inthesetimes:http://inthesetimes.com/working/entry/17520/police_unions_racist
Wednesday, Jan 14, 2015, 5:00 am
Blood On Their Hands: The Racist History of Modern Police Unions
BY Flint Taylor

Outraged by New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio’s statements concerning the killing of Eric Garner, Patrick Lynch, the longtime leader of the New York City Patrolmen’s Benevolent Association (PBA), the NYPD’s officers union, recently made the outrageous assertion that the Mayor had “blood on his hands” for the murder of the two NYPD officers.

In Milwaukee this past fall, the Police Association called for, and obtained, a vote of no confidence in MPD Chief Ed Flynn after he fired the officer who shot and killed Dontre Hamilton, an unarmed African American; subsequently, the union’s leader, Mike Crivello, praised the District Attorney when he announced that he would not bring charges against the officer.

In Chicago, the Fraternal Order of Police (FOP), a longtime supporter of racist police torturer Jon Burge, is now seeking to circumvent court orders that preserve and make public the police misconduct files of repeater cops such as Burge, by seeking to enforce a police contract provision that calls for the destruction of the files after seven years. And in a show of solidarity with the killer of Michael Brown, Chicago’s FOP is soliciting contributions to the Darren Wilson defense fund on its website.

Such reactionary actions by police unions are not new, but are a fundamental component of their history, particularly since they came to prominence in the wake of the civil rights movement. These organizations have played a powerful role in defending the police, no matter how outrageous and racist their actions, and in resisting all manner of police reforms.

New York

In June 1966, New York City Mayor John Lindsay, responding to widespread complaints of police brutality, called for a civilian review board. Five thousand off duty NYPD cops rallied at City Hall in opposition, and the head of the PBA, leading the campaign against civilian review, intoned that “I am sick and tired of giving in to minority groups, with their whims and their gripes and shouting. Any review board with civilians on it is detrimental to the operations of the police department.” Invoking the specter of increased crime, the PBA mounted a massive public relations campaign against the measure, and it was defeated in a referendum that year.

In 1975, in response to proposed budget cuts that included police layoffs, the PBA ordered a rampage through the city’s black and Puerto Rican communities, with thousands of off duty cops waving their guns, banging on trash cans, and blowing whistles for several nights until Mayor Abe Beame obtained a restraining order.

Ten years later, after Mayor Ed Koch revived the issue of civilian review in the wake of a white cop killing Eleanor Bumpurs, an elderly and mentally ill black woman, the PBA again condemned the idea, staged a work slowdown in response to the attempted prosecution of the officer, Stephen Sullivan, and pressured Koch into reinstating Sullivan even though he had been criminally charged with the killing.

In 1992, when David Dinkins, the first (and only) African-American Mayor of New York City sought to implement a civilian review agency to investigate allegations of police misconduct, the PBA organized another City Hall rally in protest. This time, the crowd of officers numbered 10,000, with PBA members hurtling barricades, jumping on cars, blocking the Brooklyn Bridge and kicking a reporter. Some of the rally’s participants carried signs showing Dinkins with a bushy Afro haircut and swollen lips, with racist slogans, including ones that ridiculed him as a “washroom attendant.”

In the mid-1990s, the independent Mollen Commission, appointed by Mayor Dinkins to investigate police corruption, documented widespread police perjury, brutality, drug dealing and theft in the NYPD, and found that “by advising its members against cooperating with law-enforcement authorities, the P.B.A. often acts as a shelter for and protector of the corrupt cop.” These findings were seconded by senior NYPD officials and prosecutors who were quoted by the New York Times as saying that they would continue to “have trouble rooting out substantial numbers of corrupt officers as long as the P.B.A. resists them.”

The Times further quoted these officials as complaining that the PBA, “fortified with millions of dollars in annual dues collections . . . is one of the most powerful unions in the city. As an active lobbyist in Albany and as a contributor to political campaigns, the P.B.A. has enormous influence over the department and is typically brought in for consultations before important management decisions are made.”

In the Abner Louima case, the PBA’s role extended beyond reactionary advocacy and agitation to active participation in a conspiracy to cover-up the brutal crimes of its members. In 1997, an NYPD officer sexually assaulted Louima in a Precinct Station bathroom by violently shoving a broken broomstick into his rectum. His attacker and three of his police accomplices were charged with criminal civil rights offenses.

Evidence in the criminal proceedings revealed that a PBA official had chaired an early meeting with the implicated officers, one of whom was a PBA delegate, at which they fabricated a false story designed to exonerate one of the conspirators. Even after the officers were convicted, the PBA continued to defend the officers, both publicly and with financial support, and to advocate for them with their fabricated version of events—with none other than Patrick Lynch claiming that “people with a political agenda have fanned the flames of this incident,” leading to an “innocent man . . . being punished beyond belief.”

More recently, Lynch and the PBA, together with the NYPD sergeants and captains associations, after condemning Federal Judge Shira Scheindlin’s order that sharply limited the NYPD’s discriminatory stop and frisk policies, unsuccessfully sought to appeal her order after Mayor de Blasio made good on his campaign promise not to appeal.

And this past year, confronted with another indefensible case of NYPD violence, PBA President Lynch again went on the offensive. In August, after the medical examiner determined that Eric Garner’s death at the hands of officer Daniel Pantaleo was a homicide by means of a chokehold, Lynch declared that the examiner was “mistaken” in finding that the death was a homicide, and that he had “never seen a document that was more political than that press release by the [medical examiner].”

In a classic case of doubletalk, he further asserted that it was “not a chokehold. It was bringing a person to the ground the way we’re trained to do to place him under arrest.” He chastised Mayor de Blasio for not “support[ing] New York City police officers unequivocally.”

In December, Lynch praised the Staten Island Grand Jury’s decision not to charge Panteleo, while accusing Garner of resisting arrest, brushing off two police misconduct lawsuits—one for sexual assault during a search— brought against Panteleo and idolizing him as “literally an Eagle Scout,” a “model” cop, and “mature, mature” officer.

And once again, the PBA unleashed a work slowdown in further protest of Mayor de Blasio that lasted several weeks.
Chicago

In Chicago, the Fraternal Order of Police, which represents CPD patrol officers, has a similarly notorious history.

Handmaiden to the rioting cops who indiscriminately and brutally beat demonstrators at the 1968 Democratic Convention, the FOP held a reunion of their 1968 troops in 2009 at the FOP Lodge. They proudly displayed pictures of some of the wanton police brutality on their website and, in an attempt to rewrite history (and the Walker Report’s findings of a “police riot”), trumpeted that “the time has come that the Chicago Police be honored and recognized for their contributions to maintaining law and order—and for taking a stand against Anarchy. … The Democratic National Convention was about to start and the only thing that stood between Marxist street thugs and public order was a thin blue line of dedicated, tough Chicago police officers.”

In the 1970s and 1980s, the FOP, demonstrating its reactionary and racist essence within its own ranks, aligned itself against the forces that were fighting to bring affirmative action to the CPD. The Afro American Patrolman’s League led the battle and was confronted in their legal struggle at every turn by disgruntled white officers and the FOP.

In 1990, the Chicago City Council passed a resolution that declared December 4 “Fred Hampton Day.” On December 4, 1969, Hampton, a dynamic young Black Panther Party leader, was slain in his bed by Chicago police in what, by 1990, had been documented and widely accepted in the African-American community as a politically motivated murder. Surprisingly, Mayor Richard M. Daley did not oppose the resolution. But the FOP most certainly did.

FOP President John Dineen launched a lobbying campaign to repeal the resolution, publicly belittled the BPP’s service programs and slandered Hampton, who was considered to be a martyr by many African Americans and activists, as a person who “dedicated his life to killing the pigs.” History repeated itself in 2006 when, after the City Council unanimously voted to rename the block where Hampton was murdered “Chairman Fred Hampton Way,” FOP President Mark Donahue organized the families of slain CPD officers to lobby for its rescission, while publicly voicing his cop membership’s “outrage” and “disbelief” at the decision.

In the early 1990s, the FOP began its campaign— which it continues to pursue to this day—of defending Jon Burge and his fellow police torturers. In November 1991, the emerging evidence of a pattern of police torture by Burge and his cadre of all-too-willing enforcers compelled the City of Chicago to initiate administrative proceedings before the Chicago Police Board in order to fire Burge and two of his co-conspirators for the brutal electric shock torture of Andrew Wilson. Since the city was no longer financing the torturers’ defense, as it had in the civil rights damages case brought by Wilson, the FOP stepped up and gladly assumed responsibility.

The FOP and its spin-off organization, the Burge-O’Hara-Yucaitis Family Fund Committee (BOY), then set out on a campaign that sought not only to raise money for the defense, but also to viciously attack Burge’s victims and the lawyers from the People’s Law Office, (including myself) who had brought much of the damning evidence to light. They falsely accused us of fabricating the evidence of systemic torture and of making millions from exposing the scandal. They also organized a raucous fundraiser at a local union hall where Burge was lionized by thousands of cops and prosecutors.

After a six-week evidentiary hearing, the Police Board fired Burge and suspended one of the other charged officers. Dineen called the decision a “travesty of justice,” and only weeks later the FOP announced that it intended to enter a float honoring Burge and his compatriots in the annual South Side Irish Parade—a parade in which Chicago Mayors and numerous other politicians regularly marched. The public outrage and cries of racism that followed the FOP’s announcement were swift and strong, and the FOP was forced to withdraw the float.

A few years later a federal judge, quoting Martin Luther King’s “Letter from a Birmingham Jail,” ordered that a number of police files that documented the systemic nature of the torture “with all its pus flowing ugliness” be released “to the natural medicines of air and light.” The FOP intervened in the suit, seeking to overturn the order, and continued to pursue its battle to suppress the files with an unsuccessful appeal.

In 2008, the FOP again became actively involved in defending Burge after he was indicted for perjury and obstruction of justice for lying under oath about whether he tortured African-American suspects. The FOP Board, without putting it to a vote of its membership, pushed through a resolution to pay for Burge’s lawyers in the criminal case.

Defending its decision, FOP President Mark Donahue asserted that Burge, despite the more than 100 documented cases of torture that had been amassed against him over the years, had been unfairly tarnished by allegations from criminals, and that politicians and lawyers for Burge’s victims had fueled a media hysteria which “caused Jon Burge to be the ‘poster child’ of alleged police torture in this city for an entire generation.” Invoking what can be described as the FOP’s unrepentant motto, Donahue vowed that it “will stand with the police officer every time.” A group of African-American officers unsuccessfully challenged the decision in Court, stating, “We do not support torture. We do not condone torture. We do not embrace torture. We will never support that type of behavior on the department.”

In 2011, Burge, despite his high-priced FOP-financed defense, was convicted of three felonies and sentenced to four-and-a-half years in federal prison. Nonetheless, the Police Pension Board, which was comprised of four former or present CPD officers and four civilians, voted 4-4 on the question of whether Burge should be stripped of his pension, which he had been receiving since 1997. By law, the tie was resolved in pensioner Burge’s favor.

Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan filed suit, seeking to reverse the decision, and the FOP defended the ruling, with an FOP-financed private lawyer arguing on behalf of Burge. The case was appealed all the way to the Illinois Supreme Court, which, in a 4-3 decision this past summer, ruled in favor of Burge and the Pension Board.

This appalling history is not limited to New York, Chicago or Milwaukee by any means. Other notable examples include Detroit in the mid-1970s, where the Detroit Police Officers Association challenged police reforms and affirmative action initiatives which sought to stem rampant police brutality against African Americans with a lawsuit; after it lost its case, it orchestrated a police riot.

In Los Angeles in the early 1990s, African-American Mayor Tom Bradley condemned the state court jury verdict which absolved LAPD officers of criminal charges for brutally beating Rodney King, by stating that the verdict “will never blind us to what we saw on that videotape,” and further stated that “the men who beat Rodney King do not deserve to wear the uniform of the LAPD.” In response, the L.A. Police Protective League reacted with a vengeance that, according to Police Chief Richard Riordan, lasted for years.

And more recently, in Seattle, the Police Officers’ Guild mounted a verbal attack on then-Mayor Michael McGinn after he stated, in response to the shooting of a Native American word-carver, that the Seattle police force had no place for officers who did not share his commitment to racial justice.

Whether unions which represent police officers, correctional guards and other law enforcement officers are the same kind of workers’ organizations as other unions, which can potentially be used to further the interests of the working class as a whole, has been vigorously contested by many progressives and leftists over the years. But the disturbing history of these powerful organizations makes it very clear that they mirror and reinforce the most racist, brutal and reactionary elements within the departments they claim to represent and actively encourage the code of silence within those departments. They are far from democratic, with officers of color and women having little or no influence.

In truth, police unions further the-all-too-accurate conception that the police are an occupying force in poor communities of color, and are antithetical in principle and action to the progressive principles of the labor movement.

alternet:https://www.alternet.org/2015/01/real-reason-police-unions-enable-worst-cop-abuses/

The Real Reason Police Unions Enable the Worst Cop Abuses
Written by Steven Rosenfeld / AlterNet January 8, 2015

…Most police unions were created in the early 1970s, after a presidential commission issued a detailed report that in part noted that the South’s police crackdowns on civil rights protesters were by departments that were little more than political patronage shops. From an employment law perspective, police were “at-will” hires, meaning they could be hired and fired any time by their bosses. The unions were created to professionalize departments, including instituting collective bargaining agreements with discipline procedures. Nationally, the fine print on these procedures varies, but in most cases even the worst cops are afforded due process rights, including binding arbitration or relying on a third party to resolve disputes, as the last stage in fighting employment decisions like getting fired.

A half-century ago, these procedures were seen as the cure for the most racist or corrupt police agencies. But today, these clauses, especially binding arbitration, are increasingly seen as problematic because they cannot be overturned even by elected officials, police chiefs, civilian police review boards, or even federal judges who are overseeing reforms in plagued departments under Justice Department settlements.

The list of bad cops who have been fired for violent behavior but won their jobs back—with back pay as if nothing happened—after binding arbitration is striking. Nationally, arbitration modifies or reverses about two-thirds of disciplinary decisions, labor lawyers say. In some cases, police were fired for nonviolent offenses and returned to work. But there are many examples of violent cops who are back at work because police unions fought for them, and an arbitrator ruled in their favor.

Recent examples include a Washington state officer who was fired for excessive Taser use and filing false reports; a Philadelphia lieutenant fired for punching a woman in the face at a parade and arresting her after mistakenly believing she threw beer on him; a Rhode Island officer who followed two women home in uniform and exposed himself; a Miami officer who shot and killed an unarmed man sitting in a car; an Oakland officer who threw a stun grenade into a crowd that was trying to help a protester who had been shot by police; and more. In some of these cases, such as Philadelphia and Oakland, the cops’ actions were videotaped, and the tapes are very disturbing.

Last month in Cleveland, a policeman who got into a bar fight and lost his gun and badge, won his job back. A local judge denied the city’s appeal after an arbitrator ruled in his favor. Cleveland.com reported the Cleveland Police Patrolmen’s Association had argued during that arbitration proceeding that other Cleveland police officers had done much worse and kept their jobs to justify reversing his firing.

“The officers cited in the other cases have committed assaults, domestic violence, theft, felony offenses, untruthfulness, and other violent crimes, and have been allowed to keep their jobs with the city,” Cleveland PBA argued, Cleveland.com reported.

“Specifically, CPPA president Jeffrey Follmer referred to separate cases in which:
Report Advertisement

One officer pulled his wife put of her car and fired eight shots into it because he did not want her to get the car in a divorce settlement;
Another got drunk and threatened his girlfriend with a shotgun;
Another officer shot his gun ‘in a threatening manner’ while intoxicated;
An officer pulled his gun during a drunken wedding fight;
A female officer smeared animal feces on her own apartment walls during rent dispute, and told her landlord to pick up her keys at the department’s gun range;
Another officer fled the scene of an accident after he hit a man on a motorcycle.”

The complaints about how union-backed arbitration protects bad cops do not just come from activists protesting excessive force. Federal judges and police chiefs who are trying to change the culture inside departments have criticized this aspect of police unions.

“Just like any failure to impose appropriate discipline by the chief or city administrator, any reversal of appropriate discipline at arbitration undermines the very objectives [of the federal consent decree requiring reforms],” U.S. District Court Judge Thelton Henderson wrote last August, after the Oakland police officer who was videotaped tossing a gas grenade into a crowd of Occupy protesters was reinstated.

Washington, DC Police Chief Kathy Lanier similarly bemoaned how too much power has shifted to the binding arbitration process. Last February, she noted a ruling that ended a six-year contract dispute—which raised salaries and benefits but the DC union chief still called “disrespectful”—also rejected the city’s effort to rein in arbitration.

“It is unsuprising that an arbitrator would reject common-sense limitations on an arbitrator’s authority designed to ensure that bad cops stay fired, and instead choose the union’s proposal to expand the scope of disciplinary cases that are subject to arbitration,” her statement said. “This decision just further supports my recent testimony before the [DC City] Council that common-sense legislative reform of arbitrators’ authority is desperately needed to ensure that officers who are not fit to serve are not ordered back into the communities by unaccountable arbitrators.”

There are numerous other examples of police unions lobbying to protect their officers from reform efforts. Last summer, the police union in Miami-Dade County, Florida, tried to block the mayor’s office’s plan to install body cameras, filing a grievance saying it interfered with police work. California’s prison guards union, the Correctional Peace Officers Association, is known for aggressively lobbying to build more prisons, fighting sentencing reform and bankrolling law-and-order candidates, Jacobin.com reported.

Back to New York

There’s no denying that the police union revolt in New York City is coming to a head. On December 30, Gov. Cuomo vetoed a bill drafted by the Rikers Island guard union that would have moved police brutality prosecutions from the Bronx to Queens, where the district attorney is seen as friendlier to the guards. Another union-drafted bill awaiting Cuomo’s signature or veto would expand disciplinary issues dealt with under arbitration. Last July, the New York Civil Liberties Union wrote to Cuomo urging a veto, saying that if it became law it “would seriously curtail the authority of local government officials to take disciplinary action, including removal or suspension, when a police officer commits misconduct.”

The NYCLU is making the same point DC’s Chief Lanier made when criticizing the fine print in a contract settlement that did not reel in arbitration’s ability to protect bad cops. Indeed, after top NYPD managers reassigned the officer involved in Eric Garner’s death, Patrick Lynch, the Patrolmen’s Benevolent Association union chief, slammed that reassigment as an unfair political attack on a cop.

“It is imperative that our elected officials, community leaders and the citizens of our city are supportive of police officers who do this difficult job every day if we are to expect them to continue putting themselves in harm’s way to keep the city safe,” he said.

Lynch seems tone-deaf in his unflinching defense of an officer who unnecessarily killed an unarmed man. In his world, the only victims are cops who don’t get everything their way. Yet stepping back from this police union rebellion, it’s revealing to note that Lynch’s diatribes seem cut from a decades-old script written by police union leaders who did not get their way.

In 1992, Donald Murray, the Boston Police Patrolmen’s Benevolent Association leader, called the creation of a community appeals board to discipline police in that city, “the ruination of the Boston Police Department… I feel like I’ve been raped and sodomized.” That same year in New York, thousands of off-duty cops staged unruly protests when then-mayor David Dinkins proposed creating a civilian review board.

There was similar overheated rhetoric in Portland, Oregon, before the Department of Justice sued and then imposed a settlement over how police were using excessive force against the city’s mentally ill, said Aitchison, the police labor lawyer. Portland’s union eventually toned down its rhetoric and agreed to substantial changes including a police monitor, he said. Similarly, Aitchison said the Los Angeles Police Department, under several mayors and police chiefs—including Bill Bratton who now has that job in New York—is not the same department that behaved like an occupying army a decade ago.

“It can happen if anyone is willing to sit down and really talk,” he said, suggesting that Gov. Cuomo, Mayor de Blasio, Bill Bratton, Patrick Lynch, other union heads, and police critics have a lot to gain by addressing the large issues—settling the NYPD contract, instituting policing and disciplinary reforms—as other cities have done.

It will be revealing to see what unfolds in New York in coming weeks, and observe whether police unions will stop being part of the problem and start being part of the solution. But for now, the war of words continues.

aclu:https://www.aclu.org/blog/womens-rights/women-and-criminal-justice/nypd-police-officers-union-wants-keep-sexual

NYPD Police Officers Union Wants to Keep Sexual Misconduct Under Wraps
2018
“Evidence continues to mount that the New York Police Department may have a sexual assault and harassment problem on its hands. But rather than face up to the fact that some officers abuse their authority and deal with those officers accordingly, the officers’ union is legally trying to make sure that any allegations of sexual assault or harassment are dealt with internally rather than publicly…

….Anyone who has ever interacted with a police officer understands this lopsided power dynamic. When police officers engage in sexual misconduct, they are taking advantage of this imbalance, whether they know it or not.

Yet, the city’s largest police union, the Patrolmen’s Benevolent Association, has brought a legal challenge to the CCRB’s February sexual misconduct resolution. It seeks to keep such allegations of sexual abuse by NYPD officers in the control of the NYPD and out of the public eye, in part by arguing that police sexual misconduct is not an “abuse of authority.”

In June, The New York Civil Liberties Union and the ACLU’s Women’s Rights Project filed a proposed amicus brief in the case, arguing that the CCRB can lawfully investigate complaints of NYPD sexual misconduct. These investigations, we argue, are essential to safeguarding the rights of women, LGBT people, and others vulnerable to sexual abuse and to promoting police transparency and accountability…”

Has anyone from FOX been attacked? Just curious.

w
v

PS — Reason Magazine has an ‘agenda’ W.

Its a Libertarian Magazine. I dont imagine they like ‘any’ Union.

“…Reason was founded in 1968 by Lanny Friedlander (1947–2011),[2][5] a student at Boston University,[6] as a more-or-less monthly mimeographed publication. In 1970 it was purchased by Robert W. Poole Jr., Manuel S. Klausner, and Tibor R. Machan, who set it on a more regular publishing schedule.[5][6] As the monthly print magazine of “free minds and free markets”, it covers politics, culture, and ideas with a mix of news, analysis, commentary, and reviews.

During the 1970s and 80s, the magazine’s contributors included Milton Friedman, Murray Rothbard, Thomas Szasz, and Thomas Sowell.[7] In 1978, Poole, Klausner, and Machan created the associated Reason Foundation, in order to expand the magazine’s ideas into policy research.[5] Marty Zupan joined Reason in 1975, and served through the 1980s as managing editor and editor-in-chief, leaving in 1989.[8]…”

Wiki

waterfield wrote:

<
I think any civilian review board can only have the power to review facts and come to conclusions. I don’t believe they have the power to fire cops. The courts pursuant a consent decree can oversee certain changes that it deems needs to be made. But that would always be pursuant to a settlement. But they cannot make personnel decisions. If an officer is involved with criminal conduct then the only remedy is prosecution by the D.A. or the Feds if the conduct involves a Civil rights violation.

Bottom line is we got a lot of bad cops still on the beat and the main reason rests with their unions. Sorry about that.

===================

Well, maybe some Union Lawyers do need to be sent to Re-Education camps 🙂
—

InvaderRam wrote:

wv wrote:

I believe there is a way to have strong Unions and still fire/charge people who Brutalize others.

my guess is if you got rid of unions. management wouldn’t offer counseling to cops. they wouldn’t give them things like health insurance or retirement plans. they’d just burn them out and then recruit more cops. i fear that the brutality might actually get worse.

=================

Well we already know what life looks like when Police Unions are prohibited.

The Police Strike

w
v