It was really only a matter of time. In Camden County, Georgia there’s a proposal being floated to turn convicts into firefighters. Welcome to the new America.
According to an article on Jacksonville.com, the inmates-to-firefighters program is one of several money-saving options the Board of County Commissioners is looking into.
The idea is to keep county residents’ fire insurance costs down.
Some might think a county government might be pretty desperate to propose such a measure but the Board of County Commissioners says the inmate firefighter program could save as much as $500,000.
There are some critics of the plan, including the real firefighters who would be asked to trust convicted criminals to battle fires with them.
There are some extreme situations where inmates have been used as firefighters in the past. California inmates fought fires in the 1940s, when World War II caused a firefighter shortage. But making inmates first responders as a budget solution is something entirely new.
Traditionally, the low-cost labor performed by incarcerated individuals is relegated to the same kinds of work performed by illegal immigrants. In some states that have instituted get-tough state immigration laws, inmates are already performing the tasks frequently associated with undocumented workers or illegal immigrants.
The Camden program would put two inmates in each of three existing firehouses and they would respond to all emergencies with the actual firefighters.
Several media reports have referred to the actual firefighters as “traditional firefighters.”
The inmates would not be guarded.
For the best indication in terms of just how bad an idea this is, consider the following. In order to turn inmates into firefighters you first have to turn firefighters into corrections officers.
Under the wacky Camden County plan, the “traditional” firefighters will undergo training to guard the inmates.
County Public Safety Director Dennis Gailey says that one “traditional” firefighter with correctional training can supervise up to three inmates and also help the county make its books look like slightly less of a disaster.
Gailey said there is a lot of contention among local firefighters about working alongside inmates. Geeze, ya think?
One firefighter, Stuart Sullivan, spoke to county commissioners during a recent meeting and pleaded with them not to wreck the department he is so proud to be a part of.
Sullivan asked the commissioners if they would favor inmates coming to their homes for an emergency in the middle of the night.
"If you vote to bring these inmates into our working environment, you jeopardize not only the employees' well-being, but the safety of our citizens," he told the board.
But in our current race to the bottom, particularly in rural areas with low tax bases and fierce opposition to tax increases, reputations, public safety and tradition are secondary concerns at best. Right now the mantra is, “cut spending to the bone and pray it’s not a disaster.”
County Commissioner Jimmy Starline did his best to sell the program using unnamed sources that say many inmates could turn into hard-working dedicated public safety professionals.
"I've been told these inmates are very enthusiastic about being a firefighter. It's an opportunity to break that cycle," he said. "This is not like a chain gang. Life at a fire station could be a whole lot more pleasant than life in jail."
In Starline’s view, apparently turning cons into smoke eaters not only saves the county money, but also makes like more pleasant for criminals. Sometimes you just have to marvel at the political mind.
Wednesday, October 26, 2011
Wednesday, October 19, 2011
Mitigating negative coverage of in-custody death
Could Agency Have Done a Better Job Mitigating Negative Coverage of Officer Indictments for Murder and Manslaughter?
Staying Ahead of the Story in the Internet Age
By Neal Baldwin
American Police Beat
November 2011
Recently, the Fullerton (Ca) Police Department has been in local and national news in regards to an in-custody death. Almost all of the publicity has been negative. The incident has left the department damaged and it will take a long time for the damage to be repaired.
As a retired Fullerton P.D. officer, I have followed the story closely.
It all began on July 5, 2011 when six Fullerton Police officers took a mentally ill, homeless man (Kelly Thomas) into custody. Exactly what happened during the scuffle that ensued will be sorted out later in court. What isn’t in dispute is that at the end of the struggle, Kelly Thomas was having difficulty breathing. He was rushed to the hospital and placed on life support. Several days later he was removed from life support and died. After a ten week independent investigation by the Orange County District Attorney’s Office, two of the officers were indicted. One for murder and the other for manslaughter.
The purpose of my writing this article is not to speculate on what happened that night. I do not intend to pass judgment on the actions of the officers involved nor the District Attorney’s decision to indict. Rather, I want to look at how the Fullerton Police Department handled the press in the aftermath of Kelly Thomas’ death to see if there are any lessons we can all learn from.
In the weeks following the incident, the Fullerton Police Department was the object of extremely negative press coverage.
For example, several weeks after the incident, I did an Internet search using the words Fullerton Police Department and Fullerton Police beating. There were over forty hits and every one of them cast a very bad light on the Fullerton P.D. I could find nothing of a positive nature. This raises the question, could some of this negative press been avoided, or at least minimized?
Before we explore that question, let us start by talking about how things worked in the “good old days”. Not that many years ago, it was a commonly held belief that the best way to handle a negative story in the press was to ignore it. When asked, the department simply said “no comment”, and we never gave our version of the events. The theory was that anything the department said only added to the life of the story and kept it on the front page even longer. By refusing to comment, we hoped that the press (newspapers and television) would soon grow bored and then move to another, newer story. For the most part, this approach worked well and did so for many years. But no more.
The old rules no longer apply. There is now a new set of rules and these new rules are a direct result of new technologies.
We now live in the age of FaceBook, Twitter, YouTube, and the Internet. In addition, everyone carries a cell phone and every cell phone is a video recorder. This combination of new technologies has completely altered how news is now gathered and disseminated. An individual or a group no longer needs to convince a local newspaper or TV station that a story is worth running.
They can simply “self-publish” their story by skipping over the main stream media and running the story themselves on the Internet, often attracting tens of thousands of viewers in a matter of days.
They can create chat rooms that disseminate information, much of which is unfounded rumors. They can post pictures or video that may not accurately reflect the facts of the case. In effect, they “self-publish” the story and then spin the story the way they want it to go. In this new world, the “old media” is no longer in charge of the media. It now belongs to anyone with a computer and that includes a lot of people with personal agendas, including some who want to damage the police.
In response to this new paradigm, police departments can no longer sit back while a story spins out of control across the Internet (sometimes in just a matter of hours). To do so is to invite disaster. It places us in a position where we are reacting, as opposed to being proactive about important stories.
By not being proactive, we put ourselves in a position of constantly playing “catch-up” in the news. This drip, drip, drip of false accusations, followed by official denials, makes us look like we are hiding something or at the very least, withholding embarrassing information.
In this new world, law enforcement agencies must take an immediate lead when potentially controversial events occur. First, someone from the department must make some type of public statement in front of the cameras. If possible, this should occur the day of the event and in all cases, no later than the following day (a written press release is no longer enough). Second, the more controversial the event, then the higher the rank of the person going on camera. (in most cases, this means the Chief or Sheriff). Third, put out a press release that same day.
Your press release should accomplish all of the following. (1) Tells the public that the department is aware of the situation and recognizes its controversial nature. (2) Assures the public that the department will be conducting an immediate, thorough, unbiased investigation into the event. (3) If you decide to bring in an outside agency to conduct an independent investigation, be sure you’re the one who makes that announcement. Also, make it clear that you will be fully cooperating with the independent investigators. (4) Promise the public that if the investigation uncovers any wrong doing on the part of officers it will be dealt with immediately. (5) Keep in mind that the Chief/Sheriff can express a strong concern over the incident without pre-judging the officers’ actions. ( “…What I saw on the video greatly concerned me also and that is why I ordered an immediate investigation..” )
Both the on-camera statement and the press release should be similar in nature. Both are designed to “calm” the public while helping maintain the communitys’ confidence in the department. Simply put, the public needs to hear from the Chief/Sheriff that everything is being handled and their concerns are being addressed.
By following the above suggestions, an agency can avoid the pitfalls of letting a story overwhelm them. However, I believe that agencies can do even more. Rather than resist this new world of technology, I believe that police departments should embrace it. Departments should join the new world of social media and take advantage of all the opportunities for two-way communication it has to offer.
Rather than having a web site that simply contains generic information about the department (a computer based brochure), have one with a chat room where people can ask questions and receive timely answers. A chat room where damaging rumors and false information can be corrected before it takes on a life of its own. One that makes us look like we have nothing to hide.
In addition, when the Chief of Police does an on-camera interview, post it on YouTube. For many young people, the social media is the only place they get their news. When the department puts out a press release, post it on the Internet for everyone to read. Don’t just send it to the major news outlets.
Another idea might be allowing the public to follow the Chief/Sheriff on a Twitter account. What better way of showing the public that the C.E.O. of the organization is aware of and handling breaking news events. What about the Chief/Sheriff having a FaceBook page? It could humanize the Chief/Sheriff while providing a source of two-way communication with the young people in the community.
Some of my suggestions about using social media may make you smile. The Chief on Twitter? Please! But when you’re done smiling, know this. The story is going to get out one way or the other. We can be in front of it (and to some degree control it) or we can be behind it and completely lose control.
I remember my range master saying that the first person to get a round off in a gun battle usually wins. I think the same is true of the battles that take place in the press. Let’s start being first.
Lt. Baldwin retired from the Fullerton Police Department in 2005. He was a police officer for thirty-two years. He holds both a B.A. and M.A. degree from California State University, Fullerton where he teaches in the Political Science/Criminal Justice Department. He can be contacted at nebaldwin@fullerton.edu
Staying Ahead of the Story in the Internet Age
By Neal Baldwin
American Police Beat
November 2011
Recently, the Fullerton (Ca) Police Department has been in local and national news in regards to an in-custody death. Almost all of the publicity has been negative. The incident has left the department damaged and it will take a long time for the damage to be repaired.
As a retired Fullerton P.D. officer, I have followed the story closely.
It all began on July 5, 2011 when six Fullerton Police officers took a mentally ill, homeless man (Kelly Thomas) into custody. Exactly what happened during the scuffle that ensued will be sorted out later in court. What isn’t in dispute is that at the end of the struggle, Kelly Thomas was having difficulty breathing. He was rushed to the hospital and placed on life support. Several days later he was removed from life support and died. After a ten week independent investigation by the Orange County District Attorney’s Office, two of the officers were indicted. One for murder and the other for manslaughter.
The purpose of my writing this article is not to speculate on what happened that night. I do not intend to pass judgment on the actions of the officers involved nor the District Attorney’s decision to indict. Rather, I want to look at how the Fullerton Police Department handled the press in the aftermath of Kelly Thomas’ death to see if there are any lessons we can all learn from.
In the weeks following the incident, the Fullerton Police Department was the object of extremely negative press coverage.
For example, several weeks after the incident, I did an Internet search using the words Fullerton Police Department and Fullerton Police beating. There were over forty hits and every one of them cast a very bad light on the Fullerton P.D. I could find nothing of a positive nature. This raises the question, could some of this negative press been avoided, or at least minimized?
Before we explore that question, let us start by talking about how things worked in the “good old days”. Not that many years ago, it was a commonly held belief that the best way to handle a negative story in the press was to ignore it. When asked, the department simply said “no comment”, and we never gave our version of the events. The theory was that anything the department said only added to the life of the story and kept it on the front page even longer. By refusing to comment, we hoped that the press (newspapers and television) would soon grow bored and then move to another, newer story. For the most part, this approach worked well and did so for many years. But no more.
The old rules no longer apply. There is now a new set of rules and these new rules are a direct result of new technologies.
We now live in the age of FaceBook, Twitter, YouTube, and the Internet. In addition, everyone carries a cell phone and every cell phone is a video recorder. This combination of new technologies has completely altered how news is now gathered and disseminated. An individual or a group no longer needs to convince a local newspaper or TV station that a story is worth running.
They can simply “self-publish” their story by skipping over the main stream media and running the story themselves on the Internet, often attracting tens of thousands of viewers in a matter of days.
They can create chat rooms that disseminate information, much of which is unfounded rumors. They can post pictures or video that may not accurately reflect the facts of the case. In effect, they “self-publish” the story and then spin the story the way they want it to go. In this new world, the “old media” is no longer in charge of the media. It now belongs to anyone with a computer and that includes a lot of people with personal agendas, including some who want to damage the police.
In response to this new paradigm, police departments can no longer sit back while a story spins out of control across the Internet (sometimes in just a matter of hours). To do so is to invite disaster. It places us in a position where we are reacting, as opposed to being proactive about important stories.
By not being proactive, we put ourselves in a position of constantly playing “catch-up” in the news. This drip, drip, drip of false accusations, followed by official denials, makes us look like we are hiding something or at the very least, withholding embarrassing information.
In this new world, law enforcement agencies must take an immediate lead when potentially controversial events occur. First, someone from the department must make some type of public statement in front of the cameras. If possible, this should occur the day of the event and in all cases, no later than the following day (a written press release is no longer enough). Second, the more controversial the event, then the higher the rank of the person going on camera. (in most cases, this means the Chief or Sheriff). Third, put out a press release that same day.
Your press release should accomplish all of the following. (1) Tells the public that the department is aware of the situation and recognizes its controversial nature. (2) Assures the public that the department will be conducting an immediate, thorough, unbiased investigation into the event. (3) If you decide to bring in an outside agency to conduct an independent investigation, be sure you’re the one who makes that announcement. Also, make it clear that you will be fully cooperating with the independent investigators. (4) Promise the public that if the investigation uncovers any wrong doing on the part of officers it will be dealt with immediately. (5) Keep in mind that the Chief/Sheriff can express a strong concern over the incident without pre-judging the officers’ actions. ( “…What I saw on the video greatly concerned me also and that is why I ordered an immediate investigation..” )
Both the on-camera statement and the press release should be similar in nature. Both are designed to “calm” the public while helping maintain the communitys’ confidence in the department. Simply put, the public needs to hear from the Chief/Sheriff that everything is being handled and their concerns are being addressed.
By following the above suggestions, an agency can avoid the pitfalls of letting a story overwhelm them. However, I believe that agencies can do even more. Rather than resist this new world of technology, I believe that police departments should embrace it. Departments should join the new world of social media and take advantage of all the opportunities for two-way communication it has to offer.
Rather than having a web site that simply contains generic information about the department (a computer based brochure), have one with a chat room where people can ask questions and receive timely answers. A chat room where damaging rumors and false information can be corrected before it takes on a life of its own. One that makes us look like we have nothing to hide.
In addition, when the Chief of Police does an on-camera interview, post it on YouTube. For many young people, the social media is the only place they get their news. When the department puts out a press release, post it on the Internet for everyone to read. Don’t just send it to the major news outlets.
Another idea might be allowing the public to follow the Chief/Sheriff on a Twitter account. What better way of showing the public that the C.E.O. of the organization is aware of and handling breaking news events. What about the Chief/Sheriff having a FaceBook page? It could humanize the Chief/Sheriff while providing a source of two-way communication with the young people in the community.
Some of my suggestions about using social media may make you smile. The Chief on Twitter? Please! But when you’re done smiling, know this. The story is going to get out one way or the other. We can be in front of it (and to some degree control it) or we can be behind it and completely lose control.
I remember my range master saying that the first person to get a round off in a gun battle usually wins. I think the same is true of the battles that take place in the press. Let’s start being first.
Lt. Baldwin retired from the Fullerton Police Department in 2005. He was a police officer for thirty-two years. He holds both a B.A. and M.A. degree from California State University, Fullerton where he teaches in the Political Science/Criminal Justice Department. He can be contacted at nebaldwin@fullerton.edu
Tuesday, October 11, 2011
The new surveillance state means the police are being watched and recorded too
American Police Beat
Editorial: November issue, 2011
www.apbweb.com
The new surveillance state
Everyone is being watched, tracked, monitored, including the police
In the up and running American surveillance state everyone is being watched, tracked, monitored and recorded. And if you thought police officers were the exception to the rule, think again.
We currently live in a society where the citizenry is under constant surveillance. Because of radical changes implemented through legislation like the Patriot Act, every email, financial transaction and phone call made by Americans is monitored, tracked and stored not only by the law enforcement and intelligence communities, but by corporations as well.
If there’s anything in the way of a backlash from those changes, it could very well be the increased surveillance of police officers in the performance of their duties by citizens.
If you’ve been following the Wall Street protests, a lot of the video shows cameras in the hands of the majority of the protestors and cops as well.
The law enforcement culture is not used to this kind of exposure and generally reacts with hostility to the notion that citizens should be able to film police.
This rubs a lot of civilians the wrong way for a variety of reasons. When a municipality and a law enforcement agency install closed circuit cameras in a high crime neighborhood or housing project, there is usually some criticism and cries of “big brother.” The police response is invariably, “Well if you’re not doing anything wrong, what are you worried about?”
The issue of civilians taping cops on the job has turned that question on its head.
The fact of the matter is that citizens taping cops, and the sometimes negative publicity those incidents produce, are going to increase exponentially in the future.
It’s a rock and a hard place for law enforcement professionals. On the one hand, cops understand that a society where the state can monitor every aspect of the lives of citizens without oversight in the name of “fighting terrorism,” has the potential to devolve into some kind of nightmare described in the works of great authors like George Orwell and Franz Kafka.
On the other hand policing is hard enough without looking over your shoulder every two seconds to make sure no one’s recording them and likely interfering with an arrest or investigation.
The question for law enforcement and the public alike is one of balance. How do we maintain the freedoms guaranteed all Americans in the Constitution and Bill of Rights without exposing law enforcement personnel and agencies to risks in the field and in the courts?
These issues need to be addressed quickly and thoroughly because while law enforcement culture is slow to change, technology and its impact on modern life are not.
One important thing to keep in mind is the fact that these issues and conflicts are largely the result of consumer technologies like cell phones equipped with video recording capabilities.
Thirty years ago anyone that said someday soon that 90 percent of Americans will all be able to record video at anytime would be considered crazy. Today it’s a reality.
Whether or not it’s a good idea to charge civilians for taping cops using laws designed for prohibition era policing is a good idea is largely beside the point. So too is the issue of intent on the part of the individual taping a police officer in the course of their duties.
Those issues will be resolved in scores of court cases currently in the pipeline and for years to come.
The critical thing to consider here is the fact that technology and people’s ideas about privacy are changing rapidly.
Law enforcement has to adapt to those changes with greater speed if we’re going to avoid gridlock in the courts with respect to issues of surveillance and counter surveillance.
Editorial: November issue, 2011
www.apbweb.com
The new surveillance state
Everyone is being watched, tracked, monitored, including the police
In the up and running American surveillance state everyone is being watched, tracked, monitored and recorded. And if you thought police officers were the exception to the rule, think again.
We currently live in a society where the citizenry is under constant surveillance. Because of radical changes implemented through legislation like the Patriot Act, every email, financial transaction and phone call made by Americans is monitored, tracked and stored not only by the law enforcement and intelligence communities, but by corporations as well.
If there’s anything in the way of a backlash from those changes, it could very well be the increased surveillance of police officers in the performance of their duties by citizens.
If you’ve been following the Wall Street protests, a lot of the video shows cameras in the hands of the majority of the protestors and cops as well.
The law enforcement culture is not used to this kind of exposure and generally reacts with hostility to the notion that citizens should be able to film police.
This rubs a lot of civilians the wrong way for a variety of reasons. When a municipality and a law enforcement agency install closed circuit cameras in a high crime neighborhood or housing project, there is usually some criticism and cries of “big brother.” The police response is invariably, “Well if you’re not doing anything wrong, what are you worried about?”
The issue of civilians taping cops on the job has turned that question on its head.
The fact of the matter is that citizens taping cops, and the sometimes negative publicity those incidents produce, are going to increase exponentially in the future.
It’s a rock and a hard place for law enforcement professionals. On the one hand, cops understand that a society where the state can monitor every aspect of the lives of citizens without oversight in the name of “fighting terrorism,” has the potential to devolve into some kind of nightmare described in the works of great authors like George Orwell and Franz Kafka.
On the other hand policing is hard enough without looking over your shoulder every two seconds to make sure no one’s recording them and likely interfering with an arrest or investigation.
The question for law enforcement and the public alike is one of balance. How do we maintain the freedoms guaranteed all Americans in the Constitution and Bill of Rights without exposing law enforcement personnel and agencies to risks in the field and in the courts?
These issues need to be addressed quickly and thoroughly because while law enforcement culture is slow to change, technology and its impact on modern life are not.
One important thing to keep in mind is the fact that these issues and conflicts are largely the result of consumer technologies like cell phones equipped with video recording capabilities.
Thirty years ago anyone that said someday soon that 90 percent of Americans will all be able to record video at anytime would be considered crazy. Today it’s a reality.
Whether or not it’s a good idea to charge civilians for taping cops using laws designed for prohibition era policing is a good idea is largely beside the point. So too is the issue of intent on the part of the individual taping a police officer in the course of their duties.
Those issues will be resolved in scores of court cases currently in the pipeline and for years to come.
The critical thing to consider here is the fact that technology and people’s ideas about privacy are changing rapidly.
Law enforcement has to adapt to those changes with greater speed if we’re going to avoid gridlock in the courts with respect to issues of surveillance and counter surveillance.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)