Chicagoist: Brutal Report on CPD

Ferdy

Tue, 20 Nov 2007 10:52:49 -0600

JP - You're exactly right. I actually made a similar point in an article I edited about steroid abuse. Although the percentages of teens using them has dropped to about 1.5%, the real number is still 246,000. Percentages are very misleading. I was never opposed to the affidavit because, as you say, it lends more veracity to the report. Finally, I am not anti-police. I see tendencies in the police that trouble me and outright abuses that outrage me. I don't believe in the "bad apple" argument because there are petty abuses of authority that are just as irksome in a paid civil servant as the outright criminality some of them engage in. But I do think that the police have a rough job that has changed drastically over the years and for which they are not given enough training and support; that leads to some bad behavior among cops who otherwise would do a good job.

JP2

Tue, 20 Nov 2007 10:17:06 -0600

Ironically, the quotes you posted support part of my original point, which I believe you are at least partially in agreement with. That is, Chicago PD (and I) are under the impression that most (or at least lots) of excessive force allegations are complete BS on a national level. However, my criticism was that Chicago uses this general cover (my 90% non-sustained) number as a mechanism to justify internally sweeping the remaining 10% (or 8%) under the carpet. This report is the first I've seen to call them out on it, and for that I find it useful. Finally, that thing about a 40% drop in allegations after an affidavit requirement should arguably allow you and the anti-police crowd to more confidently believe that complaints today are more likely to be valid. Personally, I wouldn't mind seeing the State's Attorney prosecute the absolute most egregious lies put on the affidavits, but generally I'm more inclined to believe complaints made today because a.) someone has to go to the trouble of filling out a form and b.) someone has to swear to a good faith believe in what they put on paper, subject to penalty. What kills me here is that we are just quibbling about numbers. There is no way (or reason) for me to sugarcoat the ultimate finding that sustained allegations are close to 0% compared to a national rate close to 8%. And that is perhaps the grossest indictment possible of the system (Mayor, OPS, CPD) for investigating abuse complaints.

Ferdy

Tue, 20 Nov 2007 09:32:31 -0600

You are probably right that I will never be able to refute these numbers. According to the report that started this: "A national survey of police contacts conducted by the United States Department of Justice found that only one in ten people who believe that they have been abused by the police ever report the abuse.32 Applying the Department of Justice research to the Chicago data, meaningful discipline results in only 2 out of every 10,000 incidents in which civilians believe that they have been abused. As Dr. Whitman summarized, 'This is pretty close to never.'33" Further, "We then attempted a comparison of CPD excessive force and sustained rate data with that of law enforcement agencies that the U.S. Department of Justice found, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. δ 14141, to have engaged in a pattern and practice of excessive force and had deficient disciplinary systems for addressing brutality complaints.40 (my emphasis) These agencies include Detroit, Los Angeles, Washington, D.C., Miami, Cleveland, and Pittsburgh. We obtained 2002 force and sustained rate data for each of these agencies, as reported to the Bureau of Justice Statistics. Some of the agencies listed above had begun to remediate their systems under federal consent decrees by 2002, complicating our attempts to make good comparisons. Albeit imperfect, our preliminary review showed that Chicago’s internal brutality and disciplinary data were substantially worse than cities where the Department of Justice had already concluded there were serious problems.41" Finally, "in our review of random samples of excessive force complaints, we discovered that the City counts complaints that were sustained for administrative violations (but not brutality) as sustained force complaints for statistical purposes. This tendentious reporting method accounted for approximately half of the sustained force complaints in the sample, grossly inflating CPD’s “sustained” numbers. In other words, the CPD failed to sustain excessive force charges in about half of the cases that it reports as 'sustained.'" You got me, JP.

JP2

Tue, 20 Nov 2007 08:33:32 -0600

You know what Ferdy, here's statistics 101 for you. If all other things were equal from year to year (which they were, given that I've cited the only change), a 26% year over year drop based on a change that became effective on September 1st would indicate that the total 26% drop resulted from a decrease in the 4 month period where the change was effective. 4 months is 1/3rd of a year, or 33.33%. A 26% drop resulting from a period where an expected 33.33% of annual complaints would come in indicates a, get this, a 78% drop in complaints. And I just said 40% because that seemed conservative for what I remember reading or hearing. Now go and find me your real numbers to refute 78%, or 40% or whatever. That 90% number came from this statement in the original post: "The average sustained rate for excessive force cases in major metropolitan police departments was 8 percent, compared to Chicago’s 0.48%". As a reminder to something that seems to have eluded you, 100 minus 8 is 92. Thus, my original point with the 90% number is that the study itself seems to gloss over the context of the numbers they've found nationally, in that the authors of the study found less than 10% of excessive force complaints are sustained by "major metropolitan police departments". So call me names, bleat on about anecdotes or education, dig in your heals and keep screeching. You could spend the rest of your life not addressing the numbers I've provided, and I suspect you will when you realize that you can't refute a single thing I've said.

Ferdy

Mon, 19 Nov 2007 20:34:25 -0600

You know what, JP? You were the first person to bandy about stats based on what you "heard." How authoritative, and now it's my job to disprove them??? Sounds very neocon to me. If you can't stand behind your numbers, then they're bullshit. I don't believe or accept them and nobody else should either. When I've got some real numbers, I'll write an article under my own name here and on my blog. Will you do the same?

JP2

Mon, 19 Nov 2007 17:56:55 -0600

Based on the article I cited, a 26% year over year reduction resulted when a change was instituted in, get this, September! In any case, my estimate was a 40% drop based on what I had read several years ago. You expressed doubt, and even called me a liar. You have yet to add a substantive word to this conversation other than a juvenille "prove it". You prove it. Go find your stats at stats.com and show me that a 40% drop did not immediately coincide with an affidavit requirement. And the 90% number I'll look for on the internet the minute you add a substantive word to this conversation by showing me ANYTHING that would allow a rational person to believe I am wrong.

Ferdy

Mon, 19 Nov 2007 16:49:29 -0600

JP - You never gave me a cite for the 90% unsupported, so I still have to assume it came out of thin air until I hear otherwise. Based on the article you linked. there was a 26% reduction in complaints once the sworn statement was added to the application. How you get 40% out of that, I still don't know. What did you base your estimate on? If I'm so bad at research, how is it that I keep asking for something other than your word to back up these numbers you bat around. It's a typical rightwing trick to float statements as though they are facts and then let someone else disprove them. I'm on my way to getting some real facts. Until then, I'm just going to assume you're not ready to back your information up. You don't have the time. Right, right. Maybe you should have more manners to respect our intelligence about accepting your word for everything.

JP2

Mon, 19 Nov 2007 15:43:03 -0600

I think you could use some lessons on a.) how to talk to people, even on the internet, b.) how to read and comprehend what you are reading, and c.) how to do research. I did not make my statement based on that particular article. I made that statement and then spent some time finding that article when you asked for a cite and called me a liar. If you would like to support your suggestion that I learn something about statistics, please find something, anything that would indicate that my 40% drop estimate is in any way erroneous. And the 90% figure is based on something like dismissed complaints, just not necessarily dismised. Unsupported or unsupportable is probably a better characterization, as indicated somewhere above in a comment of mine. Anyhoo, if you find anything to suggest that my statistical estimate is far off, please have at it. As of yet you have not pointed to one thing that would indicate I am even slightly off, while you have managed to call me a liar and now uneducated. Typical leftist bullshit tactic.

Ferdy

Mon, 19 Nov 2007 12:00:13 -0600

JP - I retract the liar accusation. I will instead say that you need to learn more about reading statistics. The article you linked was very helpful and was a very good example of showing how statistics need a nuanced approach to interpretation. I suspect the 90% figure you cited comes from complaints dismissed, which is not the same as false accusation. I'm on the case to find out more about the true numbers from STATS (www.STATS.org), a source I read regularly when I want to get to the truth behind the numbers. I highly recommend it. I never abuse my husband. He's an angel.

JP2

Sat, 17 Nov 2007 10:34:44 -0600

Ferdy, did you just call me a liar? It took me an hour to find just the requirement for an affidavit you shrew. Next time do your own research or keep believing whatever nonsense is in your head, but I'm done with you. From a search at Chicago Tribune (because Google sure as hell doesn't return good results), you find this editorial from a few years ago discussing some of the changes in context with each other. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4155/is_20050824/ai_n15353994 Again, if you have any information to the contrary, please bring it out. Otherwise, I leave you to heap this abuse on your poor husband.

Ferdy

Sat, 17 Nov 2007 09:29:21 -0600

JP2 - You know damn well what citation I want. Show me a verifiable research report that confirms that complaints dropped by 40% once this requirement went into effect. I realize your valuable time is better spent by you putting lies and conjectures all over the Internet than by doing the research these U of C lawyers did to give us something real to look at.

vise77

Fri, 16 Nov 2007 20:30:57 -0600

Daley is such jerk he has all of these thug cops on the streets and he's trying to get the Olympics. Meanwhile, back at the Hall of Justice, people are being indicted left and right because this whole city is corrupt and nothing like New York because I lived there once and wonder why I ever left. Screw Chicago and its police I'm taking things into my own hands I'm barring all of my high-rise windows and never going out because I'll probably be shook down by a corrupt city worker. Jerks.

JP2

Fri, 16 Nov 2007 13:46:22 -0600

Too vague. What do you want a citation to, because googling secrets like this about the CPD and city generally is not the most productive use of my valuable time. For starters though, I offer you this: http://www.opschicago.org/images/ops_pdf2005.pdf See the note in the lower right side of page 2 of the PDF about the requirement for a signed affidavit under state law. I believe that was enacted as state law a few years ago, and implemented in Chicago by OPS after a bit of a fight. Which leaves only the correlation for a decreasing number of complaints, which I think could be found with another hour of my valuable time if you can't find it.

Ferdy

Fri, 16 Nov 2007 11:39:58 -0600

JP2 - Citation please?

JP2

Fri, 16 Nov 2007 10:25:31 -0600

I should add, a few years ago the CPD supposedly instituted a requirement that complainants submit a sworn statement, subject to perjury penalties. The State's Attorney absolutely refuses to prosecute anyone for signing these, even in those instances where warranted. And the number of complaints dropped almost instantly by something like 40%. I'm sure a visitor from SCC can correct me if I'm wrong on any count on this.

JP2

Fri, 16 Nov 2007 09:26:52 -0600

I wouldn't say necessarily false. Unsupported or unsupportable is probably a better characterization. As an example, the only allegation against any family member of mine was against a 5'5 135 lb (at the time) female accused by a 270 pound male of pulling him off of a fence after a foot chase and then pummelling him senseless. Numerous others come from those arrested and charged, which itself throws their motivations into question. In any case, I think the U of C study acknowledges the numbers reported by other agencies as a tacit baseline.

Ferdy

Fri, 16 Nov 2007 08:11:49 -0600

Can anyone cite valid studies that support this claim of 90% false accusations? While some of you seem to be happy to tear apart a report that provides its sample, methodology, and results, I have yet to see a similar report of false accusations that I can check for validity. That doesn't seem entirely fair.

JP2

Fri, 16 Nov 2007 06:53:41 -0600

One of the conclusions I saw reported in the press was that the complaints were concentrated largely in a few police districts and public housing, and that this showed some failure on the part of police in these areas in dealing with problem officers. The flip side of that is that the fastest districts (e.g., 007, 011, 005, 006, 003) and in public housing are also where the police with the lowest seniority tend to be concentrated. Which is to say, this is where turnover is greatest, so that its not the same "small group" that is the problem because this "small group" tends to turn over faster than the manpower almost anywhere else in the CPD. Anyway, this should be expected. The fastest districts and public housing are where the greatest concentrations of crime and criminals occur, and where the police have the most police work to do. So I'm a bit mixed on this report. On the one hand, it does not acknowledge that even nationally more than 90% of complaints seem to be unfounded, which would appear to evidence widespread abuse of the complaint system nationally. On the other hand, having a "sustained" rate something like 10% of the national "sustained" rate is more than a bit troublesome. That latter thing is part of the problem and culture in the CPD. They tend to look at the invalidity of the majority of complaints and use that as cover for invalidating virtually all complaints, though it is clear that they have tremendous problems with some officers. This makes sense to me. Anecdotally, I've heard stories from a few police officers about other officers that they simply will not work with because of the problems they generate on the streets. Not always "brutality" problems, but a whole range of issues like not knowing how to communicate with people without starting a war, not being careful (weapons issues, driving issues) and, yes, sometimes not knowing how to ask questions without putting hands on someone. So to me, this report again brings up the issue of police supervision. There is no effective supervision in huge parts of the CPD, and this report evidences that in indicating there is virtually never repercussions for officers with the clearest patterns of conduct issues.

Ward Up

Thu, 15 Nov 2007 21:30:30 -0600

Spook, I am not writing this for you, but for others, because you have written some wrong things about me. A native of the city, I am a pro-choice, pro-gay rights, pro gun control Republican. I happen to work in the heart of the South Side in the health field. Every day, all day, I encounter hard-working persons who live in high-crime areas. I also encounter, daily, some of the convicted felons who cause the problems in these areas. It is the hard-working, law-abiding citizens where I work who would have a lower quality of life if the CPD was unable to do its job thoroughly. This false complaint problem is already making good cops back off. Now, let's say we worsen the problem by making cops fear wrongful complaints even more. Who gets hurt the most? Not the cop who has given up. He is sitting back in his car. Why rush to answer a call? Why get out of the car to stop a burglary? You might only end up with more wrongful complaints against you. If people really cared about help disadvantaged neighborhoods more than they cared about feeling sanctimonious, then police would not be made to fear career ruination every time they tried to stop a crime. People in those areas deserve to feel safe. It's not the cops that are not making them unsafe, regardless of the claims by left-leaning bloggers or sensationalist TV news reporters.

fed up

Thu, 15 Nov 2007 21:08:34 -0600

SPOOK, It is always refreashing to see that we can have a differance of opinion on some issues but stay civil. On many posts I have enjoyed your writing style and refrences.

Spook

Thu, 15 Nov 2007 21:03:19 -0600

"the vast majority of good cops will root out the few who are truly corrupt" Sears tower- and best- as in head in the clouds but more than likely "stupid tower" Its called the Blue Wall of Silence, check into it Peggy

Sears Tower

Thu, 15 Nov 2007 20:57:22 -0600

Abusing criminals? Try not breaking the law! What did you expect, a stay at the Ritz for getting caught? Corruption notwithstanding, police officers have a thankless job that puts them in difficult situations everyday. When dealing with thugs and other lowlifes every shift, inevitably some grey areas will be encountered and it is difficult to react perfectly everytime. Everyone on this blog has made mistakes in their work, the difference is almost all of us aren't dealing with hostile, potentially violent situations. I am thankful we have people willing to take on this line of work, and hope the vast majority of good cops will root out the few who are truly corrupt.

Spook

Thu, 15 Nov 2007 20:03:28 -0600

Fed Up, My point was that although I may not agree with you all the time you are fair. Like with this case, mostly you are a defender of the police, but as in this case you have voiced validity with this report pointing to problems in CPD, of course I would take it much further, but I salute you for being able to see both sides Ward Up, you say that you're not a cop and you have no cops in your family. But how long have you had a cop fetish where you dream of being pulled over for a cracked windshield and abused by a cop with a screw driver, but instead of filing a complaint with the city and winning a 4 million dollar settlement like Coprez Coffie who was abused sexualy with a screw driver, you get/want to be kept as a "Gimp" ala Pulp Fiction by abusive "manly man" members of the CPD lead by Jon Burge in a underground cell in the Area 2 police station?

Ward Up

Thu, 15 Nov 2007 19:24:49 -0600

A comment above wondered if some secondcitycop commenters were commenting here. In response, let me say that I am not a cop and I have no cops in my family. Among the many aspects of the report that betray the researchers bias, note that they called cops in one group "repeaters," clearly short for a repeat actor, or repeat offender, or at least someone that the researchers already assigned a term that suggests that the person has DONE something. In fact, these cops had more complaints made. Period. These so-called "repeaters" were not "repeaters" of anything. By the way, these "repeaters" are often in the most active crime areas confronting the most dangerous thugs.

fed up

Thu, 15 Nov 2007 19:11:20 -0600

Been Hecht, If you bothered to read the post you would see I wasnt defending the police. A typical newsie you can make outlandish acusations on the front page one day but then bury the retraction in small print on page 69 three days later. Remember the pen is mightier than the sword.

fed up

Thu, 15 Nov 2007 18:59:14 -0600

Spook, All this time I thought we got along just fine. Im pro choice and most organized religons are crap in my eyes if that makes you feel better. While I respect the job that the police are doing this report points out some flaws in the disciple system. Stats can be interputed many ways but I will not attempt to challenge the results. Kfunk , making a complaint against a cop is actually easy one phone call.

Ferdy

Thu, 15 Nov 2007 18:14:02 -0600

BLAH BLAH BLAH. Like I believe you know what you're talking about, Tool.

whymustiregister

Thu, 15 Nov 2007 16:40:05 -0600

Wow! Thanks for cutting and pasting their verbiage. It still doesn't say much more than "we looked at a bunch of numbers, so trust us oh and we made some insane assumptions, then cherry picked our results." 8% is the avg for large cities. This tells us nothing without noting the distribution, what a "large city" is, what the median/mean/stddev of reports is in each location and the specifics of why stuff gets reported or doesn't. 99% over report assumption is wrong. They assume only 1 order of magnitude worth of missing data that just happens to support their opinions.

Spook

Thu, 15 Nov 2007 16:35:45 -0600

p.s if Drew Peterson was a Chicago Cop, he'd have alot more support on Chicagoist, alot more!

been hecht

Thu, 15 Nov 2007 16:24:42 -0600

saying those who file brutality reports just have an agenda sounds a lot like the Cardinal saying people who file molestation complaints and suits against priests are just doing that for the money. and along the same lines as "if you don't get drunk and don't carry a gun and act stupid you probably won't get beat up by police," if the police weren't largely thugs to begin with, brutal or not, maybe people wouldn't think they're all capable of unwarranted violence. and yeah, there are bad teachers, bad lawyers, bad reporters [oh, you cops looove to pint the finger at the media, don't you?] but none of the above CARRY WEAPONS AND CAN CALL, IN AN INSTANT, A DOZEN OR SO OF THEIR COLLEAGUES TO GANG UP ON SOMEONE. nice to see the Second City Cop blog residents are checking in at the -ist...

Spook

Thu, 15 Nov 2007 16:00:51 -0600

Wow, Margaret what a great story, glade you found it and thought to share it with us! Ya know what? For a while I thought Ward Up and Fed Up were the same person! Yes sometimes I rush to judge, as a progressive I can admit my faults. But now I know other wise. Fed Up is a conservative who I don't generally agree with, perhaps she/he is a National Review type who follows George Will or Henry Kissinger. I respect all three, but radically disagree with them. Ward up, is a knee-Jerk follower of Rush Limbaugh (how ever the drug addict spells his name) and Fox news, two “news” sources aimed at the lowest forms of intelligent life in America. Which is why Ward Up has no clue that the University of Chicago is one of the most conservative law schools in the country. But just because they take education and scholarship seriously is reason enough to thumb his nose and denounce any thing they say. I am grateful that such a conservative professor and institution was honest enough to do the right thing with this report

Kfunk

Thu, 15 Nov 2007 15:48:46 -0600

@whymust... RTA- The Stats are based on reported DOJ data as well as CPD data. I'll hold your hand. CPD received 10,149 complaints of excessive force, only 19 resulted in a suspension of a week or more (I wonder if the CPD only gives half day suspensions for roughing people up). Incidentally the City did find that 124 cases where 'sustained'- meaning they determined there was some abuse DOJ says only about 1 in 10 people who are roughed up actually report it. DOJ says the national average for suspensions for a reported offense is 8% at larger police depts. Chicago's is about 1% but it turns out they include in their stats suspensions which get overturned so the rate is actually ~0.5% Chicago also gets ~50% more complaints per cop than other large cities (1,000 or more cops) Therefore, whereupon, and heretofore: The CPD either: A) Doesn't suspend enough, B) Gets a bunch MORE phony complaints than other cities, C) or Beats people up more. I am going to go with A and C sort of blowing away the number of phony complaints since it is very difficult to even file a complaint with the City. I don't even know where you came up with the 99% number so I won't address it. @JoeM500- you should add 6) don't be a minority or adolescent and 7) don't protest to the list.

Navin

Thu, 15 Nov 2007 15:25:46 -0600

Considering what members of CPD have been caught red handed doing I'd bet the numbers are low. I had an off-duty deliberately breaking the law and staring at me (like say something and I'll break your neck) while doing it in the bar I work at just a couple weeks ago. Like most people who feel intimidated I didn't do anything about it. After all we've got no camera in the joint, and we all know that Abbate would be a free bird right now if it wasn't for that camera. *wanna say that we've also have had tons of other cool law abiding cops as patrons.

Ferdy

Thu, 15 Nov 2007 15:17:09 -0600

"Our analysis in this article draws primarily from three statistical data sets, each originating from the Chicago Police Department. "First, we studied a series of Chicago disciplinary data. The CPD produced disciplinary data related to all civilian abuse complaints over a six-year period (1999-2004) in each of the following categories—excessive force/brutality, illegal searches, racial abuse, sexual abuse, and false arrests (e.g., planting evidence). We highlight the three-year period surrounding the charged abuse of Diane (2002—04). By organizing the data in this way, we were able to break down the data by type of charged abuse, as well as to aggregate the information to look at the most serious forms of civilian abuse as a whole. "Second, we examined a random sample of the investigative files from the same five categories of civilian abuse complaints and examined every available investigative file relating to misconduct charges brought against the five officers charged with abusing Diane. Third, we analyzed the distribution of misconduct complaints among Chicago police officers. We paid special attention to the data regarding Chicago police officers who amassed eleven or more official misconduct complaints in a five-year period from 2001-2006. We call this the “repeater” data set. The repeater data listed the complaints against those officers and noted each officer’s unit of assignment, designating where they worked. For each complaint, we considered the date of the complaint, the results of the City’s internal investigation, and the nature of any discipline recommended by the arm of the Department that investigated the charge. We also evaluated data concerning the Chicago Police Department’s Early Warning programs." I guess you hope most people will be too lazy to actually read the report and call you out on your lies.

Margaret Lyons

Thu, 15 Nov 2007 15:13:06 -0600

The report says they had researchers canvassing the neighborhood, and that they got their numbers from the CPD.

Ferdy

Thu, 15 Nov 2007 15:11:04 -0600

I'd call your post a shoddy agenda-driven diatribe, WMIR.

whymustiregister

Thu, 15 Nov 2007 15:02:54 -0600

Except the 10K number is 2002-2004. The crux of their argument is contained in fig 1 which spans 1999-2004. So what's N for 1999-2002? The bigger problem is that they have basically 3 sources: 1) newspaper editorials 2) anecdotal reports from people in the projects, um, as reported in newspaper editorials 3) their half assed stats. My read on the quality of this data 1) Hah! 2) Double Hah! 3) a) Obvious, screaming apples and oranges n problems already mentioned 3) b) why/how are stats produced? They branadish statistics as the crux of their argument, but don't seem to be interested in any of the sources of these statistics. Complaints about cops don't fall from the sky, they get created for a reason. Change the dynamic that governs their creation and you change the reports. (Hand out complaint forms, reports go up, intimidate reporters, reports go down). Yet they don't seem interested in this, except to assert, without serious evidence that abuse is underreported by 99%. Amazing the way that the evidence they need to back their opinions happens to be so underrepresented! But since I don't claim to be a tenured campus radical--er, sorry unbiased researcher, I won't advance more than my opinion that their research sucks. On the issue of whether or not they happen to be correct despite their shoddy, agenda driven research, I got nothin.

Ferdy

Thu, 15 Nov 2007 14:47:03 -0600

In addition, you have no statistical evidence supporting the notion that most of these complaints are unfounded allegations. When you dig up some compelling evidence of that, let me know.

Ferdy

Thu, 15 Nov 2007 14:45:40 -0600

"Between 2002 and 2004, civilians filed 10,149 complaints of excessive force, illegal searches, racial abuse, sexual abuse, and false arrests. We limited the disciplinary data set to those five categories, because they encompass the most serious forms of civilian abuse and correspond to the types of abuse endured by Diane. Only 19 of the 10,149 complaints led to a suspension of a week or more." Seems like an N (10,149) to me.

fed up

Thu, 15 Nov 2007 14:44:52 -0600

I have often defended the popo against some stupid accusations but the report does show that the police leadership does not want to know about bad officers. There are bad priests, bad lawyers, bad teachers,bad politicans and bad journalist so its fair to say there are bad police. The police bosses dont seem to want to know about bad police and that is really the main point of the report as I read it. This has to change and I have to believe that it will change after the scandals of the past year or so. It is encouraging to see that the complaints seem to be concentrated on so few police but, how no action to correct these complaints is taken is disturbing at best criminal at worst.

Ward Up

Thu, 15 Nov 2007 14:41:53 -0600

The only thing that is "brutal" is how brutally funny this report is. Here you have some researchers with an agenda, i.e., the police are bad. Then they crunch the numbers to support that agenda. Did it ever occur to you that the most thorough, active police officers are the ones that get a lot of complaints. Why? Because thugs and gangbangers LOVE to file unfounded allegations. The naive nature of Chicagoist is showing. "Chicagoist cares while cops are brutes." Make that your next headline.

JoeM500

Thu, 15 Nov 2007 14:25:19 -0600

a) don't drive like an asshole b) don't be drunk or high on the streets c) don't fight in public d) don't carry an illegal firearm e) don't commit a crime These lessons will keep you free from most cases police brutality. Sure, there are cases like the poor chick that got her ass kicked by the cop for not serving him another beer, though...

whymustiregister

Thu, 15 Nov 2007 14:15:21 -0600

Actually it is unbeliveable. Unbelievably crappy reporting that is. They make a lot of their stats but never tell us what N is. Brutality complaints: 3% sustain rate in 1996 vs .64% sustain rate in 2006 could tell us of a falling interest in investigating, a falling number of legit reports, or an increase in BS reports. The authors assume a because it fits their agenda. I mean I know law schools do crap scholarship, but seriously, this wouldn't pass muster as an undergrad paper.

Ferdy

Thu, 15 Nov 2007 14:10:08 -0600

The word is "unbe-fucking-lievable." Unfortunately, the report is not unbelievable at all. Unconscionable maybe.

Spav1

Thu, 15 Nov 2007 13:56:42 -0600

If it is this systematic, we should all prolly just accept it and stop you know, complaining about it or expecting it to change.