifying that there is a problem is the first step. Many Americans are misinformed and or uninformed. Gun culture and the idea of gun ownership as a patriotic duty of sorts has corrupted the truth. Most of the people I know (I know a whole lot of gun owners) believe that gun ownership in a community improves safety. That places with more rigorous laws experience more crime. They also tend to believe assualt and murder stattistics are at all time highs when the opposite is true. We need leadership in government that is brave enough to fail. Candidates and elected officials that don't shy away from addressing the issue because they fear losing certian votes or NRA backing. When enough people speak up a national debate will be had and slowly attitudes will change.

Yes, it seems that way. What's it going to take to get that critical mass of opinion.