Police Union Boss: Quentin Tarantino Needs To Patch Up Cop-Citizen Relationships, Not Us

from the pointing-tasers,-guns-and-fingers dept

Late last month, director Quentin Tarantino participated in a rally against police brutality, where he made the following comment:

“I’m a human being with a conscience,” Tarantino said at the rally. “And when I see murder I cannot stand by. And I have to call the murdered the murdered and I have to call the murderers the murderers.”

Similar words have been spoken by other people as they've watched unarmed citizens gunned down by police officers. But when Tarantino says it, it apparently stings a bit more.

New York City's police union boss Pat Lynch was the first to be personally offended on behalf of the officers he (sometimes) represents.

"It's no surprise that someone who makes a living glorifying crime and violence is a cop-hater, too," Lynch said in a statement. "The police officers that Quentin Tarantino calls 'murderers' aren't living in one of his depraved big screen fantasies -- they're risking and sometimes sacrificing their lives to protect communities from real crime and mayhem."

"New Yorkers need to send a message to this purveyor of degeneracy that he has no business coming to our city to peddle his slanderous 'Cop Fiction,'" he added. "It's time for a boycott of Quentin Tarantino's films."

Oh, Pat. You often forget. Lynch's officers killed one man for allegedly selling untaxed cigarettes ("real crime and mayhem") and shot another unarmed man in a stairwell (and delayed calling it in and seeking medical assistance) because a jumpy officer decided to patrol the building with his gun out. Not exactly "protecting communities," but whatever.

The LAPD's union soon joined the boycott, probably due to the LA-NYC connection current NYPD commissioner Bill Bratton brings to the job.

Los Angeles Police Protective League President Craig Lally said comments like Tarantino's encourage attacks on officers and said the union would support the call for a boycott of his films.

We fully support constructive dialogue about how police interact with citizens. But there is no place for inflammatory rhetoric that makes police officers even bigger targets than we already are," Lally said in a statement this week. "Film director Quentin Tarantino took irresponsibility to a new and completely unacceptable level this past weekend by referring to police as murderers during an anti-police march in New York."

First, Lally leans on the fake "War on Cops" narrative ("bigger targets than we already are…") and buttresses it by calling an anti-police brutality march an anti-police march. Lally lumps all of his officers together with this self-serving generalization. Aren't police officers the first to say the actions of bad police officers don't represent the whole of the force? A march targeting the actions of "bad apples" is portrayed by the union boss as being anti-tree. Fine. Have it your way, Lally. Just save us the #notallcops statements when a disgraced officer is indicted for their misconduct.

These two unions have been joined by other smaller law enforcement groups around the nation. It's also been joined by the nation's largest police union, the Fraternal Order of Police. These groups have demanded an apology from Tarantino for his stated opinion. The director has refused to bow to their pressure.

“All cops are not murderers,” Tarantino told The Times in his first public response to the controversy. “I never said that. I never even implied that.”

“What they’re doing is pretty obvious,” he said of his critics. “Instead of dealing with the incidents of police brutality that those people were bringing up, instead of examining the problem of police brutality in this country, better they single me out. And their message is very clear. It’s to shut me down. It’s to discredit me. It is to intimidate me. It is to shut my mouth, and even more important than that, it is to send a message out to any other prominent person that might feel the need to join that side of the argument.”

Tarantino's right. The unions would rather shut him up than admit any wrongdoing. It would rather prominent public figures remain silent or offer their deference than actually tackle law enforcement's myriad problems.

Hopefully, Tarantino's boldness will prompt others similarly situated to push for more accountability from public servants, especially those authorized to use deadly force. As Chris Seaton at FaultLines points out, every little bit helps.

More and more people no longer trust the police as the time-honored public servants we once thought them to be. Because the police refuse to address the problems leading to the self-inflicted black eyes on their respective reputations, the only recourse they have is to attack those who are in positions of prominence that raise awareness of the problem.

Quentin Tarantino is the latest target. He refuses to back down, just as Thabo Sefolosha did. These are gentlemen with influence, money, and the national platform to bring more people to the table that will address police misconduct than have ever before. When those with greater resources than the average citizen decide to join the struggle against the culture of the “warrior cop,” it is highly feasible we will see a major shift in the public’s perception to a degree those of us who speak out against police misconduct never thought possible.

Because Tarantino has refused to back down, the unions seem a bit flustered. Jim Pasco, the executive director of the nation's largest police union (Fraternal Order of Police) said this to The Hollywood Reporter:

"Tarantino has made a good living out of violence and surprise," says Pasco. "Our offices make a living trying to stop violence, but surprise is not out of the question."

"Something is in the works, but the element of surprise is the most important element," says Pasco. "Something could happen anytime between now and [the premiere]. And a lot of it is going to be driven by Tarantino, who is nothing if not predictable.

Take these words out of a police union official's mouth and put them nearly anywhere else and you'd expect that person to be the target of law enforcement efforts. Reason's Scott Shackford does a little recasting of his own in an article titled "Legion of Armed, Upset Citizens Has A 'Surprise' Planned for Quentin Tarantino."

If the organization in question were connected to the militia movement (by way of example) the outrage would be palpable. Is that a threat? Are they going to try to hurt Tarantino? He'd probably hire bodyguards (if he doesn't already have them). He might consider keeping a low profile for a while. There'd probably be a federal investigation to determine whether any actual violence was being planned.

Even though Tarantino appears to be done talking about this (after recognizing he wasn't dealing with a rational adversary), the Fraternal Order of Police isn't. For whatever reason, The Hollywood Reporter has allowed the national president of the threat-uttering Fraternal Order of Police to post an op-ed against the director on its website.

Chuck Canterbury calls Tarantino a "very strange man" who just doesn't understand the complexities of modern-day law enforcement. (It's only the amount of attention paid to police-involved-shootings that has changed, not the tactics, techniques or number of them.) He admits the boycott will probably have very little effect before going on to blame everything wrong with law enforcement on everyone else.

It's not police officers engaging in excessive force or racial profiling. It's the government -- a bigger, badder bad guy completely separated from the world of law enforcement… according to Canterbury.

Police officers are the only manifestation of government that some ever see -- and then only when something’s gone wrong. Tarantino didn’t need to whip up that crowd – they’re whipped up by the colossal failure of their elected officials.

His concluding paragraph, however, is so bad it's almost inadvertent parody.

So Tarantino race baits, and we boycott. No happy ending to this short drama -- rather than trying to help heal the wounds, Tarantino picks at the scabs. Rather than conciliatory, Tarantino is stoking the fires of hate and division that have made him a very wealthy man. I hate that this movie will make him still richer, and that perhaps this boycott and whatever else we may do will be to no avail; but, as long as there are befuddled demagogues like him bashing the police, there will be folks like me trying to get the truth out there.

According to Canterbury, it's the job of private citizens -- especially those whose voices might be heard -- to smooth over the widening gulf between the public and law enforcement. From where Canterbury sees it, the world of law enforcement is pristine and untroubled.

If complaints of profiling and brutality are coming from lower income areas in urban centers, the problem is the "colossal failure" of "elected officials," rather than the actions of the officers patrolling those areas. If a prominent American fails to show anything but devout support from law enforcement, that person is "race baiting" or "stoking the fires of hate," rather than simply pointing out truths that can no longer be ignored.

If Canterbury truly wants conciliation (and I have no reason to believe he does -- he wants concession, which is something very different even if it uses some of the same letters), then law enforcement has to lead the way, not Quentin Tarantino or any other member of the public. The public doesn't have much in the way of leverage, and it certainly doesn't have much it can actually concede. It's the entity coming from a position of power (a power that's abused far too often) that should be making the first moves towards conciliation. Expecting the public to grant you all the respect you feel you deserve (more than what's been earned) before any "healing" takes place only ensures the wound will never fully heal.

Filed Under: pat lynch, police, police brutality, quentin tarantino, violence

NYPD Union Prez Patrick Lynch: Only Police Are Qualified To Judge The Actions Of Police

from the lol-no dept

As you've probably already heard, last week former tennis star James Blake was blitzed by an NYPD plain clothes officer in front of his hotel, tackled to the ground, and left cuffed there bruised and cut. The officer in question thought he was brutalizing someone who had committed credit card fraud. In itself, this would be quite a problem, as credit card fraud isn't the kind of crime that typically results in an NYPD beatdown. Except that James Blake is black. He's also, as it turns out, not even the suspect this officer was supposed to be looking for. He just happened to fit the description. The NYPD has since apologized to him, an apology that one would hope was met with narrowed eyes and a defiant chin.

But you'll never guess who isn't apologizing. Actually, you probably will, because it's NYPD Patrolemen's Benevolent (hah!) Association President Patrick Lynch, who penned a letter to the media covering the story. Let's just see how much we can get through this before we stop pretending like we're dealing with a sane person, shall we?

AN OPEN LETTER TO ALL OF THOSE
INCLINED TO JUMP TO CONCLUSIONS

And we're off to a bad start. Jumping to conclusions isn't the best description when there is public video of Blake getting tackled and the NYPD has already apologized. Oh well, on to the real meat of this gem.

To all arm-chair judges:

If you have never struggled with someone who is resisting arrest or who pulled a gun or knife on you when you approached them for breaking a law, then you are not qualified to judge the actions of police officers putting themselves in harm's way for the public good.

And just like that, we're done. I've embedded the rest of the letter below the post in case you want to read the whole thing, but you really probably shouldn't. There isn't much point in continuing to read something built on a premise that rests entirely on the logical fallacy of argument from authority. The very idea that anyone who hasn't arrested an armed resistor ought be precluded from judging those who have is provably false. After all, there is no test of would-be judges that includes a screening to make sure they've experienced this. And they're literally judges. Beyond the courts, the press has long been investigators into police misconduct, highlighting abuses. It's their job, after all. And the public falls under the purview of our laws, which just so happen to apply to police as well. And those laws are built by the public's representatives, so you best believe that the public has every right to judge public servants against those laws.

But according to Lynch's amazingly stupid letter, this all goes out the window when it comes to the police. They have earned the benefit of the doubt. Why? Because danger, yo.

That is why no one should ever jump to an uninformed conclusion based upon a few seconds of video. Let all of the facts lead where they will, but police officers have earned the benefit of the doubt because of the dangers we routinely face.

Dangers like tennis players standing idly outside a hotel lobby? Do tell!

In any case, commentators appear to not be taking Lynch's letter to heart. You really should read all of Ken Womble's open letter in response to Lynch's, but since I only made it through a couple of grafs of Lynch's, we'll keep this fair and include only the first paragraph of Womble's response.

Sept. 16, 2015 (Mimesis Law) — Dear Pat,

I am in receipt of your letter entitled “An Open Letter To All Of Those Inclined To Jump To Conclusions.” First, allow me begin by making a point that I think is vitally important. Fuck you.

I agree. Fuck you, Pat. Fuck you very much.

Filed Under: criticism, james blake, nypd, pat lynch, police
Companies: police benevolent association

NYPD Union Turns On President Pat Lynch For Using Two Officers' Deaths To Fight A Pointless War With The Mayor

from the every-tragedy-is-an-opportunity dept

Pat Lynch, the president of New York City's Patrolmen's Benevolent Association (PBA), has always been a cop's best friend, especially the more questionable ones. In the wake of Eric Garner's death at the hands of an NYPD officer, Lynch was quick to deflect criticism by pointing fingers at the person who captured the incident on video.

The New York City Patrolmen’s Benevolent Association, the largest union representing NYPD officers, said in a statement that it was “criminals like Mr. Orta who carry illegal firearms who stand to benefit the most by demonizing the good work of police officers.”

Lynch also opposed efforts (supported by Police Commissioner Bill Bratton) that might make his officers more accountable, ignoring evidence collected elsewhere because it didn't agree with his belief that cops shouldn't be watched. Oh, and the real problem is that the city is too quick to hand over money to victims of police misconduct.

We are reserving our decision on body cameras until we see some real evidence of their effectiveness and impact on the officers who carry them. The Public Advocate cites the $152 million that the city spends on lawsuits against police officers but what she fails to say is that the city refuses to fight even the most ridiculous and baseless of the claims. Instead, they settle these ridiculous suits when they should fight everyone of them to conclusion which would effectively put an end to quick buck lawsuits against our officers.

As the situation eroded after the killing of Eric Garner, Lynch continued to support the NYPD's every action. When two officers were killed in their cars by a gunman, Lynch used this tragedy to widen the divide between the police and the policed. During memorial services for the slain cops, attending officers turned their backs on Mayor De Blasio for his daring to suggest his mixed-race son might have more to fear from the city's stop-and-friskers than whites.

Lynch further leveraged this tragedy with his explicit support of the NYPD's "work slowdown." Unfortunately, this non-enforcement of bullshit charges failed to return the city to its murder-a-minute heyday of the 70s and 80s, instead highlighting the fact that only going after more dangerous criminals was actually a fairly good way to police a city.

But even though Lynch has done his most to be a cop's best friend, it's becoming clear that many cops are no longer returning his affections. Union members are finally realizing that Lynch doesn't really serve his members' interests. He only serves himself.

Back in January, a union meeting devolved into shoving matches and screaming as members began to express their displeasure with Lynch's preference for grandstanding, rather than taking care of his officers.

A police union meeting sparked an uproar Tuesday when officers blasted union president Pat Lynch over his demand that Mayor Bill de Blasio apologize to the NYPD, police sources said.

The war of words took place at the end of the two-hour meeting at Antun’s in Queens Village when union delegates from the Patrolmen's Benevolent Association began shouting at Lynch, demanding to know what came out of a recent meeting with the mayor, a law-enforcement source said.

Lynch accused the mayor of having "blood on his hands" after the slaying of two NYPD officers, while refashioning their corpses into his personal pulpit. But his officers don't care whether or not De Blasio apologizes for his statements on the Garner case. What they actually want is what almost all officers want: safety.

The officers at the union meeting wanted answers from Lynch about getting heavier weapons, better bulletproof vests and new patrol cars, the source said.

Lynch values being very publicly right above almost anything else. His officers just want to feel that what happened to two of their own won't happen to them. Lynch not only doesn't care about the rank-and-files' priorities, he's not above using their deaths to further his career.

Critics of Patrick Lynch have accused the fiery union leader of campaigning for reelection on the backs of murdered cops — including the use of a somber photo at a memorial for the slain officers…

The latest controversy stems from a new campaign video showing the president of the Patrolmen’s Benevolent Association in uniform at a makeshift memorial honoring Liu and Ramos.

The 1-minute, 4-second video, which a Lynch spokesman said was not authorized by the campaign, begins with a backdrop of stars and the words: “Team Lynch 2015.”

[...]

In one image, Lynch is delicately laying flowers at the foot of the memorial.

“Thousands of cops went to that memorial and he gets his picture taken and uses it,” the delegate said. “ None of the other cops had their pictures taken. Only the politicians . . . so that makes him worse than the politicians.”

"Authorized" or not, it's not making Lynch any more friends in the department, something he kind of needs if he's going to continue to hold this position of power. And as for the authorized aspect of the video, various PBA spokespeople seem to be offering contradictory statements.

The pictures in the video are not meant to elicit the sympathy vote, spokesman Al O’Leary said. “(They are) just the most recent photos available of him in uniform,” he explained.

Why someone from Lynch's camp would feel compelled to defend images from an unauthorized video, much less make statements about the intent of the photos that supposedly weren't picked by Lynch's office, is puzzling. Then there's the fact that the video first surfaced on PBA treasurer Joseph Alejandro's Facebook page, which would at least suggest endorsement of the content. (Which has since been removed for -- of all reasons -- copyright claims by the NY Daily News over images used in the video.)

Whether or not Lynch specifically authorized this video no longer matters. He will suffer the backlash from its publication just the same. He no longer has control of the union and he has really no one else to blame. While the PBA will undoubtedly continue to defend its officers from criticism and accountability, it likely won't be Lynch heading it up. It's the union that isn't, one whose "leadership" cares more about press appearances and political warfare than ensuring its members are better protected and equipped.

At the end of the day, cops (rightly or wrongly) just want to make it home alive. And while Lynch is certainly quick to deploy the unofficial First Rule of Policing in defense of his officers' misconduct, he has no interest in actually backing up his stated concern for officer safety with any practical actions. Lynch's eventual exit will be welcomed, even if his replacement may be the same sort of self-centered political animal. Lynch managed to turn two tragedies into nothing more than a pointless, public shouting match with the Mayor's office that did nothing at all to serve the officers whose wages he receives a cut of.

Filed Under: bill bratton, bill de blasio, nyc, nypd, pat lynch, pba, union