Phoenix PD, Union Already Complaining About DOJ Consent Decree That Hasn’t Even Been Served Yet
from the flow-my-tears,-the-union-rep-said dept
As all DOJ investigations of law enforcement agencies are, the one targeting the Phoenix, Arizona Police Department was scathing in its assessment of the department’s officers and tactics.
It led off with this, before providing graphic details covering everything from routine abuse of force to unchecked biased policing that led the DOJ to conclude “PhxPD uses race or national origin as a factor” when enforcing everything from traffic laws to quality-of-life statutes.
Officers use unreasonable force to rapidly dominate encounters, often within the first few moments of an encounter. Officers fail to employ basic strategies to avoid force, like verbal de-escalation or using time or distance to slow things down. PhxPD’s training has encouraged officers to use force when it is not lawful to do so, and to use serious force to respond to hypothetical, not actual, danger.
Also covered in the report: officers turning off body cameras, officers caught on camera conjuring up probable cause for an arrest, officers beating/tasing/shooting compliant and, in far too many cases, handcuffed individuals.
And, like every DOJ investigation of a law enforcement agency, the Phoenix PD brought this on itself. It could have policed itself, but it chose instead to take the path of least resistance, allowing officers to indulge their worst urges and biases until the DOJ was forced to step in.
Now, that it has, the same cops (and the union reps that enable them) are complaining the report is unfair, that any attempt to increase accountability will lead to a mass exodus of officers, and that yet-to-be-submitted consent decree will starve the city of officers and allow the criminal element to run amuck.
These are the words of the self-proclaimed saviors — the “heroes” walking the thin blue line between civility and chaos:
Federal oversight could tank officer retention in the Phoenix Police Department, according to a survey released Wednesday.
The Phoenix Law Enforcement Association’s survey of 1,186 Phoenix Police officers found that 56% were considering leaving in the next three to six months.
Yep, that’s a bunch of cops threatening to quit because it will be slightly more difficult to violate rights and get away with it in the future if (and it’s still an “if”) a consent decree is agreed to by the city of Phoenix. These are the words of absolute children who think the best response to additional responsibility is run away from it.
Meanwhile, the president of the union, Darrell Kriplean, has decided the best response is pure delusion.
Essentially, he thinks the DOJ is incapable of holding Phoenix Police accountable for rights violations.
“We should be beholden to our community members and our city council folks that the community elects to oversee our department,” Kriplean said.
He said the Phoenix PD is a self-assessing and self-correcting agency.
I only slightly agree with the first assertion. There have been dozens of DOJ investigations and consent decrees. I can’t think of a single one that has resulted in sustained accountability. As for the rest… if the Phoenix PD was really a “self-correcting agency,” the DOJ would never have opened a civil rights investigation. Kriplean isn’t saying anything credible. He’s just saying what he thinks officers as consumed by self-delusion as him want him to say.
And he closes (at least for the quotes in this report) with another set of outlandish and internally inconsistent claims:
“They’re not out there arresting people because, at any given moment, if someone complains at the handcuffs were too tight, they’re now being pulled into an internal affairs investigation,” Kriplean said. “That’s why violent crime spikes.”
In essence, Kriplean is claiming officers are already engaged in “quiet quitting,” albeit a cop-specific version that means not doing your job at all because you’re no longer interested in working for the Phoenix PD. And they’re apparently doing this ahead of a consent decree that has yet to be put before a judge, city officials, or the PD itself.
Meanwhile, another police union leader in the area was saying vague things about the report and the still-not-inevitable consent decree:
“The Department of Justice, based on their own numbers, has a 30-year track record of totally disastrous failures,” said APA President Justin Harris. “Why bring that into this city?”
Maybe so. But ask yourself this: were these failures because the DOJ is incompetent? Or were these failures due to law enforcement agencies resolutely refusing to embrace additional accountability and/or decrease the number of civil rights abuses perpetrated by their officers?
At least this report adds this bit, which refutes claims about impending criminal apocalypses made elsewhere by other law enforcement reps and officials:
There is little conclusive evidence that consent decrees cause increases in crime, but research does indicate that they can improve accountability in police departments, and public satisfaction with those departments.
That contradicts the claims often made by police officers and officials anytime there’s more accountability in play. Not that they don’t always return to this talking point, despite the lack of evidence to support their assertions.
And then there’s this talking point, which always seems to rear its head no matter what party controls the White House and who’s heading the DOJ:
“This tactic is nothing more than an irresponsible and unprofessional smear campaign against the men and women who have continued to courageously serve the community amidst dangerous and inflammatory rhetoric by political activists and violent attacks from criminals,” said Kriplean.
Bro, this isn’t an op-ed composed by the Attorney General. This is the outcome of an investigation that lasted more than two years. What’s detailed in the report actually happened. It can’t be a “smear campaign” when it depicts things that occurred and utilizes stats and reports generated by police officers and their enforcement efforts. And while the language in the report is (necessarily) harsh at times, there’s nothing “political” or “inflammatory” about publishing a report on a federal investigation.
I, for one, hope half the department quits. Those walking away from the job just because they’ll have to do better at it don’t deserve to be police officers. If a dearth of officers results in higher crime rates, Phoenix residents need to remember cops walked away from the job because they didn’t want to do if it required respecting constitutional rights. And if the city has trouble attracting replacements, that says far more about the people attracted to law enforcement careers than the specifics of the job itself.
Filed Under: arizona, civil rights, department of justice, doj, phoenix, phoenix pd, phoenix police department, police accountability, police misconduct
Comments on “Phoenix PD, Union Already Complaining About DOJ Consent Decree That Hasn’t Even Been Served Yet”
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Police Officer Jamieson Ritter — say his name, cop-hater.
Re:
sleeps
Re:
Oh? Is that another officer that would rape and murder a child for fun?
Re:
Our thoughts and prayers are with him. Maybe if more people who weren’t cops had guns they could have done something.
Re: Re:
That would require a lot of people wanting to own guns so they could become part of a militia if necessary, and there’s no need of that anymore since the US has had a Constitution-violating standing army since 1784 (1775 if you ask the United States Army itself).
Re:
Nobody gives a fuck.
Re:
You always talk about “isolated incidents” in which cops murder or brutalize people or steal from them, but when the odd cops get killed in the line of duty, you act like it’s all that common. Cops have pretty damn safe jobs compared to the number of people who encounter cops. You don’t get to pretend smaller numbers are bigger just because you have a hard on for cops.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re:
That there aren’t more felonious officer deaths per year has nothing to do with law enforcement being less dangerous than logging or roofing, for example, but rather is a direct consequence of the superb training our police receive and their indomitable fighting spirit, intrepidity, and devotion to duty.
Even one officer dying in the line of duty is ONE-TOO-MANY.
1,200+ criminals shuffling off this mortal coil annually in legally-justified shootings by police is FAR-TOO-FEW.
…
Wisconsin Department of Corrections Youth Counselor Corey Proulx, beaten to death after he attempted to detain a suspect who assaulted a female staff member and tried blinding her using a chemical substance:-SAY–HIS–NAME.
Re: Re: Re:
Say the name of everyone who has died from the criminal negligence of cops first. The innocent people who have been shot by cops with bad aim. The innocent people who have been hit by reckless police vehicles. The innocent people caught up in a no-knock at the wrong address.
Don’t bother trying to name them all. You’d hit a character limit before you named 1%.
Re: Re: Re:2
Let’s not leave out the people, innocent or otherwise, who were killed by the police using unnecessary violence during an arrest or leaving someone to die of medical issues after the arrest.
(And yes, “innocent or otherwise” is intentional phrasing. Even the guilty deserve to live long enough to see their day in court.)
Re: Re: Re:
…said no human, ever.
Re: Re: Re:
“superb training our police receive and their indomitable fighting spirit, intrepidity, and devotion to duty.”
Are those prescription drugs you are on or is it street variety? Hallucinations can be entertaining but be careful as it can be habit forming. Maybe seek assistance from a professional medical person as your condition is a concern to society.
Re: Re: Re:
We’re not obligated to “say” anything at your command, dork. Nobody gives a shit when the thug life finally catches up to thugs. Not even when the thugs like to wear blue costumes with shiny kitsch.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:
Cope harder, straight white rightoid.
You’re going to be wiped right out of the gene pool and you’re going to fucking like it.
We’re done tolerating the intolerant. And we don’t negotiate with terrorists.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:2
You won’t even live long enough to be “rounded-up” once President Trump takes office next year. Put your affairs in order now!
Though it’s doubtful you own property or have assets to distribute, since you’re not likely a productive member of society.
Re: Re: Re:3
He said while sitting in his moms dank basement.
Re: Re: Re:3
Oh, we’ve put our affairs in order. Because if Trump takes the House we’re going to march on your ass so quick it’s going to make Jan 6th look like a calm day at the beach.
Say goodbye to your manhood, you’re not going to have it for much longer. Fuck with our wombs, you know what’s coming next.
(A press conference)
“Phoenix PD is proud to announce its new Officer of Oversight. His entire job will be to watch out for any rights violations. Nothing will escape his sight.”
(Reporter)
“What is his name?”
(Police Union)
“His name is Ray Charles.”
(Reporter)
“The singer?”
(Union)
“Yes. He has agreed to also play the piano for the officers on the weekend to keep them calm”
Fun fact. If cops were soldiers they would be nazis.
Re:
If cops were soldiers, they’d be war criminals.
Re: Re:
Racist war criminals.
Re: Re: Re:
Horrible true facts:
Ergo:
If you put 10 cops in a line,
The odds are 8/10 of them beat their wives/girlfriends/mistresses
Re:
If cops were actual soldiers rather than just pretending to be them they’d be held to much higher standards, and might actually face consequences for their actions.
Re: Re:
Court martial the turds, every one.
See, this is what I don't get
Uh yes, making officers leave that cannot be bothered to maintain the laws is the intended effect.
It’s like the Supreme Court saying that making presidents criminally accountable for their deeds would have a chilling effect on them.
The whole point of laws is to have a chilling effect. Putting people in power outside of the law’s purview is weakening the rule of law, not strengthening it.
Re:
Who are you gonna call when your house gets broken into and you need someone to show up after the fact and shoot your dog?
Re: Re:
My neighbor, who is a former marine.
Re: Re:
Agree with AC above. The marine is likely to hit the dog rather than me.
Let them quit
And start over
The refrain I’m hearing here is “Current Phx Police find it possible to comply AND uphold the law.”
Why exactly would the city want such people to stick around?
The big problem though is the police union. What would it take to get rid of the existing union and replace it with one that actually represents the best interests of the officers complying with the law?
Secondarily, who’s in charge of police training? Because that obviously needs to change as well, which is the first step to changing the force’s culture.
he Phoenix Law Enforcement Association’s survey of 1,186 Phoenix Police officers found that 56% were considering leaving in the next three to six months.
I accept your resignations. Please, may the last please cop out turn off the lights and lock the door. Thanks.
???
Is this the group that Tazed a Gas covered person?
Shot a person in a Gas Covered room, while he has a Flame in his hand?
The group that Tazed a Kid holding a Basketball, cause he wouldnt put it down?
If 'you might have to follow the laws' is enough to get you running...
‘Consent decree’, the nice way of saying ‘Here’s an avalanche of evidence of you violating rights, the law, and/or brutalizing and even murdering people, now pinky-promise not to do it again or we’ll really wag our finger at you!’
If the idea that police even might be subject to actual oversight or suffer consequences for their actions is enough to cause a cop, or hell even half a department to quit I can only say Good riddance. The public is better off without that sort of person holding the job and the power and authority that comes with it.
I’m not the type of person who normally says stuff like, “Boo frickin’ hoo,” or, “Good riddance!”, but I don’t think there’s a more appropriate time to say such things (at least when involving someone threatening to leave). Like, if you can’t handle following the law even to a minimal extent, you shouldn’t be in charge of enforcing the law in the first place.
Re: Not the defense/argument they think it is
Imagine that sort of mindset/threat in any other profession.
‘If the government starts enforcing food safety laws then half the workers in this restaurant have said that they’ll quit!’
‘If the government starts enforcing malpractice laws and allowing doctors to be sued for botched surgeries and other treatments then half the doctors in the hospital have sworn to walk out!’
‘If the government starts enforcing drunk driving laws then over half of our delivery drivers have said that they’ll find another job!’