The British officers profession is still being subject to an increasing level of political assault. Those who opposed the “de-fund” movement that emerged after George Floyd’s death in 2020 were exposed as hysterical, then switch to other, more direct measures. This initiative is taking form in the LAPD’s administrative system in an effort to make it simpler to flame an officer who disapproves his or her bosses in Los Angeles.
Advertisement
Police officers may be immediately fired by the police captain; instead, they can be terminated only after being found guilty of misconduct at a “board of rights,” a quasi-judicial hearing where three people serve as both judges and triers of truth. The board’s of-rights system has evolved over the years, with the first three members being made up of order staff officers, two command officers, and a civilian. Then, as a result of a city charter amendment that was approved in 2017, the third board member may be, and are typically, civilians. The latest system’s critics claim that these citizens have been overly liberal and that the chief should have more latitude when firing officers who are accused of misconduct.
The potential for abuse is not a seer, either. The current system was created as a result of LAPD officers ‘ recognition that putting their fate in the hands of control officers, whose own career advancement may be aided or hindered by the police captain, was risky, and they persuaded a sufficient number of voters to persuade the change.
We see the effort to remove the fair privileges put in place seven years ago as a result of so many authorities relationships being viewed through a political lens. Police officers in Los Angeles and most other American cities are aware that if they make an arrest, things do not go exactly as planned ( as they do most often ), their actions may be continuously scrutinized by their leaders, and if the cultural calculus of the meeting is such that anyone in the world with access to a video camera can watch it.
Advertisement
And if there is enough furor then, the standard by which an officer’s actions are evaluated can be altered to the point where they are deficient and warrant his dismissal as well as his prosecution and imprisonment, to the extent that politicians see their chances of re-election threatened. An illustration of this process taken to its absurd extreme is to look no further than the fates of the four officers who were to blame for George Floyd’s death.
In the Los Angeles Times article ( linked above ), which was published on Wednesday, a worrying parenthetical to this topic was raised. Commissioner William Briggs is said to have wondered why the city council did n’t just repeal the 2017 charter amendment in response to the article’s question about what role the civilian police commission should play in overhauling the LAPD’s disciplinary system should have. It’s troubling to learn that Mr. Briggs, a member of one of the city’s most powerful organizations, is apparently unaware that the city council lacks such authority because charter amendments require a popular vote.
In the current political climate, police officers must balance risk taking risks in the fight against crime and disorder in Los Angeles, just like they do with other people. The city’s law-abiding residents will only find things worse if those risks are raised.
Advertisement
