“Those who are awed by their surroundings do not think of change, no matter how miserable their condition. When our mode of life is so precarious as to make it patent that we cannot control the circumstances of our existence, we tend to stick to the proven and the familiar…To change things is to ask for trouble.”
~Eric Hoffer
There are no straight lines in nature. This was a lesson I learned in sniper school, and it was a critical component of understanding the arts of stalking, building hides and harbor sites, and camouflage. It was also a critical tool in counter‐sniper activities, where finding a straight line was an indicator of human presence. And wherever there was a human presence, there was also danger.
In hindsight, all of that seems somewhat obvious, but with time and experience I’ve realized that the principle is remarkably transcendent.
My initial read and response to the occupation of the Malheur Wildlife refuge, for instance, and the consequent shooting death of LaVoy Finicum, traveled in a straight and easy line. That should have been a warning to me but for whatever reason it wasn’t. Instead, I allowed myself to be drawn into a simplistic narrative as it was portrayed in the broader media—whose interest in the events at Malheur (with rare and localized exceptions) was of the same juvenile variety that zoo visitors have when they hope to see the great ape agitated to the point of beating his chest and smashing things.
That became evident when the initial reason the Bundys, and hundreds of others, descended on Harney County wasn’t even part of the coverage equation. Overlooked in all of the subsequent condemnation of “welfare ranchers”, the overblown “militia” drama, and the ultimate tragedy of LaVoy Finicum, was the behavior of the government itself, and the re‐imprisonment of Dwight and Steven Hammond.
The Hammonds were charged, by the Federal government, with arson under the terrorism act, and were sentenced to prison under a mandatory minimum scheme that, in the way their case was ultimately adjudicated, looks much more like an absurd abuse of government power than an attempt to impose reasonable justice on essentially neutralized cattle ranchers living deep in the American outback.
The real‐time, big‐media portrayal of the events in Harney County was never, to my mind, properly objective or even sincere beyond its potential entertainment value. It was replaced, instead, by an almost wholesale belief in the integrity of the government narrative and a palpable desire to see a deadly conflagration play out in prime‐time.
To be fair, that sort of portrayal was not universally true. Outstanding coverage was provided by a small cadre of state and local journalists whose interest and dedication to discovery, probably because it was closer to heart and home, was commendable.
But nevertheless, and lamentably, high‐profile incidents of resistance such as that at Malheur often gain a strange kind of momentum in the national press, and amongst law enforcement on the ground, creating an intense pressure chamber that forces bad decisions and often leads inevitably to tragedy.
And it seems accurate to me that a Waco‐style shootout at Malheur would have pleased corporate media executives to no end, because their interest was in covering the drama rather than thoroughly examining its origins.
This proclivity to study drama rather than its origins — prevalent I think — is one result of our metamorphosis from a nation of can‐do optimists with a healthy suspicion of government into a nation of miserable cynics who ironically embrace the influence and beneficence of government no matter the cost.
“Between the forces of terror and the forces of dialogue, a great unequal battle has begun. I have nothing but reasonable illusions as to the outcome of that battle. But I believe it must be fought, and I know that certain men at least have resolved to do so. I merely fear that they will occasionally feel somewhat alone, that they are in fact alone, and that after an interval of two thousand years we may see the sacrifice of Socrates repeated several times.”
~Albert Camus
There is perhaps nothing quite so ironic as the spectacle of 60’s era activists who once marched and demonstrated in suspicion of all things government, who now cozy up to its largesse at every opportunity — with an expectation that more and stronger government is the solution to virtually every problem we face.
I would submit that that sort of cynicism, now metastasized throughout the culture, has infected our ability to examine and contextualize what is actually happening in front of us — and to our fellow citizens — at the hands of government entities with overwhelming and irresistible power, and an unsurpassed ability to control the narrative through the inveterate co‐option of major media outlets.
My error, until recently, was in knowing this, and yet still somehow failing to look for a deeper — or at least a more instructional — meaning in the events at Malheur and its aftermath.
At the time, I saw the takeover of Malheur as an opportunistic and misguided folly. I was off‐put by the personalities and personal beliefs of many of the players. I saw the shooting of LaVoy Finicum as a justified use of force. It was a straight line of logic and, I think now, deeply flawed. I saw it that way even as I wrote a newspaper column reminding readers that underwriting the Malheur takeover there remained legitimate and unresolved grievances, and matters of law, related to the government’s exercise of power in public lands policy.
I saw the entire timeline of events as a kind of jug band folly, and maintained that view until recently, when the government’s cases began to fall apart and I was inspired to take another look. And the government’s cases did not just fall apart, by the way, they imploded spectacularly under the weight of acquittals and a mistrial for what we now know to be corruption in the form of withholding material evidence. Not only did they withhold evidence, they lied about it. Not only did they lie about it, they conspired to lie about it.
That’s corruption, folks, misconduct of the very highest degree, and every one of us who has an interest in justice should pay close attention to what we can learn from the abuses of power and privilege that led inexorably to the avoidable death of LaVoy Finicum.
And we should do it whether we like the Bundys or not.
But that’s tricky, isn’t it? The Bundy family, on their own, aren’t sympathetic. Their claim to land rights under a convoluted recipe of divine inspiration and dubious reads on the Constitution mix zealotry with law in a way that debases whatever legitimate arguments they may have. Neither are the Bundys sympathetic to the nearly 700 other Nevada permit‐holders who pay their grazing fees in full and on time. And they are regarded as ridiculous by traditional members of the Western Shoshone Nation, who believe that if the Bundy’s claims about land‐ownership have any merit then some 25% of Nevada actually belongs to the tribe–based on terms of the broken Treaty of Ruby Valley, circa 1863.
I’m inclined to sympathize most with the Western Shoshones, but that is a different topic.
But our lack of sympathy for the Bundys is ultimately irrelevant because what should matter most to the rest of us is that the government prosecute their cases without malice or bias, and seek reasonable justice under the law —all of which they failed to do in a straight line stretching back to the Hammonds.
Whether we support a particular defendant’s cause or not we should, all of us, expect and demand the highest conduct from our government, and where they fail we should be vigorous in our condemnation. We should remain intensely vigilant and suspicious of those charged with maintaining our justice system, which all of us rely on, and we should probably celebrate the Bundys’ victory because it is really a victory for our own rights to due process.
And any victory for due process ultimately serves to buy us time in the never‐ending fight to stay off the reservation ourselves.
As for the Bundys, it wasn’t just that the investigators and prosecutors were corrupted by dishonesty and malice, it’s that the cases themselves were weak to begin with.
We know that because even when they made it to trial the government failed to convince federal juries of Ammon and Ryan Bundy’s guilt, or the guilt of five others for their roles at Malheur. In August of 2017 they failed again to convict four other men involved in the standoff at Bunkerville, Nevada.
“Navarro was especially riled because the FBI spent three years covering up or lying about the role of their snipers in the 2014 standoff. The Bundys faced conspiracy charges because they summoned militia to defend them after claiming FBI snipers had surrounded their ranch. Justice Department lawyers scoffed at this claim but newly‐released documents vindicate the Bundys.”
~The Hill, 1.14.18
That’s a lot of acquittals for what was portrayed in the media and assumed — by me and by others in the popular mindset — to be a slam‐dunk prosecution of rogue hillbillys and drooling militia types. And if you are keeping track, to date only three people involved in either Malheur or Bunkerville have been convicted — and not by juries of their peers — but only after they cracked under pressure and agreed to proffers.
Federal judge Gloria Navarro, while hearing the Cliven Bundy case in re the Bunkerville standoff, called the behavior of government agents and prosecutors in the case “grossly shocking,” “outrageous,” and examples of “flagrant misconduct,” before declaring a mistrial.
A mistrial is not an acquittal, but in a federal court setting, where decorum is strict and uncompromising, that kind of language is the severest kind of rebuke imaginable. And those of us seeking to learn something should pay particular attention to it because the misconduct condemned by that language ultimately informs the same mindset that resulted in the death of LaVoy Finicum.
*
Amongst law enforcement professionals passing judgment on a use of force by another officer is a no‐no. There are excellent reasons for that, not least of them that — from one hour to the next — no cop in America knows what deadly force scenario he or she might face, and the last thing anyone ever wants is to be second‐guessed on a split‐second street decision by their colleagues. Ultimately, it is the job of a jury to decide whether or not a use of force is justified.
This is particularly true in an age when any use of force is likely to be live‐streamed — often out of context — over social media platforms for a public that may not understand the law let alone the use‐of‐force continuum, is often ill‐informed to an extreme degree about facts and circumstances of the case, and when entire law firms exist solely for the purpose of suing cops and their departments over use of force incidents.
And believe me, the first time you are named in a federal civil rights violation lawsuit it will have your undivided attention.
“FBI agents formulated rules of engagement that permitted their colleagues to hide in the bushes and gun down men who posed no immediate threat. Such wartime rules are patently unconstitutional for a police action.”
~Judge Alex Kozinski, 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals, writing for the majority in the Randy Weaver case, Ruby Ridge, Idaho.
Nevertheless, and with tremendous sorrow, I now believe the killing of LaVoy Finicum, and the shooting of Ryan Bundy, were the unjustifiable result of incompetence amongst members of law enforcement who should have known better.
That is a difficult judgment, because the Oregon State Police officer who fired the shots that killed LaVoy is entitled to defend himself when he perceives a threat of death or great bodily harm to himself or others. That is the standard, and it is a good one because it acknowledges the infinite possibilities faced by officers, and relies on the judgment of a reasonable and trained professional to make decisions in the blink of an eye. And, importantly, I have never met a police officer who wanted to kill someone in the line of duty.
But the real tragedy of LaVoy Finicum’s death exists in the fact that whether or not LaVoy was reaching for a gun, or whether or not the perception of the officer who fired was reasonable under the law, none of the participants should have been put in that position to begin with. And that responsibility lies solely with the law enforcement personnel who decided it was imperative to arrest him that day.
And here’s why: they didn’t have a warrant. Nor did they have a warrant for the arrest of anyone in the vehicle driven by LaVoy Finicum. It might be argued that they had reasonable suspicion, which is enough for a detention, but under the circumstances that is a flimsy legal basis and an exceedingly poor tactical choice that–given the overarching responsibility to preserve life and liberty–doesn’t pass the smell test.
And if they had probable cause to stop the vehicle and arrest its occupants, why then did they not also have active arrest warrants when they had enjoyed several weeks within which to secure them? Securing warrants ahead of an arrest of this nature is a standard operating procedure and best practice in law enforcement.
It is police work 101, and the absence of warrants speaks volumes about the seriousness of the alleged crimes they were to be arrested for, and the competency of the people involved. Sadly, it also opens them up to accusations that they were operating under a vendetta mindset which—accurate or not—should never even enter the conversation of professional modern law enforcement.
The tactic used by Oregon State Police Officers and the FBI Hostage Rescue Team in their attempt to detain LaVoy et. al. is known colloquially, and now unfortunately, as a “road kill.” Under normal circumstances this is a valid and important tactic used by law enforcement officers to arrest or detain subjects suspected of being imminently dangerous away from their base of power.
The tactic is often avoided because, you guessed it, the subjects have a tendency to flee, and the results can be tragic.
“It is also fair to say that true patience is required at precisely the moment you least have time for it.”
~Robert Mueller, III, former FBI Director
In this case, arresting LaVoy and Ryan Bundy away from the Malheur Refuge on a lonely stretch of Highway 395 might have been the right move, except that, as noted above, there is precious little reason to believe the arrests were either legal or, perhaps more importantly, even necessary. And, as Judge Navarro pointed out later, the government was actively withholding evidence from the Bunkerville case–evidence that would likely have changed the threat assessment of LaVoy Finicum dramatically.
Which is important because it’s also likely that the information suppressed—and lied about—by the government would have changed the tactics used to attempt an arrest of Finicum. That is true because in modern law enforcement any proposed arrest of this magnitude, and particularly in such a high profile case, undergoes a “threat matrix” review.
Think of the threat matrix as a kind of ski hill advisory. Four black diamonds is a monster downhill, one black diamond not so much.
And here’s the kicker: the assessments suppressed by the government found that Finicum was essentially a bunny hill.
Nevertheless, at the time officers on the ground initiated their arrest, they were undoubtedly convinced that LaVoy Finicum and Ryan Bundy were highly dangerous menaces, and therefore, unavoidably, that much predisposed to deadly force during an active non‐compliance or resistance scenario.
Mindset matters in use of force investigations, and unfortunately for LaVoy Finicum from the moment he was first stopped his life was in the hands of people who considered him extremely dangerous and were unlikely to give him the benefit of any doubt as to his intentions. That’s a fail born of lies and deliberate omissions of fact, and we now know those lies and omissions came from the very top of the chain of command.
The most important question in all of this remains: what was the exigency? What harm would have come if Finicum had been allowed to travel into the next county to speak with the Sheriff, which was his destination and intent. And recall that, prior to this event, the Sheriff of Harney County, David Ward, had attempted to diffuse the situation by offering to let everyone at Malheur simply go home—which was right and good and just.
So what was so dangerous, so threatening, or so important about LaVoy Finicum, or even Ryan Bundy, that they absolutely had to be arrested that day?
The only honest answer to that question is nothing.
A lot of food for thought and reevaluation considering the entire incident in this post. Thanks.
Thank you, Paul.
Certainly makes the case you were called out on last week, Craig. Again, it aint about the players it’s the game itself and who gets to set the rules. I too have been ironically chuckling at this recent enshrinement of the FBI as suddenly “above politics”. I feel that so many folks are dumbfounded at the irrelevancy of their original ideas of right vs left that they’re reaching for any resemblance of the the old order.
Given the history of COINTELPRO and black bag ops, primarily against the left and the anti‐Vietnam War movement you’d think people would know better, especially those on the left side of the political spectrum.
It’s hard to break out of deeply ingrained thought‐patterns. It’s a work in progress for me as much as anyone.
Good point, Jim. All you need to think about is old J. Edgar Hoover, who was up to his ass in politics.
And I think that, right there, is a bullseye. Polarization has replaced reason, and entrenchment in the old forms is creating fundamentalists who are incapable of thinking outside of their partisan boxes. Which leads to car bombs and kidnappings and political persecution. Thanks, Brian, great observations and comment.
Another fine post, Craig. The FBI had “informants”/provocateurs crawling all over the Malheur situation:
http://www.oregonlive.com/oregon-standoff/2017/09/california_man_who_outed_fbi_i.html
https://www.opb.org/news/series/burns-oregon-standoff-bundy-militia-news-updates/fbi-informants-crime/
While the whole thing can’t be called “manufactured”, exactly, the Feds had such a heavy thumb on the scales it might as well have been.
I have worked with a broad host of federal informants. They come in all stripes, and many would be surprised by their utter ordinariness. FBI/ATF, etc. have a stable of mercenary informants that is exceedingly deep, and wide, and very, very good at what they do. And they are paid handsomely.
My own casual take on the Malheur/Finicum affair was similar to yours, further colored by my antipathy to carpetbaggers and loudmouth grandstanders. What is needed, as so often is the case, is an articulate spokesperson capable of explaining the facts. Would that that were the model for our fourth estate. But of course the mic is shoved before the face of the colorful hillbilly to please the masses.
I would branch out here to say, with apologies to your own personal history in law enforcement, that while many of us baby‐boomers are conditioned to question the motives and actions of traditional “cops,” I am only now realizing I must view through the same skeptical lens the behaviors of other governmental agencies I grew up trusting, e.g., USFS, BLM, FWS, etc.
I think skepticism of any and all government agency is healthy. Reasoned skepticism is what makes us essentially American. It is the unquestioning mind that disturbs and is ultimately turned into a true believer–and it is the True Believer that frightens me the most–because they can’t be reasoned with.
I’ve been hanging out in crappy apartments and run‐down safehouses with True Believers for a couple of weeks now. Hope it’s worth it.
If you come out of it without Hep C, it’s a win.
Re: my reference to skepticism toward “cops.” I have utmost respect for hardworking, honest police officers. Shout out to Officer Lorenz of the Salem police department for helping steer this once confused and bored 15‐year‐old away from the wrong path.
Historically, cops have had a lot to do with that skepticism. People are right to be skeptical–when it’s backed by reason. Great strides have been made, I think, in professional police work to help reduce a lot of that tension. What hasn’t kept pace is the average citizen’s understanding of basic civic responsibility, or the law–which many people fail to understand isn’t written by the cops. Probably because we don’t really teach civics anymore, every third person thinks they are Johnie Cochrane, and only about 10% of what actually happens in, say, a week of police work is ever in the news. There is a kind of phenomenon that if people didn’t hear about it, it didn’t happen, which is why they are often astonished to find out how much criminal activity is really going on around them. Tough job in a crazy world. Thanks, Jane, for your comments and for being here.
It never seems easy to pinpoint which agency is being over‐estimated and which are being under‐estimated for their ‘cleverness’ and conspiracy talents.
I had a friend in the State Dept, pre 9/11/2001, who told me, “Those black helicopter and CIA (coming to send Americas to concentration camps at the behest of the UN, of course) conspiracy theories make me laugh. The truth is, we (the State Dept) are lucky if we can find our way out of a paper bag.”
You can bet those words ran through my mind — far less humorously — after 9/11.
There is a simultaneous over and under‐estimation, methinks. We are conditioned by media to believe the government can do a lot of things that it actually can’t do, and simultaneously that it can’t (or wouldn’t) do a lot of the things it actually can. I am more concerned by the strange Machiavellian strains that keep seeping out of various political figureheads–and what that portends for the stability of a Republic based on due process.
As always Craig, a very refined and deeply thought out post, aside from a few (and rare for you) generalizations that are not really worth dissecting. I find this at the very least thought provoking and respectful to facts as they may or may not be. Yes, it appears that some old hippies have flipped in favor of the FBI. I am very familiar with the FBI atrocities of justice. How ironic is that to referring to the lefts (specifically old hippies) What are the real percentages. Is that really a [fact]? As one who came up through the tumult of the 60’s as a freshman in H.S. in 1969 and an avid follower of it all, I was then and am now (not cynical) but forever wary of unchecked power and injustice. The prisons are full of it and the country is full of it. The oppression is still in full force. Few true Boy Scouts (or Girl Scouts) are running the show. As a former LEO yourself, I am sure you saw this aplenty. Perhaps even had to turn a blind eye (understandably so). You can try to fight the world but you ain’t gonna win or you can bury your head in the sand. Neither is adviseable. There is always a line though. I recall the initial thoughts on the shooting of Finicum initially informed by the video as discussed on Frontier Partisans. We know the danger of jumping to conclusions. How many layers are there to this? As a stellar example we have the still ongoing controversy’s on the President Kennedy assassination. I do take in the additional evidence and explanations you provide here Craig. It most definitely gives one pause. Is this where two fools collided (or colluded) into a mishandled (even misguided) plan gone awry out of frustration or righteous indignation? Whether it was or it wasn’t this entire thing pales in comparison to the overall injustices throughout our history. Does that justify it? Hell no! I only ask that we take up the with equal fervor [everything] with an even hand. Knowing this took place in your backyard so to speak and what it stirred up allows it’s relevancy here. I am for every man and every woman. Cowboys and Cowgirls, Indianboys and Indiangirls and all the rest. I appreciate the way you reduced it in mentioning the Shoshone. Yes, impractical and unrealistic in it’s application but a very good arguing point. Regarding the unquestionable integrity of the government (or anything) for that matter it would be a fool’s errand to expect finding solid gold. I was coming out of Phoenix going west one time when a Mexican (recently released from prison got in a confratation with the Phoenix police (allegedly being threatening). He was shot off of the I‐10 overpass bridge and was laying dead and uncovered in the middle of the shutdown eastbound lanes of the freeway as I slowly crawled by in the backed up west bound side. They were calling it suicide by police. Others said it was just another example of trigger happy police. He had no weapon. I make no conclusions myself, but it as always makes me wary and I have the highest respect for those who put themselves in harms way for us. It is a dilemma resting on razor sharp horns.
As with anything in attempting justice, it is as you point out so well always fraught with the peril of prejudice and misperceptions that are so difficult (and time consuming) in the unraveling of the facts. I applaud your attempt to do so. Something stinks here no doubt, but there is no real news in that based our history. We root it out and fight it out the same as always. The problem is that a poor innocent person has a greater chance of conviction than a rich guilty one. BLM abuses. Law enforcement abuses. Legislative abuses. Judicial abuses. We’ve got ‘em in spades. My perspective. Shine a light. Take a stand. Don’t be selective and overlook the big picture. Don’t use scapegoats. We are all vulnerable to it. I am sorry to any degree any of these are truly innocent and that they had to get a taste of what the larger oppressed groups have been enduring for years which for sure would include Native American Tribes. Craig, you are one helluva a good writer with a large arsenal of words, experience and deep thought. Nothing but the highest respect for you. I never walked a mile in your moccasins so I reserve that respect for you as well. I mean that and I respectfully ask the following. What was it that Jack Kennedy said (who you paired with Roman Polanski once that I believe was an unintended slight) on this subject? Like him or not (peccadilloes and all) this still seems to ring true today. Many are still trying to unravel that debacle and national tragedy. The dogs may bark but the caravan rolls on…
Great post Craig!!
I take it where I find it and this is not intended as an accusation, but may be apropos. No one quote can ever sum up the absolute truth or advice for every occasion. Literalist are dangerous!
“The problems of the world cannot possibly be solved by skeptics or cynics whose horizons are limited by the obvious realities. We need men who can dream of things that never were.”
— John F. Kennedy
As I recall he also advised a practical and healthy skepticism over cynicism. That is where I have remained since the late 60’s…
I will likely be shunned by many of my former colleagues for some of my conclusions in this post, which is not something I take lightly. I spent many years working very hard to establish a reputation for excellence in that field of work, and to earn the respect of people who do an extremely difficult job with integrity and honor, and sometimes extreme levels of necessary violence. But I cannot deny what I see as an injustice born of many factors, not least among them hubris, and perhaps above all a clear violation of a law enforcement maxim: fools rush in. The question of exigency will not go away for me, and hence my position. Certainly in institutions inhabited and directed by human beings there will always be mistakes. In law enforcement it is critical to distinguish a difference–was it a mistake of the head, or of the heart? The former is forgivable and correctable, the latter is a termination offense and engenders corruption. I think, in this case, the mistakes were of both variety. Thanks for your kind words, Tramp, and as always, this writer is a work in progress.
Great post, Craig. I’ve spent a lot of time down in the Malheur, Harney County, and Burns Country. Nice folks but you don’t want to cross them. They have their opinions and that’s that.
Appreciate that followup Craig.
Also, was remiss in forgetting compliment your choice and quote by Mueller. That is what grace under pressure is all about. Therein lies the rub. My gut tells me along with all that I can ascertain, is that Mueller truly is that rare exception and stands atop the pinnacle of integrity. This gives me some hope. Maybe that is what the left is lining up for. When it comes to guns, they should never be in the hands of children. This is what concerns me greatly. A child (take your choice) has his finger on the trigger of the most powerful weapon ever made by man. The rest becomes a moot point soon after it is pulled. Plausibility? The fact that we even exist is an implausibility and a mystery that nobody can ever satisfactorily explain and convince to everyone else. As you say, nothing runs in a straight line…
“The thing to fear is not what you think will happen, but rather what will happen.”
— saddle tramp
February 4, 2018
Early morning thought on the 60 Freeway
»“is one result of our metamorphosis from a nation of can‐do optimists with a healthy suspicion of government into a nation of miserable cynics who ironically embrace the influence and beneficence of government no matter the cost.”«>“One can not, I would argue, read this book without a shudder of fear at bedtime that one’s life and property may someday fall victim to ruthless, power‐mad federal agencies.”««
This may or may not have anything to do with it, but somehow I think it does (at that crucial split second Mueller alludes to).
“How can you think and hit at the same time?”
— Yogi Berra
I just love Yogi. This will be my last at bat for this game. Looking forward to whoever is on deck to weigh in (one way or another) on this subject that also takes us into [fan] aticism…
Nice thoughtful post. And as native of the northern plains, not the pro Bundy post I feared it might be.
You touched upon something that I think is really key here regarded the recent failed prosecution:
“And the government’s cases did not just fall apart, by the way, they imploded spectacularly under the weight of acquittals and a mistrial for what we now know to be corruption in the form of withholding material evidence. Not only did they withhold evidence, they lied about it. Not only did they lie about it, they conspired to lie about it.”
I haven’t followed this as well as you have, so I’m not going to necessarily regard it as evidence of corruption. But its certainly evidence of incompetence.
Withholding material evidence in a prosecution, with intent, is corruption, because the only reason anyone would do that is to unfairly bias a jury. The prosecutors have admitted that they intentionally withheld, after they spent a long time lying about it. Lying is also corruption. Their reasoning was to “protect witnesses.” I speak from the point of view of someone who has delivered threatened witnesses into the Federal Wit‐Sec program: their reasoning is bogus. They did it because it was exculpatory and they already had a shaky case. In this case, sadly, it was both corrupt and incompetent.
If always thought it odd that the criminal system doesn’t mirror the civil system, in which disclosures do not depend on whether or not the releasing party thinks the material is exculpatory. It’s odd in that disclosures in civil cases are so much broader, and yet ultimately the contest is not nearly as serious.
You have outlined the reason. Nobody is facing prison in civil cases. But when someone is looking at having their freedom stripped from them, and being imprisoned, disclosure cannot be at the discretion of the prosecution–or the defense.
Somehow this post made me dwell on Rudyard Kipling’s “If”…
Thanks for both sides Craig. As you are not so far removed from the beat and still foster those relationships, the job for our cops has never been more difficult and confusing in California. One of my biggest challenges as a patrol supervisor, is managing fatigue brought on by our current society in general, dishonest narratives, mind numbing administrative loads to accomplish basic patrol functions, the struggle to train, commuting, internal challenges, the list goes on and on. You remember — everything gets forwarded to the watch commander’s office, or dispatched to the comm center & patrol.
I am inspired daily post‐briefing, as I watch our men and women rub yesterday’s calls for service from their eyes, secure their gear and do it all over again. As a past my prime, 25 year street cop, I have observed it is about relationships first and foremost. In and outside of the building, with the victims, witnesses and suspects alike. To check the boxes has in many cases, become literally impossible. We are the most accessible enforcement branch of the “government” and are in many cases subject to a lack of understanding and unwillingness to self educate beyond the local news. I’m not sure how much of the truth of what’s out there, the personal sometimes life altering experiences of police work, the general public could really understand. It took me a few years on the job to begin to process it.
The associated brokenness including our own fatigue and apathy impacts the entire system. I have been the author and participant to lots of close calls and stupid mistakes during unmanageable chaos that could have turned out really bad. Protection of life including the “bad guy” is always the goal and incident debriefs and critique make us better. Yet, the cops, fireman, ER staff and others manage to some degree and at no small personal expense. This is also what makes “those human moments” like some you have shared and generally exclusive to L/E and other first responders, so beautiful.
Everyone is entitled to their opinion — it is one of the greatest freedoms we have. No issues with what you said from this side. You may not be answering calls for service anymore, but your experience, character and ability to communicate, provide a platform (this and the Bunkhouse) for those interested in trying to better understand each other. That is still “In Service to Others.”
Good read and thank you for the effort.
Thanks, Todd. One of the principle differences between modern policing and the military is that in police work the war never ends. The deployment is eternal. And there is no hope of victory, only a very long, meat‐grinder fight to keep from losing. That’s what police work is, and it takes a gigantic toll on anyone who is actually doing more than driving around in a black and white waving at people. As you well know. It’s because I know that so very well that I am hesitant to make so public a judgment on so high profile a case. But conscience dictates. And we also know there are bad cops. We’ve worked with some. Someone once told me that it takes five years on the street just to learn how to be a cop. I think that’s true. And the speed of the game can be an incredible leap for the unprepared. Mostly, I’m grateful for my own experience, and the relationships I made, and I remain grateful that good people are still working behind the shield, fending off the wolf. Thanks for being here, Todd.