Comments on: Policing the LAPD

By: Pajamas Media » Thin Blue Line Wrapped in Red Tape at LAPD

Pajamas Media » Thin Blue Line Wrapped in Red Tape at LAPD — Fri, 05 Sep 2008 09:04:56 +0000

[...] in the consent decree under which the LAPD has operated since 2001. The LAPD is now free to impose financial disclosure requirements on officers working gang and narcotics squads. The judge made his ruling despite the near-universal [...]

By: Tom holsinger

Tom holsinger — Sun, 30 Dec 2007 04:26:44 +0000

pchas,

You are clueless. This concerns the personal financial information of family members. “… also to their spouses, children, and anyone else with whom they might operate a business or own property.”

Not those family members who they do have business relationships with, but who they MIGHT do business with. So an officer with a married daughter who runs a child day care business out of her home, which the officer has no financial interest in and visits only to see his daughter and grandchildren, has to disclose her home address.

Tell us, from your vast knowledge of public affairs, about city planning commissioners who have to make such disclosures, and about the criminals who will kill their children for revenge.

By: pchas

pchas — Sat, 29 Dec 2007 18:59:59 +0000

It’s disingenuous to suggest that the consent decree makes it possible for bad guys to go after a cop or his or her family–the LAPD already compiled personal information on its officers before the consent decree was issued.

I’d like to know if there are any instances of a cop actually being “greenlighted”–to use Officer O’Shea’s colorful street vernacular–as a result of confidential information having been leaked.

Cops are entitled to have their personal information treated with the utmost confidence by the LAPD. If that isn’t happening, then the Protective League should insist that the LAPD improve its record handling procedures, not try to obstruct the decree.

As Lord Acton said, power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Police have extraordinary power over citizens, so there need to be sufficient routines and controls in place to ensure that they do not abuse that power. While the majority of officers are truly dedicated public servants, there are a handful of bad actors in any police force that make these measures necessary.

By: Ed O'Shea

Ed O'Shea — Sat, 29 Dec 2007 09:32:57 +0000

pchas: You ever have a “green light” (street vernacular for a bounty on your dead carcass) put on your melon at that fine financial institution you play golf for? Methinks…. Probably not! So hop down off that high horse and save your obtuse observations for the cricket field! You deal in money, I chase killers who would kill my family if they had the chance and the opportunity. See that’s the part about the FD that we are fighting against, and if you do not think that is a reality then I have to words for you to research “Piches Motion!” These killers will do our families harm while we are protecting YOU! As for your research, you might even get to use your shinny new abacus by counting how many different times a gang member with the motive, motivation and now opportunity might get his hands on an Officers family’s PRIVATE information. Now if you want to divulge my family’s information to the killers that I deal with, stand by, because then I see Mr. Crip/Blood/NAZILowrider/Florencia, approach my family, that is where I WILL loose my professional objectivity! And if my family’s life is threatened……… Front Site Presssssssssss! Rinse, wash and repeat until the threat(s) stops!
As for my financial standing…… I’m a cop I haven’t got two dimes to rub together. Prior to becoming a Police Officer, I was in the private sector tripling what I make now! So if it were the money, I wouldn’t be in Law Enforcement! See my fellow Officers and I enjoy protecting the public from the predators out there. We even do it for ingrates like yourself! Walk a mile in my shoes Mr. knowitall before you wax any further! You might have heard we are hiring, you can bring your abacus with you, we need bean counters!
In short fairness is what I expect! As one of my fellow Officers said “If you think I am guilty of something? Write a warrant, show a burden of proof, then investigate me!”
Furthermore, if you want to wax intellectual about a topic, please educate yourself on it! Just a smudge! And don’t just read off some mind numbing talking points from an obscure article.
As for Jack Dunphy, he hits the nail on the head every time! Oh yeah and fancy that, he actually is a real live Police Officer. Methinks you should hold your breath, block your nose, close your eyes and fart! Methinks that will clear out your mind!

Have a Happy and Safe New Year!

Ed O’Shea

By: Ted G.

Ted G. — Sat, 29 Dec 2007 03:38:16 +0000

If handling large amounts of money by public officals requires complete financial disclosure, first start with elected politicians.

By: Tom Holsinger

Tom Holsinger — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 23:38:44 +0000

pchas,

You don’t worry about crimnals attacking your family. These guys do, particularly the undercover officers.

You don’t have to worry about narcotrafficantes offering bribes to the clerks handling your financial data. These guys do, particularly the undercover officers.

They are quite correct to refuse to entrust their family’s lives to the confidentiality of LAPD financial records, which are NOT maintained with the degree of security provided to records of informants.

Apples are not oranges.

By: pchas

pchas — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 18:43:22 +0000

Methinks “Jack Dunphy” doth protest too much. He seems to think that the LAPD should not be accountable to anyone, yet he overlooks that it was a lack of accountability that caused to the Ramparts scandal which led to the consent decree in the first place.

The disclosure requirements placed on the narcotics officers (5.3 percent of the police force) are not out of keeping with what is required of anyone who has any degree of responsibility in public service.

For example, as a middle-level manager in a California state financial regulatory agency, I am required to submit an annual financial disclosure statement to the Fair Political Practices Commission, and I am forbidden to engage in financial transactions with the entities that my agency regulates.

Certainly, the LAPD’s alleged mishandling of officers’ personal financial records does not eliminate the need to gather the information. The obvious solution is to improve record keeping procedures, not to stop gathering the data. It is egregious in the extreme to suggest such a thing.

The Ramparts scandal that led to the consent decree proved that there is a need for society to be protected from its protectors. As the Roman poet Juvenal who asked: Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? or Who will watch the watchers?

By: MikeT

MikeT — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 02:04:21 +0000

This is the way that a lot of federal agencies handle their personnel who handle classified material. Doesn’t matter which department it is, if your department does classified information, then you better prepare to have to reveal your personal finances to let the government make sure you are not easily compromised.

By: Pops Petrick

Pops Petrick — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 01:16:11 +0000

Seeing that politicians have to submit periodic financial statements, I see no reason why police officers should not also submit them.
However, seeinmg that police officers must take mandatory drug tests, all politicians must also be tested…..

By: David Thomson

David Thomson — Thu, 27 Dec 2007 19:26:06 +0000

This is another example of the fecklessness of the politically correct George W. Bush. He is ultimately responsible for the behavior of the U.S. Justice Department. I am reminded once again why I support Rudy Giuliani’s bid for the presidency. Sixteen years of the combined leadership of Bill Clinton and the current occupant of the White House has greatly damaged our country.