Etcetera

To Sort Of Serve And To Kind Of Protect

MayorBob.

Posted to Etcetera on Sun Sep 21, 2008 at 09:22:59 AM EST (promoted by port1080). RSS.

When it comes to crime, the public expects a certain level of service from its police department.  They expect them to respond to complaints, secure evidence, investigate and hopefully arrest the bad guys.  It's an added bonus if they can respond while the crime is still taking place, but there's no guarantee that will happen.  What would you say if you had a city where the crime rate seems to be going up and, while the police still respond, it turns out they take a lackadaisical approach to the rest of what the public expects them to do?  Well, if you live in Chicago, you have that dilemma where the public is feeling distinctly ill-served by the police.

The problem all began last November, when Mayor Richard Daley reached outside the department to appoint a new superintendent.  His name was J.P. "Jody" Weis and the 22-year veteran of the FBI first responsibility was to clean up a department which had been accused of not policing the brutalizers on its force.  The charges of police brutality caught the attention of the Reverend Al Sharpton, who brought his media sideshow to the Windy City.  He also announced a serious effort to derail Chicago's bid to host the Olympic Games in 2016.  Thus it became imperative for the brutality to cease and for Weis to clean up the force.

When Weis took over, he quickly made it known he took his primary charge seriously.  He replaced 21 of 25 commanders and created a new office, the Bureau of Professional Standards, which oversees Internal Affairs.  He ordered officers on desk duty to begin patrol duty.  He also made it clear that he would be using technology, in the form of electronic tracking devices for patrol cars and the requirement to collect and submit DNA samples for all crime scenes.  All of this sent a message to police on the beat that, according to John Pallohusky, president of the police sergeant union, "guys feel the superintendent and the administration does not have their back."

What it boils down to is that Chicago cops will still respond to crime reports; they just won't go the extra mile in trying to investigate them.  According to Lt. Robert Weisskopf cops "are doing just what they need to get through and not any extra."  Monique Boyd, a department spokesperson says that's just not happening and speculates that a drop in arrests means police are "focusing on serious crimes instead of such offenses as disorderly conduct and public drinking."  But a look at the numbers have people questioning that logic.

The truth of the matter is that crime, especially serious, violent crime, is on the rise.  Compared to last year: assaults are on the rise; the murder rate has seen an 18% rise; and less than half the guns have been confiscated from this point last year.  City Alderman Isaac Carothers calls what's been going on "de-policing."  Carothers says, "they do their jobs, but they don't do their jobs as aggressively."  This is a claim an unnamed 25-year veteran won't dispute:

"If I see a crime happening, I take action. But I don't go out of my way to stop someone on a hunch or if they look suspicious. I don't want to be accused of racial profiling and run afoul of this guy who we know won't back us up."

Tags: edited by Port1080, written by MayorBob, crime, Chicago, police brutality (all tags)

This story: 11 comments (3 from subqueue)
Post a Comment
1

Needless exposition, eventual suggestion.

pO157.

Sun Sep 21, 2008 at 11:33:48 AM EST

4.50 (astute, astute)

All of this sent a message to police on the beat that, according to John Pallohusky, president of the police sergeant union, "guys feel the superintendent and the administration does not have their back."

Translation: Being a police officer isn't a cushy job where I can sit around on my ass all day or get 95% discounts on donuts while my cruiser sits in the fire zone and I hit on the increasingly uncomfortable 20 something woman at starbucks and tell her about how great her legs look.

Yeah. Accountability is a bitch, isn't it?

Here's the situation where I live. Almost everybody has had a negative experience (or more than one) with the police. Crime sucks, and the cops don't do shit about that. Your home invaded? Sorry. Police department policy is not to take fingerprints or investigate unless somebody is seriously injured. So yeah, the criminals get away, the burglary clearance rate is reportedly below 10%, and the murder clearance rate by my own calculations over the past 2 years is 41%.

So what happens? People flee the city to the suburbs due to the high crime and taxes (my personal take is most folks will tolerate either high crime or high taxes but not both simultaneously) and law abiding citizens have a very negative outlook on the police department for their inability to solve anything and their repeated shenanigans. To wit, last year a cop got drunk and randomly started discharging her weapon on a crowded highway from a car until the state troopers came in and arrested her. Did she get fired? No. Some other cop got busted by the newspaper for writing close to 1,000 parking tickets for malparkages that didn't happen or included charges that were completely unwarranted. Did he get fired? No. Did the city refund the money of those motorists? No. Some other cop is apparently in jail after raping some woman at a party he was working off duty at. Suspension with pay!

Anywho, the point is people have a bad attitude about the police. The police then wonder why the public will not support them when the union demands increasingly absurd salary hikes. So what do they do? They go on massive parking ticket blitzes, put roadblocks on the highway during rush hour "to check registrations." Awesome. It got to the point that when various officers demanded salary concessions last year or they would call a wildcat strike (or blue flu, whatever its called) that I hoped they actually would, so they could all be fired. Idiots.

So what do cities with these problems do about it? I, for one, question why police salaries are so high. Look at the new NYPD recruiting website. A city with the cost  of living as high as NYC is paying their people only $43,000+ to start. If they can do it, why not everywhere else?

Lower the salaries to be more reasonable. That would get rid of the type of slugs who just want to cash a check and not do their job. It would selectively enrich the population of applicants for people who actually want to get involved in policing.

And another thing: What really gets me is the union guy complaining about having to test for prints or DNA at most crime scenes. Doesn't he realize that will actually decrease his work in the long run? If they can nail some of these felons earlier they will commit less crime, so less investigations. Also the citizens would likely be more receptive to a request for increased pay. I know I would be if I were in their shoes.

2

^ 1

Re: Needless exposition, eventual suggestion.

gerrymander.

Sun Sep 21, 2008 at 02:28:26 PM EST

5.00 (informative, informative)

What really gets me is the union guy complaining about having to test for prints or DNA at most crime scenes.

You're reading that wrong from the article, pO157. The policy requires the police to submit their own DNA as samples when they investigate a crime scene.

4

^ 2

Elimination.

pO157.

Sun Sep 21, 2008 at 05:28:10 PM EST

5.00 (astute)

DNA gets everywhere. This is the same as refering to responding officers' fingerprints when looking at what is at a crime scene. If you have 3 DNA profiles, you need to know which one is the 'good guys' (victims, cops, etc) so you can flag the others as the perps.

It amuses me that rank and file officers are bitching about their DNA being added to a databank. Aren't they the first people to usually demand every person arrested or ever given a parking ticket submit to a DNA swab?

5

^ 4

Re: Elimination.

gerrymander.

Sun Sep 21, 2008 at 06:12:33 PM EST

4.00 (astute, interesting)

This is the same as refering to responding officers' fingerprints when looking at what is at a crime scene.

Elimination of samples is a valid reason to justify taking DNA once, and storing it in a separate database. Right now, the cops are complaining that the only DNA database they use is the one which is linked to crime evidence. Police have just as much reason to fear for their privacy concerns as the rest of us. They don't give up their civil rights just because they wear a badge.

Aren't they the first people to usually demand every person arrested or ever given a parking ticket submit to a DNA swab?

That decision is usually made far above the level of beat cops.

11

^ 5

Re: Elimination.

JimmyHavok.

Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 12:07:16 PM EST

5.00 (astute, astute)

Increased power should be matched by increased scrutiny.  The police are in a position to commit and conceal crimes that normal people are not in, and should therefore be scrutinized more carefully.

The same goes for politicians.

6

^ 5

Re: Elimination.

pO157.

Sun Sep 21, 2008 at 07:43:59 PM EST

3.00 (astute)

Elimination of samples is a valid reason to justify taking DNA once, and storing it in a separate database. Right now, the cops are complaining that the only DNA database they use is the one which is linked to crime evidence.  

IIRC, the form states that the DNA is to be used only for elimination on that one crime. By taking a seperate sample each time, comparing it and then destroying it and not storing the police officers DNA in a databank their privacy is protected.

Try to get the same deal if you apply for a pistol permit or need to have your own background checked.

Police have just as much reason to fear for their privacy concerns as the rest of us. They don't give up their civil rights just because they wear a badge.

Nothing to hide, nothing to fear, right?

8

^ 6

Re: Elimination.

gerrymander.

Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 10:21:56 AM EST

5.00 (astute, astute)

Nothing to hide, nothing to fear, right?

You know, if you looked at my past posts, you'd see that I've never made that argument.

9

^ 8

Re: Elimination.

Lou.

Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 11:43:24 AM EST

5.00

There's always a first time.  ;-)

It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine

10

^ 9

Re: Elimination.

gerrymander.

Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 12:01:25 PM EST

4.75 (astute, astute, astute)

Heh. But really, no. I'll happily run up the flag for jurisdictional issues and questions of balancing private vs. public rights. Arguing that the innocent have nothing to fear from mandatory searches, however, misses the point that the search itself is something to fear -- both in the abstract (presumption of innocence) and in the concrete (inconvenience and potential future abuse).

7

^ 6

Re: Elimination.

JimmyHavok.

Sun Sep 21, 2008 at 10:54:45 PM EST

3.50 (funny, funny)

Cute how gerry is suddenly all about privacy rights.

3

^ 2

Re: Needless exposition, eventual suggestion.

Lou.

Sun Sep 21, 2008 at 05:11:16 PM EST

none

That does put a different spin on it.  I read it like pO at first.  Why would this been needed?

It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine

This story: 11 comments (3 from subqueue)
Post a Comment