danivon wrote:

bbauska wrote:Can anyone else say over-militarization?

My first question is "Why does a school board have a police force in the first place?"

You really don't understand a few things. So, pardon me for the following:

1. Every politician in America wants more control over what he/she supervises. So, the LA Unified School District doesn't want to simply have LAPD police their schools--because they don't control LAPD.

2. One of my good gaming friends (whom I met via my law enforcement career) became a school teacher (and super-lib, but that's another story) for LAUSD. He has been threatened, assaulted, and robbed . . . by students at the schools he's taught at. That is why they have to have a police presence.

3. The one thing LA has that can be exported (the weather can't be) is the gangs. The schools are the breeding grounds for the gangs. So, the police are there to monitor and minimize their influence.

Los Angeles Unified School District covers a diverse range of schools, some of them in areas with dangerous gangs. Having a police presence is probably a necessity at some schools to make sure students can study in relative peace. Welcome to Los Angeles.

freeman3 wrote:Los Angeles Unified School District covers a diverse range of schools, some of them in areas with dangerous gangs. Having a police presence is probably a necessity at some schools to make sure students can study in relative peace. Welcome to Los Angeles.

. . . your Kevlar vest is in the closet. You probably should put it on.

Doctor Fate wrote:

danivon wrote:

bbauska wrote:Can anyone else say over-militarization?

My first question is "Why does a school board have a police force in the first place?"

You really don't understand a few things. So, pardon me for the following:

1. Every politician in America wants more control over what he/she supervises. So, the LA Unified School District doesn't want to simply have LAPD police their schools--because they don't control LAPD.

Of course there is usually separation of powers to avoid overlaps. The sheer proliferation of different police forces (over 20 across LA County alone) must make it hard to co-ordinate. While every politician may want more power, that doesn't mean they should get it.

2. One of my good gaming friends (whom I met via my law enforcement career) became a school teacher (and super-lib, but that's another story) for LAUSD. He has been threatened, assaulted, and robbed . . . by students at the schools he's taught at. That is why they have to have a police presence.

I understand that concept, but I don't see why that can't be done by the ordinary police. That would be their role in the absence of any LAUSD force.

3. The one thing LA has that can be exported (the weather can't be) is the gangs. The schools are the breeding grounds for the gangs. So, the police are there to monitor and minimize their influence.

Would it not be better to have a local police force do this, so they can work with and alongside any gang units?

I live in the OC so...

Owen, local police do not tend to like to hang around a school all day. They respond when something happens. School police maintain a constant presence. You could have local police do the same thing, but remember you're talking about different fiefs. Does LAPD want their officers being sent out to schools all day where nothing really is going on? I Imagine that LA Unified found it was easier to have their own force.

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:
You really don't understand a few things. So, pardon me for the following:

1. Every politician in America wants more control over what he/she supervises. So, the LA Unified School District doesn't want to simply have LAPD police their schools--because they don't control LAPD.

Of course there is usually separation of powers to avoid overlaps. The sheer proliferation of different police forces (over 20 across LA County alone) must make it hard to co-ordinate. While every politician may want more power, that doesn't mean they should get it.

I thought 20 seemed low, so I checked. That also doesn't include CHP, which is fairly ubiquitous.

Politicians get power because of the layering of government there.

Why does LAUSD have a PD? Because they have more control over them AND they can pay them less.

2. One of my good gaming friends (whom I met via my law enforcement career) became a school teacher (and super-lib, but that's another story) for LAUSD. He has been threatened, assaulted, and robbed . . . by students at the schools he's taught at. That is why they have to have a police presence.

I understand that concept, but I don't see why that can't be done by the ordinary police. That would be their role in the absence of any LAUSD force.

Agreed.

Beginning annual salary on LASPD: $48K

LAPD is just under $50K, but you have many more opportunities to promote, work different details, etc. School cops are . . . school cops.

3. The one thing LA has that can be exported (the weather can't be) is the gangs. The schools are the breeding grounds for the gangs. So, the police are there to monitor and minimize their influence.

Would it not be better to have a local police force do this, so they can work with and alongside any gang units?

Yes, but most guys would be longing to get out of school duty and go do "real" police work.

When I worked days, I would go by the high schools, round up all the truants I could find and take them to the school office. Why? Because it's the most efficient way to cut down on daytime burglaries. Plus, every now and then I'd get a good bit of info.

freeman3 wrote:I live in the OC so...

Owen, local police do not tend to like to hang around a school all day. They respond when something happens. School police maintain a constant presence. You could have local police do the same thing, but remember you're talking about different fiefs. Does LAPD want their officers being sent out to schools all day where nothing really is going on? I Imagine that LA Unified found it was easier to have their own force.

It was set up back in 1948. I guess things were a bit different then.

I still don't understand why it has to be separate. Schools can have normal security personnel if they want someone on site the whole time, and perhaps the reason the police don't want to hang around the whole time is that not much is really going on that they need to worry about. But when they do, it makes sense to have it a police force that has jurisdiction outside the schools as well. Because issues often come from outside and go outside, they don't stop at the school gate.

Doctor Fate wrote:

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:
You really don't understand a few things. So, pardon me for the following:

1. Every politician in America wants more control over what he/she supervises. So, the LA Unified School District doesn't want to simply have LAPD police their schools--because they don't control LAPD.

Of course there is usually separation of powers to avoid overlaps. The sheer proliferation of different police forces (over 20 across LA County alone) must make it hard to co-ordinate. While every politician may want more power, that doesn't mean they should get it.

I thought 20 seemed low, so I checked. That also doesn't include CHP, which is fairly ubiquitous.

I was going by Wikipedia's http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_enforc ... les_County and I figured it was an underestimate (hence the "more than") and I wasn't even counting the Port/Airport police forces.

Politicians get power because of the layering of government there.

Seems to be a feature of places outside LA County as well. Don't many US States have layers of county/city?

3. The one thing LA has that can be exported (the weather can't be) is the gangs. The schools are the breeding grounds for the gangs. So, the police are there to monitor and minimize their influence.

Would it not be better to have a local police force do this, so they can work with and alongside any gang units?

Yes, but most guys would be longing to get out of school duty and go do "real" police work.

When I worked days, I would go by the high schools, round up all the truants I could find and take them to the school office. Why? Because it's the most efficient way to cut down on daytime burglaries. Plus, every now and then I'd get a good bit of info.

Indeed. If you rely on school cops, if they do spot truants (who would tend to be outside their aegis anyway), would they have connections to the local police or know what information might be useful to them?

And that kind of policing is the kind that should be promoted and incentivised - prevention is as important as solving crime.

danivon wrote:Seems to be a feature of places outside LA County as well. Don't many US States have layers of county/city?

Yes.

However, I have noted a gigantic difference from the West to the East. In CA, Counties have elected boards to run them. They pass taxes, ordinances, etc. In MA, we have an elected Sheriff to run the jails and that's it. In MA, everything "big" is done by the State. Towns have some autonomy, but mostly to do with law enforcement and libraries.

Indeed. If you rely on school cops, if they do spot truants (who would tend to be outside their aegis anyway), would they have connections to the local police or know what information might be useful to them?

They would have some access, but likely most of the information would be difficult to get.

And that kind of policing is the kind that should be promoted and incentivised - prevention is as important as solving crime.

Agreed, but that's not the mindset of most cops I've known.

Getting back to the Ferguson incident I was thinking of non-judgmental ways of reducing these kinds of incidents:

(1) One thing that strikes me is that we know that violence peaks from about ages 18-35--after that it starts to dramatically fall. And we know from brain scans that our brains are not fully developed until about the mid-20s. So a combination of testosterone and less impulse control leads to more violent acts. Younger police are not immune to these effects. It would seem prudent to hire cops starting in their late 20s or early 30s for 20 year hitches since they will have greater maturity to deal with stressful situations.

(2) some people are just more prone to fear than others and react less calmly when they are in a stressful situation. Such people should not be police officers. If they can be identified they should be weeded out from law enforcement.

(3) I think our brains have been programmed to stereotype, particularly in life or death situations. No one is going to pay attention to political correctness when their life is at stake. But drilling clear use of force guidelines tied to specific types of actions by suspects (rather than leaving too much for officer interpretation) may help

(4) I don't have any personal experience (I got kicked out of basic training at Fort Knox for poor eyesight when I was there for basic training) but I have read quite a bit of military history and I have read many times where a soldier will say he was scared to death but he did what he was trained to do. Intensive training so that actions under stressful situations can be almost automatic could be helpful, too. Again, psychologists describe our brains as working on two levels, one of which is slow and methodical but the other one is quick and instinctual. But if you do things enough times it can be almost automatic. So training , training and more training.

(5) As for investigating excessive force complaints, I am wondering whether using retired cops would be helpful. At least they would not be worried about their careers if they sustain allegations. Also, presumably their conclusions would be given more respect from officers since they know what's like to be a cop. Maybe a three-man team of a retired cop, a lawyer from the DA's office and a qualified third person from the community.

(6) I have mixed feelings about charging police criminally for mistakes in judgment unless they are truly egregious. I prefer that , except for egregious cases, that they be disqualified from being a police officer through an administrative process with court review

Some really good points here.

freeman3 wrote:Getting back to the Ferguson incident I was thinking of non-judgmental ways of reducing these kinds of incidents:

(1) One thing that strikes me is that we know that violence peaks from about ages 18-35--after that it starts to dramatically fall. And we know from brain scans that our brains are not fully developed until about the mid-20s. So a combination of testosterone and less impulse control leads to more violent acts. Younger police are not immune to these effects. It would seem prudent to hire cops starting in their late 20s or early 30s for 20 year hitches since they will have greater maturity to deal with stressful situations.

There's some wisdom here, BUT . . . it's already difficult to fill these positions. And, age limitations, height/weight limits, and other such things have been struck down by the courts. LASD used to have minimum height and maximum weight standards. Not any more. In fact, I had one guy come to work for me fresh out of the academy and he must have been 70-80 lbs. over a reasonable weight. I could not believe it.

The other thing is it is a physically demanding job. Just dragging around the equipment while getting in/out of the vehicle 30-40 times a shift is no small thing. It gets more difficult as you get older.

(2) some people are just more prone to fear than others and react less calmly when they are in a stressful situation. Such people should not be police officers. If they can be identified they should be weeded out from law enforcement.

I agree, but again, it's going to be tough to get through. For one thing, in my experience, more women would be "weeded out" than men--although certainly some men would be too.

The Academy used to be far more stressful, which I think was good. However, all the yelling, running, and carrying on was deemed not "professional," so they got rid of it. Of course, in my time (back in my day . . . yes, I am old), people were fired for lying in the Academy. These days that does not happen. Talk about a bad message to send!

(3) I think our brains have been programmed to stereotype, particularly in life or death situations. No one is going to pay attention to political correctness when their life is at stake. But drilling clear use of force guidelines tied to specific types of actions by suspects (rather than leaving too much for officer interpretation) may help

I just don't believe this is true. If you dealt with as much "white trash" as I did, you'd be just as afraid of them as of anyone else. Well, "afraid" is not quite right--respectful of the potential danger they represent.

(4) I don't have any personal experience (I got kicked out of basic training at Fort Knox for poor eyesight when I was there for basic training) but I have read quite a bit of military history and I have read many times where a soldier will say he was scared to death but he did what he was trained to do. Intensive training so that actions under stressful situations can be almost automatic could be helpful, too. Again, psychologists describe our brains as working on two levels, one of which is slow and methodical but the other one is quick and instinctual. But if you do things enough times it can be almost automatic. So training , training and more training.

So true. But, training costs money. Municipalities on tight budgets and "more training" are not cooperative thoughts. We had some great shoot/don't shoot training and I would love to see that kind of thing go nation-wide.

(5) As for investigating excessive force complaints, I am wondering whether using retired cops would be helpful. At least they would not be worried about their careers if they sustain allegations. Also, presumably their conclusions would be given more respect from officers since they know what's like to be a cop. Maybe a three-man team of a retired cop, a lawyer from the DA's office and a qualified third person from the community.

In some ways, I'd be fine with this. Me? I could be, seriously, neutral. I hate police misconduct as much OR MORE than any crime. Some cops would probably feel like "snitches."

(6) I have mixed feelings about charging police criminally for mistakes in judgment unless they are truly egregious. I prefer that , except for egregious cases, that they be disqualified from being a police officer through an administrative process with court review

I could write a few chapters on this--spot on.

One incident (small one). I was a union rep on a hearing. I knew the deputy and he was a genuinely good guy--not heavy at all. He received a letter of reprimand and was appealing it.

What did he do wrong? While working the jail infirmary, he uncuffed an inmate (you had to be a bit of a jerk at the very least to be handcuffed in the infirmary) who needed to use the bathroom. A short time later (15 min or so), the inmate said he needed to go again. The deputy told him to wait. The inmate pulled his pants down and began urinating on the floor. The other inmates (all uncuffed) went ballistic, scrambling about, trying not to get splattered. There were civilian nurses and doctors in the area. The deputy, believing he had to restore order, took out his OC spray and gave the wizzer a spray. The inmate stopped urinating, pulled his pants back up, problem solved.

That merited a letter of reprimand for "unnecessary force."

The Department's representative, a Commander, said, "If he had to go, he had to go." I told her she was wrong. I noted I had just gone (during a break) and could go again because of the quantity of water I had consumed. However, I didn't "need" to and could "wait" if need be. She could not see that. I also said given the number of unsecured inmates and their access to the nurses, etc., this could have been a real debacle. The deputy resolved it with one shot of pepper spray. She was unmoved.

i think he won at the Civil Service level, but it shows how unreasonable some high-ranking Department personnel could be.

I appreciate the insights, DF. 20 years of experience gives a lot of weight to your opinions on this issue.

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20141 ... ture.shtml

The link above takes you to a segment of John Olivers weekly HBO show. This is an investigative piece on "civil forfetiture".
Sine that episode last week, the topic has become a heavily covered item in lots of media. (Civil forfeiture, not John Oliver)
Civil forfeiture is a bewildering law. Cops have the right to seize property, based on pretty much only their own suspicions, and use most of the seixed property to fund their own policing budgets...
How this has survived constitutional challenge I can't understand. Laughably the person is not being charged and somehow must prove that the property s innocent of invovlemnt in any criminal acticity. (The property, not the person.)
The law and its effects echo a number of things:
1)The over reaction to terror activity and the wilingness from a supine populace to accept laws that, until they are personnally affected, dangerously surrender liberty. Including the sharing of private data.
2) The militarizartion of the polcie force.
3) The increasing disconnect between polciing and the people that the polcie are to serve and protect. In some jurisdcitions, civil forfeiture is a regular featrue of policing... and is promoted by a private company called Black Asphalt
4) The ability of humour, to be used productively to inform the publis. And the absence of journalism in so many places that a weekly comedy show finds itself leading the invetigation on an important topic.
From the Washington Post today:

There have been 61,998 cash seizures made on highways and elsewhere since 9/11 without search warrants or indictments through the Equitable Sharing Program, totaling more than $2.5 billion. State and local authorities kept more than $1.7 billion of that while Justice, Homeland Security and other federal agencies received $800 million. Half of the seizures were below $8,800.
Only a sixth of the seizures were legally challenged, in part because of the costs of legal action against the government. But in 41 percent of cases — 4,455 — where there was a challenge, the government agreed to return money. The appeals process took more than a year in 40 percent of those cases and often required owners of the cash to sign agreements not to sue police over the seizures.
Hundreds of state and local departments and drug task forces appear to rely on seized cash, despite a federal ban on the money to pay salaries or otherwise support budgets. The Post found that 298 departments and 210 task forces have seized the equivalent of 20 percent or more of their annual budgets since 2008.
Agencies with police known to be participating in the Black Asphalt intelligence network have seen a 32 percent jump in seizures beginning in 2005, three times the rate of other police departments. Desert Snow-trained officers reported more than $427 million in cash seizures during highway stops in just one five-year period, according to company officials. More than 25,000 police have belonged to Black Asphalt, company officials said.
State law enforcement officials in Iowa and Kansas prohibited the use of the Black Asphalt network because of concerns that it might not be a legal law enforcement tool. A federal prosecutor in Nebraska warned that Black Asphalt reports could violate laws governing civil liberties, the handling of sensitive law enforcement information and the disclosure of pretrial information to defendants. But officials at Justice and Homeland Security continued to use it.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/invest ... e/?hpid=z2

rickyp wrote:Civil forfeiture is a bewildering law. Cops have the right to seize property, based on pretty much only their own suspicions, and use most of the seixed property to fund their own policing budgets...
How this has survived constitutional challenge I can't understand. Laughably the person is not being charged and somehow must prove that the property s innocent of invovlemnt in any criminal acticity. (The property, not the person.)

The 4th Amendment:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

How can warrentless seizures be Constitutional?

Well, a search and a civil forfeiture action are distinct. In other words, the police could get consent to search the vehicle (or home, etc) and that requires no proof at all. Or they could have probable cause to search the vehicle. Once they recover something these civil forfeiture laws allow the police to seize the property in a civil action under a civil proof standard because the action is against property and not a person (so U.S. v $20,000 or something like that). So the idea is that in drug cases for example where there is not enough proof for a criminal conviction at least the police can hinder the drug trade by seizing assets. But these laws appear to be being abused.