How Do Bad Cops Stay in Power? Just Look at Miami.

[Stevicus]

How Do Bad Cops Stay in Power? Just Look at Miami. - POLITICO

This was an interesting article about how police departments and local governments handle the problem of bad cops with multiple complaints against them, claiming that their hands are tied due to protection clauses and other provisions pushed through by police unions.

It also speaks about a "Law Enforcement Bill of Rights" which is in effect in 21 states.

In a police department with a history of brutality, Captain Javier Ortiz holds a special distinction as Miami’s least-fireable man with a badge, a gun and a staggering history of citizen complaints for beatings, false arrests and bullying.

Over his 17 years on the job — including eight as the union president of the Fraternal Order of Police in South Florida — 49 people have complained about him to Internal Affairs as he amassed 19 official use-of-force incidents, $600,000 in lawsuit settlements and a book’s worth of terrible headlines related to his record and his racially inflammatory social media posts, many of which attacked alleged victims of police violence.

Yet Ortiz has repeatedly beaten back attempts to discipline him. He returned to work in March from a yearlong paid suspension during which state and federal investigators examined whether he “engaged in a pattern of abuse and bias against minorities, particularly African Americans … [and] has been known for cyber-stalking and doxing civilians who question his authority or file complaints against him.” The investigation was launched after three Miami police sergeants accused him of abusing his position and said the department had repeatedly botched investigations into him.

But investigators concluded their hands were tied because 13 of the 19 use-of-force complaints were beyond the five-year statute of limitations, and the others lacked enough hard evidence beyond the assertions of the alleged victims. The findings underscored a truism in many urban police departments: The most troublesome cops are so insulated by protective union contracts and laws passed by politicians who are eager to advertise their law-and-order bona fides that removing them is nearly impossible — even when their own colleagues are witnesses against them.

The story of Ortiz shows the steep public costs of the way elected officials of both parties use the police to keep themselves covered politically: They can demand justice for victims after especially egregious acts of brutality, even while they support contracts and laws that protect officers accused of abuse. They can soothe the victims and at the same time enjoy the benefits of supportive police unions.

Ortiz’s reinstatement in March was no surprise to the many people in Miami who have watched him escape any meaningful punishment for years.

“I’ve known Javi for 15 years. One thing I realized: Wherever he is, you want to be nowhere near him. He’s done nefarious things,” says Miami Police Lt. Jermaine Douglas, who once starred in the true-crime TV series “The First 48,” and more recently accused Ortiz of unfairly disciplining him, a complaint that was upheld by a civilian investigative panel.

“Javi is a bad cop protected by bad leaders,” adds Douglas. “You can say it’s a bad system. The system itself is broken. But at some point, you have managers and leadership above him who are supposed to tame that, to address that.”

But the bosses have claimed there’s little they can do, either.

As a police officer with an encyclopedic knowledge of labor law and grievance procedures, Ortiz shielded himself over the years with the extensive protections woven into the local union’s collective bargaining agreement and Florida’s “Law Enforcement Officers’ Bill of Rights,” a police-friendly law that passed decades ago and has been continuously beefed up with bipartisan support. He has also availed himself of a controversial judicial doctrine, called qualified immunity, which shields police from certain forms of liability.

Among the special provisions that have made policing Florida’s police so difficult is a rule in the bill of rights that says all investigations must be wrapped up in 180 days. Critics say the rule is a vehicle for sympathetic colleagues to protect an officer simply by dragging their feet. In its review of Ortiz, the Florida Department of Law Enforcement reported that between 2013 and 2018 seven citizen complaints against him were voided because the department failed to finish investigating within the prescribed time limit.

An even more significant obstacle in the bill of rights is a rule that officers must be shown all evidence against them before they are interviewed about complaints — a right that isn’t afforded to civilians and that flies in the face of normal investigative techniques. It allows officers to tailor their responses to the evidence, avoid being caught in lies and even, says former Miami police chief Art Acevedo, “interfere with the investigation or retaliate” against witnesses.

Upon taking over the department last March, Acevedo reviewed Ortiz’s record and determined that the rules protected him. “Unfortunately — and fortunately for him [Ortiz] — I could take no action,” Acevedo says.

Instead, it was Acevedo, who once received national attention as the Houston police chief when he walked alongside Black Lives Matter protesters, who got fired Oct. 11 by the city manager after a spate of alleged offenses including making an insensitive comment about “Cuban mafia” in heavily Cuban Miami.

Now, the new acting chief, Manny Morales, is telling City Hall insiders that Ortiz has to go — not because of his interactions with the public, but due to his repeated run-ins with other officers on the 1,300-member force.

On Thursday, Morales once again suspended Ortiz with pay — his third time.

But even if Morales decides to fire Ortiz, that might not be the end of the story. A union provision allows officers to ultimately appeal their firings to an outside arbitrator who must be approved jointly by the union and management. Since arbitrators must satisfy management and the union in order to get future appointments, they try hard to show their concern for both sides, overturning a significant percentage of cases, according to critics of the process.

Ortiz has never benefited from this provision directly, but one former chief, Jorge Colina, told POLITICO that the arbitration clause and other cop protections made him “gun shy” about going after Ortiz and others.

Ortiz declined to comment for this story. But one of Ortiz’s lawyers and friends, Rick Diaz, said his client is a man of deep integrity who adheres to an older code of no-nonsense lawmen.

“Ortiz is policing in the past. I think it’s the best way to describe Ortiz,” Diaz says. “He’s policing with an attitude of zero tolerance, strong law-enforcement attitudes in an environment that no longer will tolerate that kind of zero tolerance. And as a result of that, you are butting heads with complaints. You’re butting heads with colleagues. You’re butting heads with supervisors. You’re butting heads with the media. You’re butting heads with judges. You’re butting heads with Internal Affairs.”

While the volume of complaints against Ortiz is large, Diaz emphasized that Ortiz’s official record is clean and he has received just two reprimands for “minor infractions” years ago.

The head of the state’s Fraternal Order of Police, Bobby Jenkins, wouldn’t comment on the specifics of the complaints against Ortiz but said the criticisms about union contracts, the police bill of rights and federal qualified immunity are “incorrect.”

“They fire people all the time. Some get their jobs back. Some don’t. If they didn’t fire him [Ortiz], it means they didn’t have enough to fire him,” Jenkins says. “The reason the police officers’ bill of rights came about was because police officers weren’t given rights like everyone else. You’re entitled to see evidence before you. They can’t lie and tell you it’s there when it’s not there. That’s what it really boils down to.”

But the sheer volume of complaints against the 42-year-old Ortiz tells a different story. Records from the Miami police, Florida Department of Law Enforcement and lawsuits show that those who complained that Ortiz brutalized or harassed them run the gamut: a teacher, a college student, bar patrons, motorists, a maintenance worker installing electrical lines, a drone operator and even two National Football League players arrested at different times in different incidents. In one of Ortiz’s early headline-grabbing cases, he wound up pulling his gun on a trespassing animal rights activist trying to free a pilot whale.

In most cases, people reported being falsely arrested, roughed up or retaliated against for videotaping police or threatening to file complaints. One man reported having his eye socket cracked in a beatdown Ortiz initiated. A woman in another Ortiz arrest said her wrist was broken. Yet another woman claimed she was flung down an escalator outside a bar. Another man reported having nerve loss from overly tight handcuffs.

Throughout, Ortiz never wore or was required to wear a body camera (he agreed to that only this summer), so when citizens complained, it was often their word against Ortiz’s.

Meanwhile, his superiors consistently gave him “satisfactory” job-review ratings in the categories of “use of force” and “contact with the public,” according to employment records.

But Ortiz’s record stands out sharply compared with those of his peers. The 49 citizen complaints against him are 2½ times more than the combined complaints against the department’s four other captains. Those other captains also have a combined 16 use of force incidents on their records, three fewer than the 19 on Ortiz’s record.

It's a long article, but illustrates the problems with getting the so-called "bad apples" out of the barrel. Police always say it's "just a few bad apples" and that most cops are good, but how can they say that when the system obviously is rigged to protect the bad apples, whose only real purpose is to stink up the barrel?

 

[Stevicus]

The idea of a "law enforcement bill of rights" is especially chilling. Only in a police state are police officers entitled to special rights not afforded to the ordinary citizen.

 

[SomeRandom]

All I can say is

 

[sun rise]

How cops unions operate makes me MUCH less supportive of unions in general.

 

[Watchmen]

Police have union protection with collectively bargained agreements.

Teachers have the same.

Do you want to keep the protections for teachers, but kid rid of the protections for police?

 

[Stevicus]

Police have union protection with collectively bargained agreements.

Teachers have the same.

Do you want to keep the protections for teachers, but kid rid of the protections for police?

If a teacher is reported for abuse or other serious misconduct, then they should be subject to termination. The unions should only protect them inasmuch as requiring due process (which should be fair and impartial), but unions should not exist to cover up or protect criminal behavior.

 

[Watchmen]

If a teacher is reported for abuse or other serious misconduct, then they should be subject to termination. The unions should only protect them inasmuch as requiring due process (which should be fair and impartial), but unions should not exist to cover up or protect criminal behavior.

Think about what you posted:

“If a teacher is REPORTED for abuse…then they should be subject to termination.”

Are you suggesting a report of abuse alone is sufficient for termination?

Do you think the due process for teachers and police is different?

 

[Stevicus]

Think about what you posted:

“If a teacher is REPORTED for abuse…then they should be subject to termination.”

Are you suggesting a report of abuse alone is sufficient for termination?

Do you think the due process for teachers and police is different?

No, the report alone would not be sufficient. They would get due process, although it should be fair and impartial. It's not a trial, though. It's not a question of "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt," but more a matter of "cause for termination."

It's not as if it was just one single report from a disgruntled citizen. There were multiple reports over the course of years from (according to the article) "a teacher, a college student, bar patrons, motorists, a maintenance worker installing electrical lines, a drone operator and even two National Football League players arrested at different times in different incidents. In one of Ortiz’s early headline-grabbing cases, he wound up pulling his gun on a trespassing animal rights activist trying to free a pilot whale."

There were even reports from other police officers, yet this guy is going around acting like he's untouchable (which he appears to be). This isn't right, and this is the kind of behavior which is not only a violation of the Constitution, but it's leading to political instability because all these incidents are leading to riots and civil unrest.

As for the unions, it would seem to me that it's in the best interest of both police and teacher unions to make sure they have a clean house. Both professions seem to be maligned and disrespected precisely because of all the bad apples and the perceptions that their unions are protecting their bad apples. The police often complain that they're being put upon unfairly, but a lot of it is also on them for not policing themselves.

 

[Watchmen]

No, the report alone would not be sufficient. They would get due process, although it should be fair and impartial. It's not a trial, though. It's not a question of "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt," but more a matter of "cause for termination."

It's not as if it was just one single report from a disgruntled citizen. There were multiple reports over the course of years from (according to the article) "a teacher, a college student, bar patrons, motorists, a maintenance worker installing electrical lines, a drone operator and even two National Football League players arrested at different times in different incidents. In one of Ortiz’s early headline-grabbing cases, he wound up pulling his gun on a trespassing animal rights activist trying to free a pilot whale."

There were even reports from other police officers, yet this guy is going around acting like he's untouchable (which he appears to be). This isn't right, and this is the kind of behavior which is not only a violation of the Constitution, but it's leading to political instability because all these incidents are leading to riots and civil unrest.

As for the unions, it would seem to me that it's in the best interest of both police and teacher unions to make sure they have a clean house. Both professions seem to be maligned and disrespected precisely because of all the bad apples and the perceptions that their unions are protecting their bad apples. The police often complain that they're being put upon unfairly, but a lot of it is also on them for not policing themselves.

I can agree with everything you posted.

 

[Kooky]

How cops unions operate makes me MUCH less supportive of unions in general.

I believe most American unions have publically distanced themselves from their police counterparts, and do not consider them allies in the struggle of labor against capital.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Police have union protection with collectively bargained agreements.

Teachers have the same.

Do you want to keep the protections for teachers, but kid rid of the protections for police?

Unfortunately those municipial unions designed for protection are now parasites draining taxpayer money in exchange for extravagant perks.

 

[wellwisher]

How Do Bad Cops Stay in Power? Just Look at Miami. - POLITICO

It may be the same reason bad criminals keep being released. The answer appears to be defense lawyers, who are in it for the money and not justice.

It also has to do with career criminals. To have a successful career in crime one needs to victimize dozens of people between getting caught. The police, by word on the street, know who these career people are some officers will inflict retribution, for all the victims between getting caught who will rarely see justice. Research who the police tend to target, to see if they have rap sheets. This will allow you to see a retribution correlation for the silent victims of crime.

Leftist lawyers twist this by pretending these career criminals are innocent and the police are racist. They need these repeat criminals for a continuous revenue stream. If the criminals stopped their evil ways, due to effective retribution, the revenue stream for the defense lawyer union will go down. Cops often stay on the beat after an incident, since many had the victims of crime in their minds and hearts; righteous indignation.

 

[Revoltingest]

v
As for the unions, it would seem to me that it's in the best interest of both police and teacher unions to make sure they have a clean house. Both professions seem to be maligned and disrespected precisely because of all the bad apples and the perceptions that their unions are protecting their bad apples. The police often complain that they're being put upon unfairly, but a lot of it is also on them for not policing themselves.

Unions tend to become very tribal.
So they'll be the enemy of policing the bad apples.

 

[Stevicus]

It may be the same reason bad criminals keep being released. The answer appears to be defense lawyers, who are in it for the money and not justice.

It also has to do with career criminals. To have a successful career in crime one needs to victimize dozens of people between getting caught. The police, by word on the street, know who these career people are some officers will inflict retribution, for all the victims between getting caught who will rarely see justice. Research who the police tend to target, to see if they have rap sheets. This will allow you to see a retribution correlation for the silent victims of crime.

Leftist lawyers twist this by pretending these career criminals are innocent and the police are racist. They need these repeat criminals for a continuous revenue stream. If the criminals stopped their evil ways, due to effective retribution, the revenue stream for the defense lawyer union will go down. Cops often stay on the beat after an incident, since many had the victims of crime in their minds and hearts; righteous indignation.

If it's really the case of the police going after career criminals in an "under the table" fashion, then it would still reek of vigilante justice of sorts. Somewhat like "The Star Chamber." There's still an air of hypocrisy about it, since if it was truly "righteous," they should have no fears about doing it out in the open. If they have to do it underground while putting forth a facade of "legitimacy," then how can anyone know if they're truly doing a public service?

I remember people said stuff about Rodney King, about how "dangerous" and "violent" he was, how we was on drugs and racing down the freeway at 100+ mph. This might have all been true, but once they had him and he was subdued, then cuff him and take him away. There was no need for the "extracurricular activity" which was caught on video and led to another period of violent riots because the police went too far and the courts let them get away with it.

Ultimately, it did far more harm to society overall, than whatever "good" might have resulted from beating the crap out of a drugged-out reckless driver.

The irony is, you never hear about these things happening to real gang leaders or those who are truly dangerous to society. I've heard there are sections of Chicago where even the cops are afraid to tread. Now, there's some courage and fortitude for you. Real sense of justice. They go after the easy meat while being too afraid to go after any real criminals.

 

[Stevicus]

Unions tend to become very tribal.
So they'll be the enemy of policing the bad apples.

Unions are also political, which means that they need to mindful of public opinion and the shifting winds of politics. Even the Teamsters realized they had to clean up their own house and present a more responsible image than what they were in previous years.

Maybe they just need better PR. Perhaps they can have more stories of cops rescuing kittens. Everyone loves kittens.

 

[Revoltingest]

Unions are also political, which means that they need to mindful of public opinion and the shifting winds of politics. Even the Teamsters realized they had to clean up their own house and present a more responsible image than what they were in previous years.

Maybe they just need better PR. Perhaps they can have more stories of cops rescuing kittens. Everyone loves kittens.

I recall years ago that the Teamsters dealt with all their
corruption not by fixing the corruption, but by hiring PR
mavens to sanitize their image. I prefer cleaning house.

 

[Watchmen]

Unfortunately those municipial unions designed for protection are now parasites draining taxpayer money in exchange for extravagant perks.

I don’t disagree.

 

[wellwisher]

If it's really the case of the police going after career criminals in an "under the table" fashion, then it would still reek of vigilante justice of sorts. Somewhat like "The Star Chamber." There's still an air of hypocrisy about it, since if it was truly "righteous," they should have no fears about doing it out in the open. If they have to do it underground while putting forth a facade of "legitimacy," then how can anyone know if they're truly doing a public service?

I remember people said stuff about Rodney King, about how "dangerous" and "violent" he was, how we was on drugs and racing down the freeway at 100+ mph. This might have all been true, but once they had him and he was subdued, then cuff him and take him away. There was no need for the "extracurricular activity" which was caught on video and led to another period of violent riots because the police went too far and the courts let them get away with it.

Ultimately, it did far more harm to society overall, than whatever "good" might have resulted from beating the crap out of a drugged-out reckless driver.

The irony is, you never hear about these things happening to real gang leaders or those who are truly dangerous to society. I've heard there are sections of Chicago where even the cops are afraid to tread. Now, there's some courage and fortitude for you. Real sense of justice. They go after the easy meat while being too afraid to go after any real criminals.

Criminals operate under a different set of rules compared to you, I or the police. They use the laws of the jungle; Social Darwinism and street justice.

A career criminal will victimize many people between the brief sessions of getting caught. These unseen victims, between short spells of justice, will rarely see their own justice. Many will have lingering symptoms due to the psychological scars created by violation of trust and unresolved injustice.

If someone broke into your house and stole your things, this crime may never be solved. The police will take a statement, but manpower is too low to investigate every break in to fruition. This practical reality leaves behind victims whose lives may be put on hold due to lingering fear and lack of trust. The criminal does not have empathy, since to him or her these are his sheep to shear. He will do it again, to others, until caught.

Too many people on the left side seem to side with the misunderstood criminal and not with the long line of victims they create. If the police harass this criminal and even beat him up in a public way, there is a sense of justice for the lingering victims who learn of the event. This is fair. There is no statue of limitation when it comes to street justice applied to criminals.

The analogy is say you were playing one-on-one basketball with a friend. You play by the rules, while your friend decides to cheat. This will not be fair to you and you may even get hurt since all is fair to him. The three options for you is to remain the victim of a cheater, try to persuade your friend to play by the rules so all is fair to both. Or, If these do not work, you may need to play by his rules of cheating to make the game fair. Once he becomes your victim, he will ease up on his cheating.

Leftist can see when a police officer cheats; deviates from the rules, but will forgive a criminal who cheats by the rules their victims. For example, murderers on death row get more empathy than their victims. This may be due to how one taught by left leaning leaders. It also has to due with defense lawyers, who contribute heavily to the Democrat party. Their job is to save the criminal and not allow justice to be served. The leaders pay these campaign donations back by swaying public opinion to this end; criminal rights. Defense lawyers make less money off victims of crime.

 

[Revoltingest]

Criminals operate under a different set of rules compared to you, I or the police. They use the laws of the jungle; Social Darwinism and street justice.

A career criminal will victimize many people between the brief sessions of getting caught. These unseen victims, between short spells of justice, will rarely see their own justice. Many will have lingering symptoms due to the psychological scars created by violation of trust and unresolved injustice.

The same applies to cops who engage in criminal behavior.
But they have the advantage of being protected by fellow
cops, their union, & the courts.
This shouldn't be about left vs right. Cops who break the
law &/or abuse people must be prosecuted & punished.
The whole system should encourage their better behavior.

 

[Stevicus]

Criminals operate under a different set of rules compared to you, I or the police. They use the laws of the jungle; Social Darwinism and street justice.

A career criminal will victimize many people between the brief sessions of getting caught. These unseen victims, between short spells of justice, will rarely see their own justice. Many will have lingering symptoms due to the psychological scars created by violation of trust and unresolved injustice.

If someone broke into your house and stole your things, this crime may never be solved. The police will take a statement, but manpower is too low to investigate every break in to fruition. This practical reality leaves behind victims whose lives may be put on hold due to lingering fear and lack of trust. The criminal does not have empathy, since to him or her these are his sheep to shear. He will do it again, to others, until caught.

Too many people on the left side seem to side with the misunderstood criminal and not with the long line of victims they create. If the police harass this criminal and even beat him up in a public way, there is a sense of justice for the lingering victims who learn of the event. This is fair. There is no statue of limitation when it comes to street justice applied to criminals.

The analogy is say you were playing one-on-one basketball with a friend. You play by the rules, while your friend decides to cheat. This will not be fair to you and you may even get hurt since all is fair to him. The three options for you is to remain the victim of a cheater, try to persuade your friend to play by the rules so all is fair to both. Or, If these do not work, you may need to play by his rules of cheating to make the game fair. Once he becomes your victim, he will ease up on his cheating.

Leftist can see when a police officer cheats; deviates from the rules, but will forgive a criminal who cheats by the rules their victims. For example, murderers on death row get more empathy than their victims. This may be due to how one taught by left leaning leaders. It also has to due with defense lawyers, who contribute heavily to the Democrat party. Their job is to save the criminal and not allow justice to be served. The leaders pay these campaign donations back by swaying public opinion to this end; criminal rights. Defense lawyers make less money off victims of crime.

It's not so much about empathy for criminals or having more empathy for perpetrators as opposed to victims. Liberals might tend to see crime as a symptom of a deeper problem, and they might make proposals intended to bring about long-term solutions, as opposed to this ongoing game of whack-a-mole the police engage in.

Also, it's not so much a simple matter of empathy for the victims, since many of the incidents involving cops were initiated by cops going after them for victimless or otherwise non-violent and often piddly crimes. This is where police complaints of a "lack of manpower" are revealed to be disingenuous, since they seem to have a lot of manpower to go after people over meaningless BS.

This was brought as one of the key issues underlying the relationship between the police and the community of Ferguson, MO, as reports started to indicate an excessive pattern of citations and fines just for the sake of raising revenue. This is another factor which creates tension between the police and the public. Acting like Bobby Brady as the school safety monitor is not the way to win friends and influence people.

As for criminals living by the "law of the jungle," I think that you're oversimplifying that. But even assuming that to be true, can we say that the police response to that is commensurate to the alleged crime? You speak of "justice" for the victims, which is a fair point and I agree with it. But again, in many of these cases, we're not talking about despicable atrocities. In the George Floyd case, he allegedly used a counterfeit $20 bill at a store, but it's entirely likely that the bill was passed off to him and he didn't even know it was phony (if it even was phony). Was that "justice for the victims"?

If it's about "justice," then why would they come down hardest on those who least deserve it? That doesn't even make any sense. People might sympathize with Charles Bronson in movies like Death Wish, because it shows him going up against real scumbags and street criminals where this "law of the jungle" seems to reign. I get that. It wasn't all that long ago that we used to have public hangings, as that also seemed to serve some sort of "need" for the public to see justice done.

But the criminals the police go after seem like nothing but petty criminals at best. In the jungle, they'd be lower on the food chain - the small fry. There are still hardened criminals in gangs and organized crime who somehow avoid the Rodney King treatment. I wonder why. Is it because the police are too afraid to go after anyone who is truly evil or dangerous?

That doesn't seem very noble of them, nor does it make them look all that tough. It just makes them look like bullies who just go after people who are easy to pick on, but when it comes to going up against someone who is truly tough, they chicken out. In "the jungle," it would be apparent to all that the cops aren't the ones who are at the top of the food chain. They're analogous to anteaters - dangerous to ants, but nothing more.