As long as this crap goes on, police will have problems of trust. Accusing a cop: Inside LAPD's secret discipline system - Los Angeles Times
She had worked with Los Angeles police investigators for months to prove that her former boyfriend, an LAPD officer, had sexually assaulted her and acted inappropriately with other women and arrestees. Then, in September, she received a letter saying they had corroborated her claims.
But the fact that she was telling the truth didn't matter to the LAPD. The cop in question was never punished, and in fact is still a cop in LA.
Mathews’ case is one of many in recent years in which LAPD officers accused of serious misconduct have been spared punishment by department disciplinary boards whose decisions trump those of internal investigators and the police chief.
Because of course they trump the actual investigation.
He returned to the job and worked out of the Foothill Division until recently, when he was reassigned to home pending a new investigation into an unrelated matter that officials would not describe.
So this is a case of one bad cop acting badly, and then the system swooping in to protect that bad cop from any repercussions, followed by said cop coming under investigation for another bad act.
This can best be summed up as: "Rinse, Repeat."
Any bets on the outcome this time?
The scribblings like the Times article cited here make the subject more difficult.
ReplyDeleteAny investigation should be wholly objective. The article portrays this as a human interest story which intwines subjectivity with alleged objectivity.
I expect any 'reform' to follow will in large part be subjective thereby to be of superficial benefit and temporary. To wit, such an article gains the attention of many persons to which agencies be compelled to address. The resultant policy change will be designed chiefly to assuage hurt feelings but less so what should be the primary purpose of discipline amongst the ranks.
For that matter, question even the existence of a secret disciplinary board. Had it become secret for the intent to keep the rabbling citizenry at bay? I fervently object to secret proceedings yet I can understand the desire to keep hidden from the public at large. Attend enough city council or county board of superviors meetings to see what I mean. Yet here a person's career may be at stake.
Still, I shall insist upon abolishing secrecy even in what may be called personal matters concerning select personnel.