If you don't listen to a police scanner regularly and pay close attention to those "police spokespersons" on TV, you may not have noticed how cops talk and the language they use.
For example. Have you noticed that hardly anyone ever 'dies' anymore, or how no one is ever 'dead' anymore? The new word for the afterlife used by the police department talking heads is 'deceased.'
"The man was flown to the hospital where he was pronounced DECEASED." It used to be DOA for Dead On Arrival but at some point or the other, someone decided that DEAD or DIED is no longer an acceptable way to refer to someone who is either DEAD or DIED. Now they are DECEASED.
Remember when people used to GET out of their cars? Cops used to GET out of their cars too. But today, they EXIT their VEHICLES. The police spokesman on TV stands in front of the camera and says, "When the officers arrived on the scene, they immediately exited their vehicles." What's up with that? We didn't expect that when they arrived on the scene they would just sit in their cars. We expected them to get out of their cars, but instead they exited their vehicles.
How long has it been since we heard the police spokesman on TV say, "The officer drew his pistol and shot the bad guy." They don't draw and shoot anymore. Here is the standard, by-the-book statement the police spokesman repeats for the cameras everytime a cop shoots a bad guy.
"The officer, fearing for his life or the life of others, discharged his service weapon at the suspect, striking him five times in the liver." Then he may follow that up with, "The man then hit the ground deceased."
So why do all these so-called Public Information Officers talk the same? No matter from which department or area of the country, we see them day after day in front of the TV cameras, repeating the same phrases over and over. Why does TV continue to interview them? We know what they're going to say.
It is standardized phrasing. With these prepared scripts, departments can send anyone, with minimum training, before the media to talk without ever really saying anything of subtance. A department can assign someone as it's Public Information Officer to rattle off these memorized phrases for the media, who really has no knowledge of the incident. He/she can show up at the scene of a news event and be briefed in a matter of minutes, comb his hair, straighten his tie, and stand in front of the cameras. And when he is through talking, the public knows no more than they did before he/she recited.
The next time you see this on TV, watch and listen carefully. You'll see.
That's the way I see it.
How about you?
Monday, January 19, 2009
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
Same Song, Second Verse
In La Marque, Texas residents are complaining before city council about crime in their neighborhoods. Some say they are afraid to walk down their own streets. And they should be.
Robberies in this Gulf Coast city nearly doubled in 2008.
The police chief says while most major crime in the city of 13,000 decreased last year, other crimes spiked. Police responded to over 3,000 more calls in 2008 than in 2007. There were more arrests, and more traffic stops.
Of course we always hear the citizens complain about lack of police protections. "Where are the cops?" is a familiar outcry.
In the case of La Marque, the police force has remained at the same manpower strength for the past five years as the crime rate has increased. Who's fault is that?
In each of those five years Police Chief Richard Price has urged the city council to provide money for more police officers. In each of those five years they have denied his request.
Criminals, like jungle animals, prey on the weakest. They go to the place of least resistence, where there is the best chance they will not be caught. So when the population continues to grow, there are more potential victims to prey on and police manpower fails to keep pace, the criminal moves in.
The La Marque City Council is not the only council in the country guilty of ignoring this problem. Politicians everywhere throw the money at projects they can point at in the next election cycle. They want to tell voters about the streets and sewers they fixed, the new street light, stop signs, schools zones, curbs and gutters, things the people can see. They can't tell a voter, "I kept you from being murdered last year by voting for more police."
In most places where people are screaming about the lack of police services or police protection, it's not the police at blame, it's the lack of police.
That's the way I see it.
breck@breckporter.com
Robberies in this Gulf Coast city nearly doubled in 2008.
The police chief says while most major crime in the city of 13,000 decreased last year, other crimes spiked. Police responded to over 3,000 more calls in 2008 than in 2007. There were more arrests, and more traffic stops.
Of course we always hear the citizens complain about lack of police protections. "Where are the cops?" is a familiar outcry.
In the case of La Marque, the police force has remained at the same manpower strength for the past five years as the crime rate has increased. Who's fault is that?
In each of those five years Police Chief Richard Price has urged the city council to provide money for more police officers. In each of those five years they have denied his request.
Criminals, like jungle animals, prey on the weakest. They go to the place of least resistence, where there is the best chance they will not be caught. So when the population continues to grow, there are more potential victims to prey on and police manpower fails to keep pace, the criminal moves in.
The La Marque City Council is not the only council in the country guilty of ignoring this problem. Politicians everywhere throw the money at projects they can point at in the next election cycle. They want to tell voters about the streets and sewers they fixed, the new street light, stop signs, schools zones, curbs and gutters, things the people can see. They can't tell a voter, "I kept you from being murdered last year by voting for more police."
In most places where people are screaming about the lack of police services or police protection, it's not the police at blame, it's the lack of police.
That's the way I see it.
breck@breckporter.com
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
It's The Cop's Fault, Sue'em, Sue'em
Last Saturday in Houston a 17-year old delinquest stole a pickup truck, then ran from police when they got after him.
As the pursuit progressed, the pursuing officer broke off as the speeding truck entered a residential neighborhood. In fact the fleeing truck was completely out of sight of the officer when it crashed into another vehicle, killing one of it's occupants and injuring the other.
Immediately the family of one of the victims began blaming the police. By Monday they had hired a lawyer and were threatening to sue the officer, the police department and the City of Houston.
Family members were on all the local TV stations critisizing the police department's pursuit policy, even though they had no idea what the policy is.
Family members plan to appear before the city council to ask for a policy change. They haven't said what part of the policy they want to change, neither has their lawyer, but it makes good TV.
Houston City Council member James Rodriquez, who represents the district in which the crash occurred has sided squarely with the police department. He blames the crook. How strange?
A police spokesman told TV cameras the officer involved complied with department policy regarding police pursuits.
No one wants to see someone die or be injured in a tragic event such as this one, but it happens. So long as crooks are allowed to roam free, raping, robbing, stealing, killing and plundering, and police don't chase them down for fear of loosing their jobs, the crooks win.
For some, the opportunity to sue, in hopes of getting a quick and easy cash settlement, is just too tempting to pass, and this sure looks like another one of those temptations.
As the pursuit progressed, the pursuing officer broke off as the speeding truck entered a residential neighborhood. In fact the fleeing truck was completely out of sight of the officer when it crashed into another vehicle, killing one of it's occupants and injuring the other.
Immediately the family of one of the victims began blaming the police. By Monday they had hired a lawyer and were threatening to sue the officer, the police department and the City of Houston.
Family members were on all the local TV stations critisizing the police department's pursuit policy, even though they had no idea what the policy is.
Family members plan to appear before the city council to ask for a policy change. They haven't said what part of the policy they want to change, neither has their lawyer, but it makes good TV.
Houston City Council member James Rodriquez, who represents the district in which the crash occurred has sided squarely with the police department. He blames the crook. How strange?
A police spokesman told TV cameras the officer involved complied with department policy regarding police pursuits.
No one wants to see someone die or be injured in a tragic event such as this one, but it happens. So long as crooks are allowed to roam free, raping, robbing, stealing, killing and plundering, and police don't chase them down for fear of loosing their jobs, the crooks win.
For some, the opportunity to sue, in hopes of getting a quick and easy cash settlement, is just too tempting to pass, and this sure looks like another one of those temptations.
Sunday, January 11, 2009
Following my commentary on The Police News website recently in which I agreed with a new policy of Galveston Police Chief Charles Wiley which prevents off-duty police officer's from accepting extra jobs in businesses which derive more than 55% of it's income from alcohol sales, I received this unsigned e-mail:
"Bar jobs are not all slop joints or buckets of blood. If you think the City has a liability problem with officers working the bars wait until the officers are pulled out. The fights will become more violent and shootings inside the bars will increase. Many shootings and stabbings have been prevented by the uniformed officer at the door of the bar. No one ever talks about the violent crimes that did not happen because of an uniformed officers presence. Dealing with drunk, drugged and mentally disturbed people is a business that invites lawsuits. Most people who spout off have never had to put their hands on anyone or stand up for anything. There are good cops and bad cops. Let's create an atmosphere that rewards the good cops and roots out the bad. The theory that bad things happens in bars and the city get sued so let's pull the cops out of the bars can be expanded to bad things happen in poor neighborhoods and the city gets sued so let pull the cops out of there too."
I hope this unsigned letter was not from a police officer. If it was, I am concerned for his sense of reasoning and understanding.
There are cities and counties all over the country that do not allow it's officers to work in the establishments which we have described. I have yet to hear that police have lost control of the beer joints, honky tonks, and dives, to the drunk and disorderly.
State laws, on the books for years, have given police authority to inspect these places at will. It used to be that beat cops would get out of their patrol cars occasionally and walk through the dives which were known trouble spots on their beats. This was always a great deterrent, but we seldom see it anymore because bar owners claim harrassment when they do.
I suspect that if there were no other way to control these places and maintain peace in these places, municipal and county government could refuse to issue them a business permit. The state could refuse to issue them a liquor license. In fact, local law enforcement may now petition the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission to suspend the license of any establishment deemed to be a public nuisance. We need not station an armed guard or police officer in these places.
Those in positions of leadership in police agencies will rush to tell you that the presence of an armed police officer in the place where people are on a mission of becoming drunk and obnoxious, is just asking for trouble. Sooner or later there is bound to be either a confrontation, either by the officer to the drunk or vice versa.
I believe there is some misunderstanding about the policy. It does not prevent officers from working in restaurants, hotels, concerts, fairgrounds, or other places where adult beverages are sold or consumed. It applies to places where booze is the main commodity, ice houses and the like where people just sit around and poor booze down their gullets.
What about hotels that have sitdown bars inside and officers are hired for security on the hotel premises. Police departments I am familiar with specify the officer is not to enter the bar or lounge unless he/she is called by management. In that case, the officer calls for an on-duty officer for backup before he/she even enters the bar.
The unsigned writer is correct when he/she says, "No one ever talks about the violent crimes that did not happen because of a uniformed officer's presence."
No one ever talks about airplanes that didn't crash either. We don't talk about car wrecks, or fights, or shootings, or stabbings, that didn't happened. We don't talk about cops that don't get sued, or shot or stabbed or arrested. But we DO talk about the one's that DO!
And that is my point. And I'm sure that is also the point of those that must take the flack for these incidents, and defend the lawsuits that result.
Breck Porter
"Bar jobs are not all slop joints or buckets of blood. If you think the City has a liability problem with officers working the bars wait until the officers are pulled out. The fights will become more violent and shootings inside the bars will increase. Many shootings and stabbings have been prevented by the uniformed officer at the door of the bar. No one ever talks about the violent crimes that did not happen because of an uniformed officers presence. Dealing with drunk, drugged and mentally disturbed people is a business that invites lawsuits. Most people who spout off have never had to put their hands on anyone or stand up for anything. There are good cops and bad cops. Let's create an atmosphere that rewards the good cops and roots out the bad. The theory that bad things happens in bars and the city get sued so let's pull the cops out of the bars can be expanded to bad things happen in poor neighborhoods and the city gets sued so let pull the cops out of there too."
I hope this unsigned letter was not from a police officer. If it was, I am concerned for his sense of reasoning and understanding.
There are cities and counties all over the country that do not allow it's officers to work in the establishments which we have described. I have yet to hear that police have lost control of the beer joints, honky tonks, and dives, to the drunk and disorderly.
State laws, on the books for years, have given police authority to inspect these places at will. It used to be that beat cops would get out of their patrol cars occasionally and walk through the dives which were known trouble spots on their beats. This was always a great deterrent, but we seldom see it anymore because bar owners claim harrassment when they do.
I suspect that if there were no other way to control these places and maintain peace in these places, municipal and county government could refuse to issue them a business permit. The state could refuse to issue them a liquor license. In fact, local law enforcement may now petition the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission to suspend the license of any establishment deemed to be a public nuisance. We need not station an armed guard or police officer in these places.
Those in positions of leadership in police agencies will rush to tell you that the presence of an armed police officer in the place where people are on a mission of becoming drunk and obnoxious, is just asking for trouble. Sooner or later there is bound to be either a confrontation, either by the officer to the drunk or vice versa.
I believe there is some misunderstanding about the policy. It does not prevent officers from working in restaurants, hotels, concerts, fairgrounds, or other places where adult beverages are sold or consumed. It applies to places where booze is the main commodity, ice houses and the like where people just sit around and poor booze down their gullets.
What about hotels that have sitdown bars inside and officers are hired for security on the hotel premises. Police departments I am familiar with specify the officer is not to enter the bar or lounge unless he/she is called by management. In that case, the officer calls for an on-duty officer for backup before he/she even enters the bar.
The unsigned writer is correct when he/she says, "No one ever talks about the violent crimes that did not happen because of a uniformed officer's presence."
No one ever talks about airplanes that didn't crash either. We don't talk about car wrecks, or fights, or shootings, or stabbings, that didn't happened. We don't talk about cops that don't get sued, or shot or stabbed or arrested. But we DO talk about the one's that DO!
And that is my point. And I'm sure that is also the point of those that must take the flack for these incidents, and defend the lawsuits that result.
Breck Porter
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
