Photo du Jour 516
Welcome Back! Um, Why Are You at Work Today?
Tiger Woods In "Serious" Condition After Car Crash
-thumb-110x110-461569.jpg)
Photos from Black Friday
Builder of Oakland's Fox Theater Once Imprisoned For 'White Slavery'
It must be oddly freeing to have an ongoing, very public work-related crisis, because Officer Andrew Cohen seems to have a lot to say these days. And why the heck not? It's an interesting opportunity to take a look into the mind of what a veteran police officer -- one that no longer has to play politics -- really thinks.
On Friday, the Chron ran a story about an incident at a ballgame. As the article states: "The San Francisco Police Department removed a 12-year veteran from street duty . . .after an initial investigation into complaints that the officer had struck a Giants fan in the face without provocation during a recent game . . ." The struck fan was a 24-year-old Marine Reserve corporal; the officer, Anton Collins, who usually patrols the 'Loin, was temporarily reassigned pending an investigation as to whether Collins used unnecessary force.
"Reassigned pending an investigation" is something that Officer Cohen knows a thing or two about. In his opinion, we (being the general public) should lay off a little and "stop biting the hand that saves (us)." We won't reprint his letter in its entirety -- it's very long -- but you can check it out on his Web site, www.insidethesfpd.com.
Among the highlights, in our opinion, are his insights that:
-- What happened wasn’t highly unusual, but because somebody took a picture or video of it, it became newsworthy.
-- The officer's attempt to deal with the fan was at the request of an usher, these fan ejections are common at every game, and Giants/Dodgers games are more rowdy (and drunk) than usual -- thus officers tend to be on higher alert.
-- Cohen is in favor of holding back judgment -- he believes it likely that "something happened in a split second which caused Anton to feel threatened," reminds us that an officer's own safety is of high importance, and that Anton’s actions may have been justified.
One of the other main points involves public relations -- or the lack thereof.
He believes that the Chron's coverage was biased, made it his mission to counteract such stuff when he was on the Public Affairs team. "But what makes me madder than hell," he says, "is the chief’s reaction, or lack thereof, in her response to the media’s hit piece on Officer Collins during such an event." He says that there was "an obvious, notable change to [the police force's] relationship with the media the moment that Heather Fong became Chief." He leaves us with a three-step plan he believes Fong should follow, though it's obvious he doesn't believe she'll do anything resembling the plan.
Again, if you're interested, check here for his full statement.
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
does anyone know anybody that was there?
we need facts!
This Cohen guy is a real piece of work. His argument boils down to this: any time a cop uses force, he must have been justified, because he's a cop. Furthermore, nobody should investigate a cop's use of force, because they are always justified.
Does anyone remember Watergate? Remember Nixon saying "When the president does it that means that it is not illegal." This is the same argument.
I hate to say it, but reading this and Ken Garcia's editorial today in the Examiner is providing more reason to replace Chief Heather Fong sooner rather than later.
We're already understaffed in the SFPD, and the morale just seems to be declining more and more.
Detroit would have fired this police chief a long time ago if the City saw she was not sticking up for her force and trying to boost morale. A police officers job is pretty thankless to start with ...
I can see both sides here, but I only agree with one of them. Yeah the news makes too much of a big deal when this happens, but...
Why is it right that a badge gives someone a justifiable reason to hit another person because they "feel threatened"? What if the officer had a taser and felt like zapping the person? What if the guy reached for something in his jacket, would it be okay to shoot him? When is it right to use force?
The story seems to be that the guy was being an asshole. Okay, fine. Can't most people find a different way to deal with assholes than physical violence?
I'm not sure why cops get such leeway anyway. If I make bad decisions (or one big enough one) at my job, I'm going to be looking for a new one on craigslist that afternoon. This guy made a bad decision at his job, so he should expect to suffer some consequences. The fact that he just gets resassigned rather than sent off to work private security (where he can get arrested for hitting someone without provocation!) should be good enough. We don't need overly aggressive violent cops in an educated society.
"This is what being a cop is about: Dealing with the knuckleheads that nobody else wants to; necessary but not glamorous."
Does anybody else find it disturbing that he refers to people in such incidents as "knuckleheads"? In a way, this statement shows that he's made up his mind in advance, that he believes that all people involved in altercations are idiots who deserve the rough treatment.
That's projecting a bit much ...
Would love to see some video of the reactions of her colleagues when Fong shows up at law enforcement conferences and introduces herself as Chief of SF. She couldn't detain a tortoise at the end of a cul-de-sac at high noon with the storm drain covered by beanbags abandoned by foot patrol. Harry Callahan would be ashamed.
No, image isn't everything...but it certainly helps in some fields.
Personally I think that we need to hold police accountable to a much higher degree of conduct and decision-making because they have been entrusted with greater authority. Yes, it's a hard, thankless job so is teaching.
Furthermore if there is a public outcry over one incident it does not matter whether it happens all the time, the people clearly do not want it to happen even once if at all possible. Ultimately the police are responsible to the citizens they are protecting. If we disagree with the way they're doing their job and it is not something that is completely necessary for our safety they need to stop doing it and find another way. It ultimately boils down to a social contract. They are given greater power and authority, but this is contingent on them being functionally subservient to everyone else. That power should be a burden. If you can't handle that, we don't want you to be on the force.
Most of us who grew up with guys who became cops, know cops, have had run-ins with cops know that a small but significant percentage of them are real bullies who abuse their power.
The fact that this guy has had other problems tells me he likely falls into this category.
we've all been to a ballgame where some fans indulge in just a few too many. i'd still like to hear some facts. the bleachers tend to cultivate this type of daily behavior. folks drink and fight and generally act the fool. i have no problem with the law smacking someone upside the head that deserved it and as of yet, i have not heard from any witnesses that say otherwise.
*Shrug*
Getting comments from cops is ultimately pointless, because they must always hold the party line. If a cop saw a fellow officer eat a live baby, and a Chron reporter later asked him for a comment, he would be obligated to explain that the baby had reached for a weapon, and then he would have to blame the reporter for the unfairness of the coverage. Esprit de corps, fish gotta swim, etc.
I've met Chief Fong, and she is a stern woman. She will kick your ass, seriously.