What happens when a Captain-3 is treated like a P-2?
Through the courtesy of YouTube and the local media, we have all probably seen the video of our officers dealing with the traffic violator and the use of force used on her. The officer involved appears to throw the handcuffed female to the ground and although the video is grainy, the violator and her attorney appear in crystal-clear color showing the resulting injuries to the news media.
Two simple truths immediately apply to this situation. The first is that uses of force are never pretty and the second is that the video never tells the whole story. The reason for the force may or may not be explainable. League President Tyler Izen said it best when asked to comment on this incident. “Police officers perform a tough and dangerous job every day. Officers often need to make split-second, life-ordeath decisions. Like everyone in this great country, they deserve the benefit of the doubt. No one should jump to conclusions before all of the evidence is heard and a judicial determination is made. While armchair experts will have an opinion on what they saw, the fact is that there are no shortcuts to the process of determining if an officer acted appropriately or not. The process must run its course before opinions are formed,” Izen said.
What sets this incident apart from the rest, however, is that the captain, in whose division the use of force occurred, was also grounded, but by the Chief. The Chief, after demoting and assigning the captain home, told the media that “proper steps were not taken, including appropriate notifications and the removal of the involved officers from the field” (emphasis added). In other words, the captain did not jump to conclusions fast enough.
We have many officers who get grounded at the flash of an allegation and it is very frustrating that the League can do nothing about it. We have officers who have been restricted from public contact for months and even years. The Department’s position is that the Chief can assign an officer anywhere he wants; it is a management right. So if you are in a controversial shooting (or anything else, actually), you can be assigned inside with no public contact, or sent home without your badge and gun. And there you stay while other officers get to work overtime details, get promoted and make it into coveted assignments.
It therefore seemed refreshing that this captain had not jumped to conclusions. According to his attorney’s statements to the media, the captain saw the video, noted that it appeared that excessive force was used, started a personnel complaint and sent a sergeant to do the investigation. Once the captain had the full story, he would decide what was appropriate to do.
Actually, that sounds like the way the system is supposed to work. Not so, said the Chief, and the captain was immediately demoted and assigned to home. Just like what happens to P2s on a regular basis. So what’s a captain to do? This captain, obviously realizing that his chances for making commander were suddenly dim, fought back. If management was disappointed in his ability to jump to conclusions, they were really going to be disappointed in his next move. He went public. This is the ultimate sin on LAPD, but probably the dream of every P2 polishing shotguns in the kit room because of some unresolved personnel complaint. No one, however, cares what the P2 thinks. But this was a captain, so it made the news big time.
The captain said this in his filed fair employment claim that specifically named the Chief of Police, an assistant chief of police and two deputy chiefs: “After becoming aware of harassment, discrimination, and retaliation against another employee in the workplace, and after my attempts to stop, correct, and report the wrongful conduct by my superiors, I was subjected to retaliation, discrimination, and harassment by my superiors [employer]. I also complained of retaliation and discrimination after my superiors initiated and served me with false and inaccurate documentation setting forth adverse employment actions and actions disciplinary in nature. Also as a result of my opposition to discrimination, harassment, and retaliation, my superiors singled me out for adverse employment actions which were also discriminatory, retaliatory, and disciplinary in nature.”
OK. Let’s be consistent. The Chief, assistant chief and the two deputy chiefs should be immediately assigned to home pending the resolution of this serious complaint. Maybe we could hold off on the immediate downgrade in the interest of having someone still available to run the Department by BlackBerry.
This would be jumping to conclusions with the proper speed and consistent with past practice. Or maybe we could just recognize that we have a process of investigation, presentation of facts, right to representation and right to a fair hearing that results in our best chance to do the right thing. Whether the final result is to terminate someone or clear them, it is a process fine-tuned over the years to result in the discovery of the truth in a way consistent with American due process. On the other hand, you can pervert this system by overreacting, using it for revenge, hiding evidence or altering the playing field so that you always win, which seems to be what the captain is saying is happening to him.
Coincidentally, the League has about a half dozen lawsuits against the Department saying much the same thing on behalf of its members. The difference is that we are on the outside looking in and the captain is on the inside looking around. Apparently, things look the same from either vantage point.
The Chief has also ordered that all roll calls view the video and the captains of each division discuss the video and the use of force policy. It’s going to be tough to find an unbiased Board of Rights member down the line if the involved officers are later recommended for termination, based on the yet-to be- completed investigation. Or maybe that question is already answered in the Chief ’s mind.
This is not the first, nor will it be the last, use of force caught on tape. The media will play it up each time because it sells. The Department has the responsibility to examine the facts objectively before condemning the officers involved. Condemnation may turn out to be needed, or maybe it won’t, but nothing is lost by waiting until the facts are in before acting.
It is time for the Police Commission to start grabbing people by the scruffs of the neck and making them recognize such things as due process and the right to representation. Along with the obligation to make sure the public is protected from unfair treatment is the obligation to make sure that officers are protected from unfair treatment. It’s all part of the same ball game. Management should hear warning bells. Officers will treat others as they themselves are treated.
Be legally careful out there.
