FBI Releases 'Study' Of Law Enforcement's Persecution Complex

from the less-work,-more-griping dept

In what may be an attempt to bolster now ex-FBI director James Comey's oft-derided "Ferguson Effect" claims, the FBI has released a "study" that gathers facts feelings from law enforcement officers around the US and attempts to build a narrative somewhere between "life is unfair" and "there's a War on Cops." It's not a study. It's an opinion poll with the word "study" appended to it.

In short, the Ferguson Effect theory is this: cops are afraid to do their jobs because they're undergoing intense scrutiny in the wake of controversial shootings. It's bullshit, but there are plenty of law enforcement officials willing to stake their reputations on assertions that portray their officers as cowards. Faced with heightened public scrutiny, officers are apparently deciding to do less work than before, supposedly to head off any misrepresentation of their tactics.

The FBI's study involved interviewing officers and supervisors at agencies where an officer had been killed in the line of duty. It studied the background of the assailants, but that appears to be the end of any factual basis for claims made. What these stats show is most attacks on officers involved a person who didn't want to be arrested. A smaller percentage of attacks were motivated by a desire to hurt cops.

Despite these conclusions, the FBI's study pushes forward with an officer-driven narrative that follows the War on Cops/Ferguson Effect: supposedly-increased violence towards cops (not supported by line-of-duty death statistics) and "de-policing." I supposed the FBI's "impartiality" restrained it from challenging contradictory and false assertions provided to it by officers. From the study [PDF]:

Since 2014 multiple high-profile police incidents across the country have occurred that law enforcement officials believe influenced the mindset and behaviors of the assailants. Specifically, the Michael Brown shooting in Ferguson, MO, in 2014, and the social disturbances that followed, initiated a movement that some perceived made it socially acceptable to challenge and discredit the actions of law enforcement. This attitude was fueled by the narrative of police misconduct and excessive force perpetuated through politicians and the media.

This narrative has apparently risen unbidden. It couldn't possibly have been the result of multiple DOJ civil rights investigations and the rise of non-police-controlled cameras. In other words, it couldn't possibly be the result of verifiable evidence, rather than hurt feelings of police officers who fear they're no longer viewed as minor deities.

Law enforcement agencies also complained they're no longer able to provide the only narrative after incidents of abuse or violence.

Due to the coverage of the high-profile police incidents, it appears that immediately following the incidents, assailants were constantly exposed to a singular narrative by news organizations and social media of police misconduct and wrong-doing. In many cases, this singular narrative came from the subject's friends and family, and witnesses to the incident who often knew the subject, long before law enforcement provided their findings to the public.

Reading this is like asking a four-year-old for their opinion on current events. This is so self-centered, self-pitying and bereft of awareness, it's ridiculous. The standard M.O. following the killing of someone by a police officer is to get the dead person's rap sheet into journalists' hands as quickly as possible. Meanwhile, the officer's agency will refuse to provide any information on the officer involved (in most cases, not even the officer's name) until everything is thoroughly investigated, which means weeks or months will pass before law enforcement is ready to tell its side of the story.

Both of these bogus assertions lead to a third: the inability of law enforcement to control the narrative has "emboldened" arrestees, making them less compliant, more argumentative, and more likely to engage in violence. The officers surveyed also threw out the following, which is so unmoored from reality, it calls their judgment into question:

Across the country, law enforcement officials link the de-criminalization of drugs to the increase in violent attacks on law enforcement.

If this were even remotely true, the number of officers killed in the line of duty should have dropped dramatically during the late 80s and early 90s when new, extremely-harsh statutory minimums were put into place in response to the crack epidemic. And those numbers should be on the rise in recent years, as marijuana legalization and sentencing reform efforts have taken hold. None of what's asserted by officers is reflected in killed in the line of duty stats. If anything, it shows deaths have decreased as legalization efforts have increased.

And, as officers have felt less support from non-cops and been subjected to unprecedented scrutiny (i.e., more than none), they've felt less and less like doing the job taxpayers are paying them to do.

The above-referenced factors have had the effect of "de-policing" in law enforcement agencies across the country, which the assailants have exploited. Departments - and individual officers - have increasingly made the conscious decision to stop engaging in proactive policing. The intense scrutiny and criticism law enforcement has received in the wake of several high-profile incidents has caused several officers to (1) "become scared and demoralized" and (2) avoid interacting with the community.

Let's just repeat this simple fact: being a law enforcement officer is not compulsory. If you no longer feel you can do the job, or don't like the working conditions, leave. Find something else to do. Taxpayers aren't interested in being under-served by officers who can't stand the heat but are unwilling to leave the kitchen.

I realize this is a facile response. Leaving a job, much less a career, is a very difficult thing to do. But these are facile answers. And they're being given by officers who are finding out they need to do their jobs better in the future, but are clearly unwilling to improve themselves or their agencies. Instead, they'd rather blame everyone outside of law enforcement for their problems, when years of opacity and unquestioned authority have turned them into the officers and officials they are.

We usually see the worst of law enforcement when it comes to the media. But we generally see the worst of all members of the public when filtered through this narrow lens. Police work is a customer service job, albeit one that grants employees an incredible amount of leeway to perform their duties.

The worst will be what's remembered. That may seem unfair, but that's just the way it is. United Airlines may fly millions of passenger miles without complaint, but it will be remembered for a long, long time as the airline that booted a paying passenger from its plane using law enforcement as the stick. (There was no carrot.) The same goes for law enforcement agencies.

The FBI's study contains no indication officers are willing to surmount the challenges of this era of policing. There's no sign officers are interested in making the effort needed to change the public's perception. Instead, it's an open airing of grievances that may have had limited therapeutic value for responding officers, but does nothing to repair the relationship between law enforcement and the public.

Filed Under: fbi, ferguson effect, law enforcement

Loretta Lynch Essentially Says The Ferguson Effect Is Bullshit

from the no-kidding dept

I have to be honest: I have no idea how this whole "Ferguson Effect" became a thing. The general claim by those touting the theory is that, after the backlash over the Michael Brown shooting and several other high-profile deaths at the hands of law enforcement, police are so fearful of the general public that they are no longer taking the risks necessary to do their jobs properly, which is resulting in an uptick in violent crime in several major cities. It's a fascinating theory in that it is so often promoted by those who claim to be champions of the police, even as the theory itself claims that police are abdicating their primary responsibilities. As with any good theory built to draw on division and emotion, it only helps that this theory is essentially made up of a combination of anecdotal evidence and the simplistic reading of statistics without context.

Now, I won't go so far as to say that anecdotal evidence is entirely worthless. Testimony, after all, is a form of evidence. But those touting the theory so vociferously ought to be able to point to some kind of empirical data as opposed to the rumor mill. Unfortunately, as US Attorney General Loretta Lynch indicated before the House Judiciary Committee, no such data-based evidence for the Ferguson Effect exists.

US attorney general Loretta Lynch said on Tuesday there was “no data” to support the idea that law enforcement officers are policing less aggressively because of increased scrutiny of their tactics following a series of highly publicized killings mostly of black men. Lynch spoke during a House judiciary committee hearing on Tuesday and discussed the controversial theory, termed the “Ferguson effect”, in the wake of the fatal police shooting of unarmed black teenager Michael Brown in the Missouri city last year.

“While certainly there may be anecdotal evidence there, as all have noted, there’s no data to support it,” she said during an oversight hearing on the Justice Department held by the committee.

Now, I'm sure nobody would want to suggest that we make policy in a climate completely lacking data for that policy, so this really should table any discussion of the Ferguson Effect pending any actual, you know, data coming to light. What data is available suggests that major cities in America, and indeed America as a whole, have ridden a downward trend in violent crime for at least a decade. In that context, a regression to the mean in violent crime shouldn't be treated as particularly extraordinary. Crime can't always trend downward ad infinitum, after all, and it would be trivially easy to associate any uptick in violence with whatever the news of the day might be. Which is exactly what's happening.

Yet this doesn't work in the other direction. Violence in media, for instance, has been on the rise at the same time as the general downward trend in violent crime, yet few want to argue there's a correlation there. Why? There's no real hard data to suggest that a correlation exists. We ought to treat purveyors of the Ferguson Effect theory the same way. It's not enough to claim that police are too scared to do their jobs properly; they have to show their work.

Filed Under: ferguson effect, james comey, loretta lynch, police, violence, violent crime

DEA Boss Joins FBI In Declaring 'Ferguson Effect' To Be A Real Thing; Offers Up 'Stuff I Heard' As Evidence

from the Exhibit-A:-Hearsay,-Conjecture,-Guys-At-The-Coffee-Shop dept

Late last month, FBI head James Comey contributed to the "Ferguson Effect" mythmaking, blaming unexplained spikes in violent crime on… citizens filming police officers. His argument? Officers fear for their power and no longer feel like exiting their vehicles to do their job.

A rebuttal from Comey's former boss, Eric Holder, arrived shortly thereafter.

"I don't agree with the comments that he's made about, or the connection he's drawn, between the so-called 'Ferguson effect' and this rise in crime," Holder said, adding that Comey seemed to be relying on anecdotes rather than data.

"You can't base policy on anecdotal evidence," Holder said. "It's hard for us to understand why crime dropped to historic lows over the last 40 years. I think it's probably equally difficult -- or even more difficult -- to explain why crime has gone up in some places, violent crime has gone up in some places, over the past 12 months. But I don't think it's connected to the so-called Ferguson effect."

But anecdotal evidence works best when actual evidence is lacking. The same can be said for the "War on Cops," which has been cobbled together using a regression to the mean following a historic low (2014) and a random smattering of social media posts about "putting wings on pigs," etc.

James Comey remains resolute that this "effect" is leading to spikes in crime (themselves possibly a regression to the mean after years of historic lows). Now he has another federal ally in the "War on Logic."

Chuck Rosenberg, head of the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency, said Wednesday that he agrees with FBI Director James Comey that police officers are reluctant to aggressively enforce laws in the post-Ferguson era of capturing police activity on smartphones and YouTube.

“I think there’s something to it,” Rosenberg said during a press briefing on drug statistics at DEA headquarters in Arlington. “I think he’s spot on. I’ve heard the same thing.”

Rosenberg doesn't offer any evidence to back up his belief. Neither does Washington Post writer Todd C. Frankel, who inexplicably follows Rosenberg's baseless assertion with one of his own.

The comments offer more support for the theory that, faced with increased scrutiny, the nation’s police officers are pulling back.

No, they don't. Evidence that isn't strictly anecdotal or suffering from correlation/causation issues would "offer more support" for the "Ferguson Effect" theory. Another law enforcement official saying he's heard some stuff does not offer any additional support for this law enforcement theory.

In fact, Rosenberg spends more time hedging his assertion than defending it.

Rosenberg allowed that while he’s “not entirely sure what’s going on” with the sporadic increases in crime seen in some places, he believes “we should talk about it.”

If Rosenberg and Comey want to "talk about it," they have to stop excluding the general public from the discussion. They need to stop publicly pushing narratives backed by nothing more than the vague unhappiness of law enforcement agencies that are no longer viewed as faultless pillars of their respective communities.

And as long as these two are "talking" about it, they might want to check in with the rest of the government. The recently-departed DOJ head said the "Ferguson Effect" is bogus. So did the White House.

“Mr. Rosenberg is the second administration official to make that kind of claim without any evidence,” press secretary Josh Earnest told reporters.

"The fact is, the evidence does not support the claim that somehow our law enforcement officers all across the country are shirking their duties and failing to fulfill their responsibility to serve and protect the communities to which they are assigned.”

What should be an insult to cops everywhere is instead being used by law enforcement agencies as a FUD delivery vehicle. The nation is already suffering from a rift between its citizens and its law enforcers. Comey and Rosenberg are making the situation worse by driving a wedge between their agencies and the White House. The instinctual move to blame any increase on crime on a loss of faith in law enforcement feeds into the Us vs. Them mindset that created the problem in the first place.

Filed Under: chuck rosenberg, crime rates, dea, eric holder, ferguson effect, james comey, police

Comey Sells The 'Ferguson Effect,' Blames Spikes In Violent Crime On Citizens With Cameras

from the worst.-FBI-director.-ever. dept

FBI director James Comey is now beclowning himself by endorsing the so-called "Ferguson Effect." Some major US cities are experiencing increases in violent crime, and law enforcement agencies are blaming this on the fallout from the Michael Brown shooting.

Supposedly, law enforcement officers are afraid to do their jobs properly, fearing reprisal, public humiliation or possible prosecution for deploying any form of force. Further extrapolations of the "Ferguson Effect" theorize that the public's respect for law enforcement has fallen so low citizens are now often openly hostile.

It's telling that this is called the "Ferguson Effect," rather than say, the "Garner Effect." Both officer-involved-killings happened within a few weeks of each other and both touched off massive protests. In both cases, grand juries failed to return indictments against the police officers responsible for the deaths of two unarmed black men. However, the shooting in Ferguson lacked a crucial element: a video recording of the incident. In Ferguson, the evidence presented was a mess of contradictory eyewitness testimonies.

In the New York City incident, clear recordings of an NYPD officer choking Eric Garner to death were all over YouTube before the NYPD could even issue a coherent statement. For some reason, it's called the "Ferguson Effect" even though it was NYPD officers who first stated a reluctance to lay down on the job in response to the backlash.

As Comey sees it, the problem (which doesn't actually exist) isn't with police departments. It's with the people they serve… and their unblinking eyes.

He said his conversations with officers often come back to cellphones. He said they describe encounters with young people and their cellphone cameras "taunting" them "the moment they get out of their cars."

"They told me, 'We feel like we're under siege and we don't feel much like getting out of our cars,'" Comey said.

To put it in the parlance of official police statements: the officers feared for their safety power.

Police have always performed their duties in public, observed by many. But until recently, any footage of these encounters were left to dashcams. In the absence of recordings, it was the public's word against the officer's, and the officer's word usually won out. Now, police officers no longer have the luxury of controlling the narrative. Apparently, it's this lack of control that's preventing them from doing their jobs.

The "Ferguson Effect" narrative goes hand-in-hand with the "War on Cops" -- the bogus theory that cops are being targeted and killed more frequently simply because they're cops. In both cases, there's no data backing up these assertions. Any perceived spike in violence cannot be traced back to law enforcement officers being more wary of deploying force. Even if it could, the problem still lies with the police, rather than the public.

Public servants performing their duties in public should expect to be observed. If officers can't handle the "taunting" of camera-wielding citizens, they should exit the law enforcement business. If they feel imprisoned in their own vehicles by members of the public wielding nothing more dangerous than recording devices, they're not cut out to handle the actual dangers of the job.

Comey's furtherance of this bogus narrative is not just stupid. It's also hypocritical. Constant observation -- a.k.a. "surveillance" -- alters people's behavior. Comey admits as much in his remarks on the "Ferguson Effect."

So the suggestion, the question that has been asked of me, is whether these kinds of things are changing police behavior all over the country.

And the answer is, I don’t know. I don’t know whether this explains it entirely, but I do have a strong sense that some part of the explanation is a chill wind blowing through American law enforcement over the last year. And that wind is surely changing behavior.

Marcy Wheeler points out the obtuseness of this statement, which highlights the side effect of constant surveillance no government intelligence/investigative agency seems willing to discuss.

I actually do think there’s something to the chilling effect of surveillance (though, again, what’s happening to cops is targeted, not dragnet). But if Comey has a problem with that, he can’t have it both ways, he needs to consider the way in which the surveillance of young Muslim and African-American men leads them to do things they might not otherwise do, the way in which it makes targets of surveillance feel under siege, he needs to consider how the surveillance his Agents undertake actually makes it less likely people will engage in the things they’re supposed to do, like enjoy free speech, a robust criminal defense unrestricted by spying on lawyers, like enjoy privacy.

Law enforcement can dish it out, but it can't take it. That's the true definition of the "Ferguson Effect."

Filed Under: cameras, ferguson effect, james comey, law enforcement, police, public, surveillance, transparency, violent crime