On Tuesday, a study was released that indicated that a sheriff’s deputy who received more than five official complaints from the public was much more likely to be involved with a problem shooting.
Richard Winton of the LA Times has the story. Here are a few clips.
A landmark reform instituted 16 years ago by the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department to weed out problem deputies has been remarkably successful in identifying officers who have the potential for misconduct and excessive force, according to a report released Tuesday.
[SNIP]
The study concluded that there is a strong link between the number of complaints filed against a deputy — proven or not — and the possibility that the deputy will eventually get into serious trouble and become a liability for the
The study examined the records of 561 deputies and found that officers who had been named in use-of-force complaints, even if the accusations were unproven, were more likely to be involved in shootings and successful lawsuits against the department.
For every four to five allegations of improper use of force lodged against a deputy, there was an average increase of one shooting, [special counsel for the county Board of Supervisors, Merrick] Bobb said.[SNIP]
“It didn’t make a lot of difference whether an allegation against a deputy was found to be true or not — the existence of the complaint or investigation alone was a strong indicator of a potentially problematic officer,” Bobb said in an interview.
The study also found that instituting a three year program of mentoring for the officers who received the complaints could markedly improve or eliminate the problems.
Both the study and the methodology for helping problem officers is refreshingly reformed-minded and sensible. So kudos to the Sheriff’s Department for embracing all of the above..
I would love to see a similar study done of LAPD officers—where still, post Bratton—I’ve known of officers who collect complaints the way debutantes collect dances, but with no consequence apparent to the naked eye.
One more thing, did the LASD study cover the deputies working in the jails? If so, why are the civilians who monitor such things—and people like me who get inmate calls— still hearing so many tales of abuses?
It is also more likely that officers who catch more bad guys are more likely to get shot at. This seems like an absurd study and a typical nutty liberal program. The study also probably also proves that cops that work in Boyle Heights get more complaints than those that work in Bell Air and as a result shoot more people.
But maybe if we immediately send all (at risk / ever been in a gang / have a tattoo / cut school) kids to jail before they commit a crime we will have less kids committing crimes.
The first part of comment #1 is so obtuse, I’m not even sure the second part isn’t a serious suggestion.
This is a 16-year old program that the Sheriff’s department considers very successful and we get “nutty liberal program” and “absurd” from one of our usual suspects. Incredible.
APPEARS TO BE WORKING!
After 16 years, this program “APPEARS TO BE WORKINGâ€. Where are the statistics that prove that it this program isn’t a waste of time and money?
I am all for programs that work, but after 16 years we should un-equivocal proof, not assumptions and statements like “APPEARS TO BE WORKINGâ€.
Where are the double blind studies, where are the comparative results?
In the book by Samuel Walker “The New World of Police Accountability, page 133â€, Bobb is quoted as saying, “The LASD currently treats the PPI like a collectible automobile: It is put on display from time to time to demonstrate to the outside word that the LASD has the Rolls Royce of risk management software and procedures. And indeed it is the Rolls. But when the odometer is check, it is apparent that it has hardly ever been taken out of the garage.â€
It’s pretty pathetic of you to take that one line – the only one that sounds equivocal – out of context. In fact it’s used to reaffirm that what the study found needs to be incorporated more aggressively if possible.
And your call for even more studies – along with a lament about this being a waste of time and money – is proof of just how disingenuous – unhinged even – your kneejerk crap about “typical liberal progams” happens to be.
Frankly, I think there’s something wrong with people like you…
We need more people who truly care about making the country better and solving problems pragmatically, not ideologues flaunting their partisan resentments at every twist and turn. How about showing a little support for the police when they’re trying to improve their effectiveness and raise the quality of their workforce.
Sounds great! Let use the same type of reasoning to spot potential terrorists…stating with unmarried Islamic males between the ages of 17 and 40 who act suspiciously.
Profiling works! Welcome aboard!
Pokey’s basic request – for the numbers and not just the reporter’s assessment – strikes me as fair. The book he cites is at least four years old and probably doesn’t reflect the current situation. I’m sure the new report is out there somewhere.
The assertion that it’s a “typical nutty liberal program” is a little unhinged and I think Pokey’s 2nd comment, the one where he says he’s “all for programs that work,” tries to walk back a little. So we’re left with the question, how do we know the program works?
To that I’d like to add, what happens to an officer after one or two unproven complaints are lodged? Is he fired, reassigned or under strict scrutiny? As much as I like the LASD effectively policing their own, firing a guy with no proof of wrongdoing strikes me as unfair and I’m sure the union would throw a fit.
Honestly, I’d like to see the figures too. (Although labeling this a liberal program is pretty silly.)
I posted this late last night, and still have a great many questions myself. Thus when I finish the other 4765 things presently in front of me, I’m actually going to try to follow up. Merrick Bobb’s a pretty straight shooter, so I’m interested in what he’s got.
Aren’t the statistics reported in this article ?
“The study examined the records of 561 deputies and found that officers who had been named in use-of-force complaints, even if the accusations were unproven, were more likely to be involved in shootings and successful lawsuits against the department.
“For every four to five allegations of improper use of force lodged against a deputy, there was an average increase of one shooting, [special counsel for the county Board of Supervisors, Merrick] Bobb said.”
Don’t give mendacious assholes the “benefit of the doubt” when they make idiotic claims for more detail that they’d never make if a news report supported their crank POV. If we bend over for crap merchants like Pokey, we’re fucked. This is why Glenn Beck has a following. Even Obama took on the liars and hysterics tonight and “called them out.” This concern for extreme “fairness” in the face of utter foolishness is ridiculous. When have you ever read a report on a study that contained more specifics, numbers and detail on findings ?
GOPers and contemporary “conservatives” hate you and have no concept of “fair play” or rational discussion. We’ve seen this in the health care debate. Fuck these people. The only thing worth doing is exposing them and crushing their sorry asses – as they would crush ours. I’m not kidding. Liberals should NOT act like wimps.
Incidentally, as I read this article the “consequences” aren’t firing but counseling and support. “Bobb said his study indicated that the behavior of deputies who had been red-flagged by the tracking system improved dramatically after three years of mentoring.”
Anyone who rants against this program, pulling out the “Liberal” label as some sort of demonization is beneath contempt IMHO.
Sorry to be such an asshole, but we fucking need more assholes. (Ask Van Jones.)
Mavis and Celeste – I’ve been drinking, which I find often clears the mind before it clouds it. You know I love you guys, but it’s true “I’m not kidding” – in a good way. Don’t take offense – just think about it.
One more for the road: I’m ecstatic over O’s speech tonite.
Reggie supports the police only when they say “oops we screwed up” and here’s our program to fix it. Nothing Reg says about the police should ever be taken seriously, not ever!
That being said, I used my weapon 7 times, never had a use of force complaint except one regarding a shooting which was a ploy to get charges reduced from 664/187PC to ADW. So why was I in some righteous use of force incidents but not generating complaints of any type other than minor nothings which most “proactive cops” get more than others? It’s so bs.
There’s story after story on peple who make false complaints on officers and many times it’s to try to get an aggressive officer to slow down on their enforcemet activity. Happened with a certain gangster mom not real long ago didn’t it Celeste?
Happens at county too, some deps are a little too nice and when all of a sudden a by the booker ends up in your mod the whiners start fabricating crap. Think of the clientele and it’s not even a close call.
I was the I.O. in many officer complaints and overwhelmingly people lie, that’s the bottom line, when excessive use of force was the complaint. Attitude and demeanor was a different story percentage wise but when it comes to use of force people will lie for the oldest reason there is,,the pay day they hope to get.
Sure Fire said it all.
Also, the so-called “monitoring” that’s supposed to correct deviant deputies is, at best, counterproductive. Is to simply put a proactive and productive deputy (one most likely to get complaints because he’s actually doing his job) at an admin spot, or to sit behind a desk like a goddamn secretary.
That not only is a deterrent for other proactive and productive cops, but also a killer ingredient for anyone’s willingness to go out there and take a bad guy to jail.
Putting aside all the Conservative VS Liberal points, I’d like to ask if anyone here (besides Sure Fire) has actually seen what a PPI looks like. So let’s start researching what the PPI encompasses and what the research was all about (in details) before we start discussing the merits of it.
In my personal and biased view, the PPI works. It works for people trying to get a payday from the county. It certainly does not work for the increasingly gang problem in L.A.