The Baltimore Police Department is considering changing a long-standing practice of quickly releasing names of officers who kill or injure citizens ... Under one plan, the officer's name would be released only after investigations by the department's internal investigation division, homicide and the state's attorney's office ...
The article goes on to say that "police officers involved in departmental shootings could become targets themselves." I wonder how many police officers have become targets, compared to the number of witnesses who have been attacked/killed to keep them from testifying?
Additionally, do police officers deserve more privacy than "normal citizens" who are being investigated for possible criminal actions? Should the names of alleged sex offenders not be released unless the person pleads/is found guilty? Does "innocent until proven guilty" only apply to police officers?
Discuss amongst yourselves.
9 comments:
"I wonder how many police officers have become targets, compared to the number of witnesses who have been attacked/killed to keep them from testifying?"
Well, I don't have any statistics, but it's worth remembering the horrible case of Det. Thomas Newman, who was ambushed and shot dead because of testimoney he had given in a previous case.
As for the sex offender question, I think that the names of suspects should be withheld, at least initially. A month or two ago there was a case in the county of a construction worker who was falsely accused of molesting a girl who I believe was 10 or 11. The accusation quickly fell apart, but if that guy's name had come out it could've ruined his life, even though it later turned out he did nothing wrong.
If I understand the case of Det. Newman, though, he was killed because of his witness testimony, not because he shot and/or killed a suspect.
Unless there is evidence to show that officers who injure/kill suspects in the line of duty are targeted for retaliation, the move by the BPD to protect their identities is misguided and possibly unethical, particularly when witnesses are not given proper protection and it has been proven that they are targeted.
Perfect example about the sex offender, though.
Ok, I misread that sentence that I quoted up there. I suppose this move should be treated with great skepticism, especially after the BPD managed to "lose" the evidence in that police rape case that the SA's office recently pled out.
Just a quick question: what is the make-up of internal investigations boards? If there are civilians serving on them (which I imagine, and hope, there are) I feel like the need for immediate disclosure is not as strong. Police who discharge their weapons are placed on administrative leave and taken off the streets; citizens I think should be content with an announcement that "pending an investigation, an officer at the ____ precinct has been placed on administrative leave due to the following incident:....".
Obviously, you don't want police officers running around Baltimore shooting innocent people, or even criminals who don't warrant a bullet given the circumstances. But I feel that as officers, the public places a higher trust in them which permits them, and only them, to carry firearms and use them when and where appropriate. Putting extra burden on them, like putting their names in the newspapers immediately after an incident, might cause disastrous hesitation.
Given the degree to which these shootings are already investigated, I think that printing their names IMMEDIATELY after the incident is redundant and really just serves to stir up anger and blame.
What I don't agree with though is the basis for the decision. Acting as though police officers need extra security or privacy to protect them is unfair. There are already harsh penalties (1st degree murder charges) that already serve as a more forceful deterrent to violence against police officers
I read this story with interest. HMMMMMM. I'll have to think about this some. I noticed several months ago that Baltimore County started a new policy as part of their labor agreement with their police union, that during a fatal shooting (or perhaps other things) that the officer involved would only be identified by first name.
And that we had the egregious case of the Anne Arundel officer who, allegedly, drunkenly ran into the back of a vehicle and killed the driver. He wasn't identified at all. I thought that was a bit much.
This appears to be some part of a growing trend. I guess so much for "community policing", huh? But on the other hand, there's little privacy out here nowadays, and there are many ways to find out a person's address, particularly if they own a home.
I notice a lot of anti-police feeling out there and this sort of policy, though, feeds into it. There have been many instances, sorry to say, in the last couple of years, Ppatin cites just one, where the Baltimore Police appear very undisciplined, arrogant and act like they are above it all. While I am sure they are in a very small minority, they tarnish everyone else who is or has been in the agency.
As a retiree from there, who is now a consultant, I hear many stories that are bad, not many that are good. But the police are all we have to protect us from the many criminals out there.
As for Badfish's question, shootings by police are generally investigated by Homicide, with Internal Affairs involvement. The State's Attorney for Violent Crimes is consulted. Officers have the right to counsel and can sometimes refuse statements.
The State's Attorney decides the criminal aspects, such as whether the shooting was justified or not based on evidence presented by the police. The Police Commissioner decide via the chain of command, whether, ultimately, any police regulations were broken. And of course, any aggrieved party can contact Dwight Petit and sue.
As far as civilian involvement goes, it is relatively distant. There is a Civilian Review Board, but it only reviews cases of Excessive Force and Discourtesy lodged by citizens. The board usually agrees with the findings of Internal Affairs, and if it doesn't, it can send the case back for more investigation or simplly register their disagreement.
By the way, shooting and killing someone, even if justified, is not pleasant. I believe stats from previous studies indicate that about 80% of officers who kill leave the force in 5 years or less.
Isn't Baltimore rather unusual in having police involved shootings investigated by Homicide rather than Internal Affairs?
The complexity and sensitivity of police shooting incidents are generally such that many, if not most, large departments have specialized units to handle them. If the suspect is killed, homicide would handle it anyway. Most internal investigators are not trained with the array of skills needed to handle these often difficult cases.
so is there a different burden of proof in police-involved shootings? are grand jury investigations automatically launched?
The burden of proof is the same, but it is just "better" and more skillfully and thoroughly investigated. Grand juries only hear the case at the discretion of the state's attorney. The vast majority of cases are ruled "justifiable" by the State's Attorney for Violent Crimes-as they are usually pretty clear cut.
Post a Comment