portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article commentary oregon & cascadia

human & civil rights | police / legal

Continuous Bad Cop Behavior

What changes have DoJ brought?
After Portland & Seattle & other cities have been scolded by federal Justice actions, what difference has it made? This week a judge threw out bogus charges against the 16 year old who was assaulted by Portland cops in september (a kid who showed more spirit than the cops expected, judging from the clip shown on msm). The judge castigated the cops for aggressive, excessive, & unnecessary force & for lying. Recently, four Portland cops cited a homeless couple for "theft" because they used a penny's worth of electricity to charge their phones, & the prosecutor actually pursued the case. A man is in jail in W'ton county for over 900 days (!) tho he did nothing wrong. WTF! And we all just lounge around & sip things! And Pacific Northwest is supposed to be progressive? Bullshit!

"To Serve And Protect" is now → "To Cite And Collect." 14.Mar.2015 15:20


Ferguson: When Cops Become Cash Cows

By Brian A. Jackson 3/13/15 at 4:44 PM

When police departments become profit centers, justice goes out the window. Jim Young/Reuters

Filed Under: Opinion, Ferguson, Police Shooting, Protests and Demonstrations

A public debate about policing is going on in the United States, catalyzed by the incidents in Ferguson, Missouri, and New York City. That debate includes many fundamental and important issues for our democracy, including the constitutionality of policing practices, the relationships between citizens and police, and fair and impartial policing of different minority and ethnic groups in our diverse country.

But like so many issues in public policy, one of the factors shaping the complex challenges we face—and a potential lever to help address them—is simple and unsurprising. That factor is money.

Looking at concerns that have been raised in recent years about police practices, a nontrivial number are about money and police departments' roles in collecting it—whether to supplement their own or their municipality's budget.

A recent Washington Post investigation examined asset forfeiture—the process law enforcement can use to seize cash or property even before individuals are convicted of a crime—and the fairness of its use. Controversies have arisen in multiple jurisdictions about automated speed cameras installed by private companies for a cut of revenue from fines, and whether their use was being driven by public safety goals or a desire to maximize revenue.

As part of the report on the Ferguson Police Department, one problem flagged by the Department of Justice was behavior by the department and court system aimed at advancing revenue collection rather than public safety—and that those efforts were managed to ensure that the department was "bringing in revenue at the desired rate."

It shouldn't be a surprise that the prospect of police departments generating revenue would seem like a great idea to municipal leaders. During the financial crisis, state and local budgets were hit hard. The pain of tight budgets has been felt across the board in many jurisdictions and the resources available to police departments fell, requiring changes like service and staff cuts.

Creating a way for police activities to become partially self-funding, and setting them up in a way that affects "criminals"—using that term very loosely—rather than the whole population would clearly seem to be politically attractive.

Similarly, it shouldn't be a surprise that this could look like a great idea to police leadership. Anyone who has ever run an organization knows that the ability to achieve goals is significantly driven by having the resources available to do so.

Given the range of things society expects from our police departments—answering every call for service fast and effectively, actively engaging diverse communities, preparing for security threats like terrorism, and responding to societal problems as varied as drug abuse, mental illness, youth violence and human trafficking—having discretionary resources to allow leaders flexibility in their efforts to do all those different tasks could be a real benefit.

But, the devil is always in the details. Having these assets go (in whole or in part) into the budget of the department that collected them creates an incentive for them to do more—to pursue more resources. This may seem good and reasonable, but the tough question becomes how those incentives play out over the longer term.

If a department starts to plan on having seized resources available—and to rely on them—or if officers start getting rewarded for how much revenue they bring in, the concern becomes whether law enforcement action will become driven more by the goal of revenue and less by the goal of public safety, as the DOJ suggested with respect to the Ferguson Police Department.

There are certainly competing goals here. We would like government to be effective at minimal cost, thereby limiting the burden of taxes on the public. But that isn't all we want, particularly with respect to our police departments:

We want departments that have good relationships with the communities they police, and that are viewed as legitimate and trusted by citizens. Perceptions of police officers as collection agents rather than public protectors cannot help but undermine that legitimacy and trust.

We want officers who are empowered to judiciously and fairly use discretion as they work to maintain public safety. They should not be forced to think more like a salesperson than a public servant and be unconcerned that not writing a ticket will hurt their revenue numbers for the month.

We want police leadership that is free to allocate staff and resources to address crime and solve community problems, without competing concerns about how such changes might affect the flow of money coming in from citations or other mechanisms.

To get everything we want, we—each state, city or other locality—have to fund police departments in a way that matches the breadth of the roles we expect them to fill, and do so in ways that don't risk distorting their pursuit of their critical public safety mission. If we want public safety agencies that are effective and accountable to the will of the public, we need to fund them in an amount and through a political process that can deliver both.

We wouldn't expect other public mission agencies—the public health department, for example—to become profit centers, and we shouldn't expect that from law enforcement.

Such concerns are not an argument that fines and asset seizures shouldn't be part of law enforcement. Fines and asset seizures have a role to play in penalizing some types of crime and denying some types of criminals the fruits of illegal behavior. But such mechanisms have to be designed to insulate departments from pressures or incentives that risk distorting them into municipal profit centers.

Some steps have already been taken toward that, including revisions to federal asset seizure programs. But others could be taken as well, including placing limits on how much of an agency's budget could come from such mechanisms, effectively earmarking its proceeds for specific policy goals or tasks, directing receipts into general funds to dilute their influence, and—whatever else is done—creating transparency about how much money is coming in and what is being done with it.

As a lever that can help address larger issues within today's debate on policing, it is important to take on these sorts of resource issues. This needs to happen at the local level, in mayors' offices, at city councils and it needs to involve citizens.

And since these mechanisms were designed to fill budget holes, doing so may be tough—but given the critical role police need to play, it's worth it: Few citizens would want their public safety provided by a used car salesperson or collection agent, and it is unlikely that many police officers or leaders chose a career in law enforcement because they wanted to focus their attention and efforts on their monthly profit and loss numbers.

Getting this right would be better for both citizens and law enforcement—since otherwise it is difficult to reconcile the differences between the missions of "To Serve and Protect" and "To Cite and Collect."

KKK shot cops 14.Mar.2015 16:48


It's beyond obvious the KKK shot those cops in Ferguson. Rifle shots in a public setting are their M.O. from Medgar Evers to MLK to the N.C. Black Panthers. Some Grand Klug Imperial Leader complete with bedsheet hoodie and headphones (In his Mom's basement on Skype) was thrown off CNN in the middle of an interview when he began quoting scripture to justify racism anbd racist violence. This happened exactly 48 hours before those shootings. Everyone presents swears the shots were from a rifle hundreds of feet away while the constabulary swears protesters fired a pistol from very close up. It's like the freaking grassy knoll all over again. The cops claim to possess the bullet casings but won't reveal what kind they are. They claim the bullets that shot the cops were lost and another is stilol embedded in the cop. Haven't they heard of x-rays? Not hard to decipher a rifle slug from a pistol. Even by ear. Just listen to all the compression in the sound of those two? shots being fired. That's either a rifle or a .45 Magnum. That screaming cop was torn up badly. Are Ferguson cops in the Klan? Missouri is ground zero for Klan and Skinhead activity, including conventions and "Hate Band" festivals. Yeah, Hate Festivals are legal in Missour-ah. After seeing all those racist e-mails that circulated around Ferguson's public safety and service departments, it's not hard to imagine some of these psychopaths belonging to the local Kleagledom. But KKK-ism is one thing the MSM refuses to really deal with except on an almost comical level. But they are not the clowns the media paints them as. They are killers and rapists and sick SOB's in the mold of all religious and racist fanatics. Even the Klan's founder, General Nathan Bedford Forrest, America's greatest Calvary commander, quit in disgust when self-defense degenerated into lynchings and mass murder and racial hatred. Ferguson's shit runs DEEP.

KKK's diversity recruiting efforts paying off 15.Mar.2015 14:43



the KKK's diversity recruiting efforts are paying off.

Here is a photo of their newest member after he has admitted to firing the pistol at the police.


"He Has Admitted To Firing The Pistol At The Police" 17.Mar.2015 19:47


That makes no sense. What sane person would admit to firing a pistol at the police?

better question 18.Mar.2015 11:24


what sane person would fire at the police?

Cops have strong unions 23.Mar.2015 17:21

Uncle John

While other Unions have lost strength and members, cops union's have remained strong. Doing what Unions are suppose to do protect the members. It's no accident that cops are well paid with nice pensions and excellent benefits. Police are among the few working class with strong unions. If you want to see the power of unions examine the ploice unions. Most of the working class unions have been busted or lost through globalization. Police unions have not felt that pressure. There unions protect the workers and go to the mat for them.