GETTING COPS TO BEHAVE I
One of the astonishing things about the recent demonstrations in Washington is how much better the Metropolitan Police Department behaved compared to its unconstitutional, abusive, illegal, and counterproductive handling of the last large protests in April 2000.
The story, while local in nature, has more general applicability for two reasons: (1) we don't get that much good news these days and (2) the good news in this case appears to have occurred because of some important but little noted developments that may be instructive to others around the country. These developments suggest the importance of a community response to police misbehavior that is aggressive, multi-partisan, thoughtfully conceived, repetitive, and well organized.
The DC police outrages of April 2000 have been far from its only problems. For example, a Washington Post investigation found gross overuse of guns by DC cops. Another story revealed thousands of e-mails sent within the department that contained language that was ethnically or sexually insulting. And serious questions were raised about the training of officers and their behavior on the streets, including the treatment of blacks and gays.
Responding to these problems were a number of organizations including the local ACLU, the Gay and Lesbian Activist Alliance, and a taskforce of the NAACP. The latter group, on which I sit, has been particularly interesting because in this often balkanized capital, the taskforce - organized by black talk show host Mark Thompson - has brought together a variety of interest groups such as the ACLU, GLAA, and NAACP, but also including Ron Hampton, director of the National Black Police Association, organizations involved in justice issues, and, for a while, even a couple of recently forced-out top officials of the department. This eclecticism has been useful, not just to add political clout, but also to vary the perspectives within the group. In one case, I was severely chastised for my criticisms of the police handling of April 2000 by the representative of the GLAA whose constituency includes urban gentrifiers who were quite content with the MPD actions during the protests. Another example: matters that might inspire undirected anger are given a legally remedial focus by the ACLU's participation.
Among the achievements of the reform effort has been the creation of a civilian complaint review board, which - though not as strong as some of us would like - adds another watchdog. Further, the problems of the department became so serious that they have also forced it to deal with the Justice Department which recently assigned a federal monitor to oversee the department's use of force for the next five years. Finally, the city is blessed with a number of fine civil liberties lawyers - including those from the National Lawyers Guild and the Partnership for Civil Justice - who are still pressing the case against the department for its April 2000 abuses.
In short, the department has been bracketed so that wherever it turns someone is on their case. This despite a local media that generally fawns over Chief Charles Ramsey and his assistant, Terrance Gainer; a mayor generally indifferent to issues of police misbehavior; and a president and Congress who think that anything a cop does short of mainlining cocaine on the beat is just fine with them.
As noted here before, Ramsey and Gainer are Chicago imports, the latter having gained some of his training during the notorious 1968 Democratic convention police riot. Their handling of April 2000 brought shame not only on the city generally but on a department that had usually - the police riot of May 1971 being the one exception - treated demonstrators with the respect and care they deserved. Further, they hired out of town officers used to a more bullying form of policing than was the tradition in DC. One group of latino citizens were told by an officer, "We own the street."
The department has paid for it in law suits, investigations, major exposes, a formal memorandum of understanding with the Justice Department, and a federal monitor.
Still, the recent demonstrations provide confirmation of what others have found on less dramatic matters: Ramsey and his department can learn and will respond given enough well applied pressure. And, as one of his severest critics, for that I give him credit.
For example, a few weeks before the protests, I reluctantly attended a NAACP task force meeting called - somewhat futilely I thought - to discuss the use of force with two officers assigned to the issue: Assistant Chief Kim Dine and Inspector Joshua Erderheimer, commanding office of the force investigation team. To my surprise I found two men who spoke as plainly, reasonably, and directly as any I have run across of late in either local or national government. They clearly took their job seriously and they dealt with the facts and our discussion straight forwardly, which something of a lost art in government these days.
And it was the department itself that went to the Justice Department and asked for help. Law Enforcement News reported, "Unlike other cities which have accepted federal monitoring of local law enforcement only as a way of staving off litigation by the Justice Department, the District of Columbia welcomed government oversight that for the next five years will monitor excessive-force incidents by its Metropolitan Police Department . . . A series by The Washington Post reported that D.C. police officers had shot and killed more people per resident during the 1990s, a total of 85, than any other major city in the nation . . ."
The Washington Post explained, "By agreement between the police and the U.S. Justice Department, an independent monitor was appointed last year to oversee the police force for five years. The agreement includes an elaborate computer program to track officers' conduct, changes in training programs, mandatory firearms training sessions and creation of a force investigation team in the police department. If D.C. police violate the agreement, the Justice Department can sue."
Whether Ramsey changed his way of handling demonstrations because of outside pressure - such as from the Justice Department monitor - or whether he had decided on his own to try a different approach is not clear. But it represents a major shift in tone, attitude and substance and, at least in part, reflects the efforts of a large number of local individuals and groups to make the police behave at least as well as they expect us to. And if it can happen here, it can happen elsewhere. - SAM SMITH
GETTING COPS TO BEHAVE II
ALEXANDER HAMILTON, SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY [to the first officers of the Revenue Marine, forerunner of the US Coast Guard] - While I recommend in the strongest terms to the respective officers, activity, vigilance and firmness, I feel no less solicitude that their deportment may be marked with prudence, moderation and good temper . . . They will bear in mind that their countrymen are freemen, and as such are impatient of everything that bears the least mark of domineering spirit. They will, therefore refrain, with the most guarded circumspection, from whatever has the semblance of haughtiness, rudeness or insult. If obstacles occur, they will remember that they are under the particular protection of the laws and they can meet with nothing disagreeable in the execution of their duty which these will not severely reprehend . . . This reflection, and regard to the good of the service, will prevent at all times a spirit of irritation or resentment. They will endeavor to overcome difficulties, if any are experienced, by a cool and temperate perseverance in their duty -- by address and moderation rather than by vehemence and violence.