And… cops continue to be assholes.
Emphasis mine:
Sunday, July 26, 2009
Robert Gibbs on FNS [Jack Dunphy]
On today’s Fox News Sunday, presidential press secretary Robert Gibbs admitted President Obama had been prepared to answer questions about the Henry Louis Gates arrest at his press conference last week. Bret Baier, filling in for regular host Chris Wallace, asked Gibbs, “Before Wednesday’s news conference, did you prepare [the president] for a question about Henry Gates’s arrest in Cambridge?”
“Well, look,” said Gibbs, “Let’s just say it’s safe to say we went over a whole lot of topics that we thought might come up, and certainly this was a topic that was, has been in the news . . .” He then went on to try to un-ring the bell by repeating the line that the president “hadn’t calibrated his words well,” and blah, blah, blah, beer at the White House, blah, blah, blah.
So now we know that President Obama didn’t properly “calculate” his words about the Cambridge police “acting stupidly” even after being prepared for such a question in advance. Thus is revealed the president’s tone deafness in failing to anticipate the backlash such an answer might provoke.
And now we are told, in a further attempt at damage control, that the Gates arrest can serve to educate all those mouth-breathing cops out there who may yet stumble into an unpleasant encounter with some other Ivy Leaguer. It’s our hope, said Gibbs, invoking that insufferable locution that one hopes will soon fade from common usage, that the Gates arrest can be “part of a teachable moment.”
So, since the president is keen on offering instruction, here is what I would advise he teach his Ivy League pals, and anyone else who may find himself unexpectedly confronted by a police officer: You may be as pure as the driven snow itself, but you have no idea what horrible crime that police officer might suspect you of committing. You may be tooling along on a Sunday drive in your 1932 Hupmobile when, quite unknown to you, someone else in a 1932 Hupmobile knocks off the nearby Piggly Wiggly. A passing police officer sees you and, asking himself how many 1932 Hupmobiles can there be around here, pulls you over. At that moment I can assure you the officer is not all that concerned with trying not to offend you. He is instead concerned with protecting his mortal hide from having holes placed in it where God did not intend. And you, if in asserting your constitutional right to be free from unlawful search and seizure fail to do as the officer asks, run the risk of having such holes placed in your own.
When the officer has satisfied himself that it was not you and your Hupmobile that were involved in the Piggly Wiggly heist, he owes you an explanation for the stop and an apology for the inconvenience, but if you’re running your mouth about your rights and your history of oppression and what have you, you’re likely to get neither.
— Jack Dunphy is an officer in the Los Angeles Police Department. “Jack Dunphy” is the author’s nom de cyber. The opinions expressed are his own and almost certainly do not reflect those of the LAPD management.
Hey, “Jack?” You talk a big game for someone using a pseudonym, chickenshit.
I can’t believe NRO published this drivel.
I’m not sure I understand what you find wrong with what “jack” has said here. I admit that maybe I am just missing it.
In my experience, the best advice when dealing with the police is to just relax and keep your mouth shut. If they want ID, give it to them, it will just make you look like you are trying to hide something if you refuse. If they want to search… well… that’s another story, but even in that case, don’t start ranting about your rights and calling the officer names etc. just politely say no (unless they have a warrant, you can’t refuse a warrant). If the cop is a racist pig and/or oversteps his bounds, the time to get him for it is later, get a lawyer and sue.
Again, maybe I missed your point.
s
See new post. Asserting your rights =/= ranting, calling the officer names, etc… though Jack certainly presents it like he views them as one and the same.
I think I missed your point as well. In the above copied article, the officer gives a pretty simple example of a Terry stop on a felony suspect. As he wrote, if you are not the suspects, you get an explanation and an apology. If you run on at the mouth, don’t expect to get much of an apology.
As far as using a pseudonym, that doesn’t make you a coward (or in your term “chickenshit”). Frankly, the guy (or gal) deals with violent criminals for a living. Taking simple steps to reduce your exposure, like using a pseudonym, can increase your family’s safety. And of course, the administration is always willing to throw an employee under the bus.
I guess Samuel Clemmons (Mark Twain), Stephen King (Richard Bachman), Charles Dodgson (Lewis Carrroll), and Robert Heinlein (multiple) are all “chickenshit” also?
Maybe I missed something. I usually “get” your posts, but not this one.
–Richard (real, not pseudo)
What Jack is describing is what is known as the BOLO list or Be on the look out. Pulling over a vehicle or person that matches the description that has been put out is the least intrusive way to effectively find a suspect. It is no different than looking for a missing child you look for someone who matches that description. This is a much better solution than road blocks and cordon and searches of whole city blocks. As far as writing under a pen name that is a time honored tradition with a notable example being Ben Franklin as Silence Dogood.
John
Stuart the Viking,
You are suffering from a severe case of STOCKHOLM SYNDROME.
Richard,
A terry stop on a felony suspect is not analogous to the Gates fiasco. Gates was not a felony suspect, and the officer was not conducting a terry stop. Gates has not been charged with a crime, either. So the terry stop that the cop described is a red herring. It is a pseudo-justification issued post-hoc in an attempt to make his cop buddies look like anything other than the vicious gangsters that they are.
And as far as “chickenshit” goes, when your talk gets tougher due to your anonymity, then you are a chickenshit. Of course, hHiding one’s identity in itself is not chickenshit. But, as should have been clear by this post (I thought it was), when one increases his bluster and saber-rattling specifically because he is anonymous (would this cop written this article in the tone he did if he was not anonymous? Me thinks not), then he is a certified and verified captain of the Los Angeles Chickenshit Department.
What is with these kool-aid drinking comments on this blog post? I thought this blog post was extremely clear, succinct, and spot-on. But two readers don’t “get it”? Stuart the Viking and Richard are either brainwashed and love Big Brother beyond all hope, or they are developmentally retarded.
And you, if in asserting your constitutional right to be free from unlawful search and seizure fail to do as the officer asks, run the risk of having such holes placed in your own.
I think the point is that is if you…ah…are interested in asserting your various rights to a cranky, authority obsessed officer…you can expect to be shot many times and your family gets to hear how departmental procedures were followed as your name gets used for a posthumous punchline at Redstate and Michelle Malkin.
It certainly seems to be what he is saying, but mast of us knew that already. Instructive that he was so open about it.
As a pseudonym user myself, I don’t see the problem with a serving LAPD officer using one? Could you expand please? Also what do you think is wrong with his comments?
I believe the offending line was this
“And you, if in asserting your constitutional right to be free from unlawful search and seizure fail to do as the officer asks, run the risk of having such holes placed in your own”
which seems to state that i could be shot because i dont cooperate and do whatever the officer asks. It is my constitutional right to not follow an officers request as it is his right to arrest me for exercising that right, but to say i could be shot for it makes it seem like i should throw out that aforementioned right out the window once a cop stops me.
Fixed it for you. :)
This I think summarizes what some of us have always felt about police. Now i have to say not all cops are like this but theres too many of them out there that are.
“I’d add something else interesting that I’ve noticed in all of these threads. A lot of police want the right to carry a gun, and they want to be empowered by the state to arrest and kill. But they also want to pawn off as much responsibility, or risk, that comes from that power as possible. Indeed, what this officer wants is for the people who he’s supposed to be protecting to assume the risk.”
[...] Comments josh on And… cops continue to be assholes.Laurel on And… cops continue to be assholes.josh on And… cops continue to be [...]
And if “Jack Dunphy” asks for a BJ after looking in your trunk, do you also risk getting blown away if you refuse that?
Not all orders are lawful orders. In the absence of probable cause, a demand to look in your trunk is an unlawful order.
Law professor James Duane: Never talk to the police http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4097602514885833865&ei=V_hwStrNLIGSqQPZ79T0Ag&q=never+talk+to+the+police&hl=en&client=safari
Police officers are supposed to be *professionals*. One shouldn’t verbally abuse them (or anyone) but by the same token they should know how to bear it without becoming violent or abusing their powers. The problem with Gates wasn’t entirely race, it’s the violent authoritarian police culture that says talking back to a cop is “disturbing the peace” and worthy of an arrest.
Oh, I’ll agree that the arrest itself was probably totally pointless and a waste of time. However, from everything I’ve read Crowley kept trying to walk away and Gates followed him, and being an asshat. Gates is an ivory tower, liberal, America hating, intellectual with not a fully functioning brain cell in his head. He brought up race and now he and the pres, are gonna use this as was already mention as a ‘teaching moment’. Yeah right.
dang, who put this soapbox under my feet?
Ah yes, namecalling and anti-intellectualism, two essential ingredients for elevated discourse.
[...] Doherty, and L.A. Times editor Paul Thornton (also mentioned in Patterico’s post) were hardly the only ones who interpreted Dunphy’s post this way. Dunphy wrote something rash and provocative [...]