I hate to take the Panglossian view of technology making things better, but I really think body cameras would have made a huge difference here.
There was no need for 19 cops. But that isn't the heart of her criticism. It was the complete disrespect that she was shown. Body cameras would have caused the police to know that their behavior would be seen and judged by their bosses and their community. A small bit of compassion for this woman would have made all the difference.
In a test in Rialto, CA [0], body cameras resulted in many fewer use of force incidents as well as many fewer citizen complaints, as both police and citizens improved their behavior.
Finally, it is a huge deal in NYC when a cop discharges a weapon for any reason. The police commissioner always comes to the scene. I would like to see a requirement that a report be filed whenever cops unholster their weapons as well.
I'm sorry, but I don't see this as being a matter of "color". There's too much information we don't know and it's entirely possible that a separate event in the same area was the reasoning behind a large response. No department is going to waste that degree of resources on a simply "burglary". I think this author is looking to make this an issue of race when it simply was not. Descriptions of people when [potential] crimes are being committed often include skin color. Why? Helps narrow down suspects and provides identifying information. She just happened to have a neighbor who did the right thing: called the cops when they suspected a crime.
> I'm sorry, but I don't see this as being a matter of "color".
I vehemently disagree. You know why? Because the cops actually showed UP to a burglary 911 call. Been shown multiple times that in an area of influence, the police are much more likely to show up than an area of poverty.
> No department is going to waste that degree of resources on a simply "burglary".
They sent 17-19 police officers, plus dogs. The only thing I think of off the top of my head that even warrants that much response is perhaps a street brawl? Or street racing? How many people did they honestly think was breaking into ONE apartment that 17-19 police officers showed up as a response?
> I think this author is looking to make this an issue of race when it simply was not.
Again, I disagree. Both officer and 911 caller both described the person doing the B&E as a Hispanic MALE, and they detained a Black FEMALE. I would assume as an adult, that one could at least tell the difference between a man and a woman, especially if that person is a police officer.
Why would she not plead her case behind her locked door? Pass her ID under the door first, explain the situation, and THEN come out?
It seems a lot of the situation could have been avoided. I don't think they were going to shoot her through the door for a burglary.
The events after were pretty disappointing: officers not giving their names, the rude neighbor, etc. But race really seems to play a minimal role in this story and it's frustrating that she's trying to spin it as some sort of racial/police militarization issue rather than what it is: an ignorant (and potentially racist) neighbor who got her in a mess.
> Why would she not plead her case behind her locked door? Pass her ID under the door first, explain the situation, and THEN come out?
Read the article. She explains why in the article.
She was focused on a gun pointed at her and didn't know who it was because they did not announce themselves. This is a result of a well-documented byproduct of human behavior in life-or-death situations, specifically tunnel vision and auditory exclusion.
And side from that, doors don't stop bullets. She could've have been viewed as resisting or argumentative. Talk to any LEO and all they want you to do in such situations is comply with their commands.
I did read the article and I personally know numerous LEOs (result of living in a small rural town), none of whom would begin firing into a locked door because of a reported burglary.
Your point about life-or-death situations is valid, likely on both the author's and the LEO's side, but it still doesn't help her argument that this was race related..which is really the most frustrating part for me.
The headline is unnecessarily racially motivated. I feel that anyone getting into an apartment through an unusual manner -- locksmith, window, etc could be cause for police to investigate. No matter the race of the observer or the actor.
The issues around show of force, lack of police identification on showing up as well as lack of identification after the fact are, however, extremely troubling.
But doesn't using a locksmith clearly suggest legal access, unlike entering through a window? No criminal would risk a locksmith witness or the increased visibility of standing around outside waiting for them to arrive.
Locksmiths aren't clearly identified -- they don't have badges and such, and they're not an official in any way. You don't know if this person is working with the person entering the apt.
The big question would be whether 19 police officers would respond to "unknown white person attempting to gain entry", or whether there would have been that much hassle.
The answer is not particularly likely -- probably one unit would've been dispatched, they'd have asked for ID and then that would be that. The size of the response and the interaction she had were almost certainly due to the race of the resident and the locksmith.
From the comments, someone posted a response from the police department, explaining the 911 call and why they responded the way they did. It includes an audio recording of the response:
I'm mixed on how this story is told/editorialized. I think the militarization of the police issue is a serious problem and that police treating POC worse is also a serious issue. The reason I'm mixed on this is because I'm a 6'5" caucasian male and have also stared down the barrel of an unsafetied M16 and had unsafetied handgun (I don't recall if it was a revolver or took a clip) pointed point blank at my temple when two police officers pulled up behind me in Rio de Janeiro because I was running at 10pm at night in street clothes in the neighborhood of Gávea.
Cops in Brazil operate in much the same way as US police officers do (assume violence in defense, be prepared to shoot), but they've been operating that way for far longer. It's been a serious problem there (probably since the GV dictatorship) and has been a growing problem in the US as service men return from war zones and police the same way at home that they did when at war.
I don't have statistics here, but my impression from the news is that cops excessively single out POC in routine police work (traffic stops, stopping pedestrians, etc.) and that the excessive militarization of police actions affects everyone, not just POC. This story seems to be more an issue of the problem with militarization of police action more than a POC issue up until the misunderstanding was cleared up. Once the misunderstanding was identified it seems like a story that is about both how POC are treated unfairly and how cops always protect their own even when they are wrong.
What's very frustrating is how everyone (cops and neighbor) acted after it was clear that there was misunderstanding, that degree of force was unnecessary and that the cops failed to take corrective action and protected themselves and were generally uncooperative.
+1 for the comment about how body cameras are needed.
I'm curious about the 17-19 police officer figure. Do police departments actually operate on a "dispatch X officers to deal with incident of nature X" or is it a function of "All officers in the vicinity of X location, we have a XXX in progress at the address X".
If the latter is the case, this would suggest that the police presence that showed up is a function of the police presence in the vicinity an affluent neighborhood.
Not passing judgement. Just asking a question.
Another consideration about why force was used is that when officers arrived on the scene, the "suspect" was still in the residence. Typically, burglaries are in-and-out operations and I would expect a real burglar to be cognizant of the arrival of police officers and they would try to escape. Another thing to consider is the way the "suspect" reacted, since it should have appeared as a potential false positive to the police officers that arrived on the scene, since real burglars would probably react quite differently.
18 comments
[ 3.0 ms ] story [ 44.3 ms ] threadThere was no need for 19 cops. But that isn't the heart of her criticism. It was the complete disrespect that she was shown. Body cameras would have caused the police to know that their behavior would be seen and judged by their bosses and their community. A small bit of compassion for this woman would have made all the difference.
In a test in Rialto, CA [0], body cameras resulted in many fewer use of force incidents as well as many fewer citizen complaints, as both police and citizens improved their behavior.
Finally, it is a huge deal in NYC when a cop discharges a weapon for any reason. The police commissioner always comes to the scene. I would like to see a requirement that a report be filed whenever cops unholster their weapons as well.
[0] http://www.vox.com/2014/9/17/6113045/police-worn-body-camera...
I vehemently disagree. You know why? Because the cops actually showed UP to a burglary 911 call. Been shown multiple times that in an area of influence, the police are much more likely to show up than an area of poverty.
> No department is going to waste that degree of resources on a simply "burglary".
They sent 17-19 police officers, plus dogs. The only thing I think of off the top of my head that even warrants that much response is perhaps a street brawl? Or street racing? How many people did they honestly think was breaking into ONE apartment that 17-19 police officers showed up as a response?
> I think this author is looking to make this an issue of race when it simply was not.
Again, I disagree. Both officer and 911 caller both described the person doing the B&E as a Hispanic MALE, and they detained a Black FEMALE. I would assume as an adult, that one could at least tell the difference between a man and a woman, especially if that person is a police officer.
It seems a lot of the situation could have been avoided. I don't think they were going to shoot her through the door for a burglary.
The events after were pretty disappointing: officers not giving their names, the rude neighbor, etc. But race really seems to play a minimal role in this story and it's frustrating that she's trying to spin it as some sort of racial/police militarization issue rather than what it is: an ignorant (and potentially racist) neighbor who got her in a mess.
Read the article. She explains why in the article.
She was focused on a gun pointed at her and didn't know who it was because they did not announce themselves. This is a result of a well-documented byproduct of human behavior in life-or-death situations, specifically tunnel vision and auditory exclusion.
And side from that, doors don't stop bullets. She could've have been viewed as resisting or argumentative. Talk to any LEO and all they want you to do in such situations is comply with their commands.
Your point about life-or-death situations is valid, likely on both the author's and the LEO's side, but it still doesn't help her argument that this was race related..which is really the most frustrating part for me.
The issues around show of force, lack of police identification on showing up as well as lack of identification after the fact are, however, extremely troubling.
The answer is not particularly likely -- probably one unit would've been dispatched, they'd have asked for ID and then that would be that. The size of the response and the interaction she had were almost certainly due to the race of the resident and the locksmith.
http://santamonicapd.org/Content.aspx?id=54286
Incidentally, since race was invoked, the Santa Monica chief of police is a black woman.
Cops in Brazil operate in much the same way as US police officers do (assume violence in defense, be prepared to shoot), but they've been operating that way for far longer. It's been a serious problem there (probably since the GV dictatorship) and has been a growing problem in the US as service men return from war zones and police the same way at home that they did when at war.
I don't have statistics here, but my impression from the news is that cops excessively single out POC in routine police work (traffic stops, stopping pedestrians, etc.) and that the excessive militarization of police actions affects everyone, not just POC. This story seems to be more an issue of the problem with militarization of police action more than a POC issue up until the misunderstanding was cleared up. Once the misunderstanding was identified it seems like a story that is about both how POC are treated unfairly and how cops always protect their own even when they are wrong.
What's very frustrating is how everyone (cops and neighbor) acted after it was clear that there was misunderstanding, that degree of force was unnecessary and that the cops failed to take corrective action and protected themselves and were generally uncooperative.
+1 for the comment about how body cameras are needed.
If the latter is the case, this would suggest that the police presence that showed up is a function of the police presence in the vicinity an affluent neighborhood.
Not passing judgement. Just asking a question.
Another consideration about why force was used is that when officers arrived on the scene, the "suspect" was still in the residence. Typically, burglaries are in-and-out operations and I would expect a real burglar to be cognizant of the arrival of police officers and they would try to escape. Another thing to consider is the way the "suspect" reacted, since it should have appeared as a potential false positive to the police officers that arrived on the scene, since real burglars would probably react quite differently.