LAPD Won't Allow Financials Checked...

Rabbi Dali Rick · Post by **Rabbi Dali Rick** » Tue Jan 11, 2011 10:42 am

The Gang Officers quit enmasse today when they were told all narc and gang unit cops will have to release their financial records. Does this sound just the strangest and oddest of reactions from supposedly standup people. I think when you sign up as a public servant you are giving up you're privacy rights to a certain extent because you are pledging to do an honest profession and thourough job in servitude of our country, and when any question of derelict, criminal, misappropreation comes into question all effort to comply to prove your wherewithal in that post or position you claim to responsible for. To say you and your credentials refuses to be screwtinize, causes great concern and suspect.

I smell some rats...

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/01/10/lo ... ial-rules/

the rebbi

Post by **Elderberry** » Tue Jan 11, 2011 10:49 am

Hadn't heard this, but I don't get tweets from Fox news either. BUT and that is a big but being you cited Fox news, if it is true, then I would totally agree. Somebody is hiding something. I think they should investigat them all even if they have resigned.

JK

Post by **Eric** » Tue Jan 11, 2011 1:21 pm

Not listed on the LA Times website, or on any of the LA TV station websites (oddly the Fox 11 website is completely down)

Hmm.

Simon of the Playa · Post by **Simon of the Playa** » Tue Jan 11, 2011 1:22 pm

+1000

geospyder · Post by **geospyder** » Tue Jan 11, 2011 2:37 pm

"...narc and gang unit cops will have to release their financial records."

Playing devil's advocate. What does "release their financial records" mean? Internally to the department? Externally to the public? Internal is one thing, external is a whole different story. Most cops I know don't advertise they are cops, especially if they have a wife and family. Why let the BGS know where you live, who your wife is, where your kids go to school?

Roberto Dobbisano · Post by **Roberto Dobbisano** » Tue Jan 11, 2011 2:50 pm

i agree geo, some measure of security must be incorporated into the transparency, but isn't that what IA is for?

all public officials should be held accountable.

Post by **Eric** » Tue Jan 11, 2011 3:12 pm

Okay, I've finally located the original Associated Press article. Neither it nor the FOX report originally posted claim the officers quit "enmasse" as the Rebbe posted, they just say that

Dozens of anti-gang police officers across the city are quitting their assignments

Most are going back to regular patrols in the same area.

As to why they don't want to reveal the information- your guess is as good as mine. Lately I'm not so much into pretending I have an answer.

Kinetik V · Post by **Kinetik V** » Tue Jan 11, 2011 6:00 pm

The request is bullshit. Just because you are a sworn officer doesn't mean you have to give up all your rights and submit yourself to political rape all in the name of bullshit transparency.

To ask ANY officer anywhere in the USA to have to give up their bank statements to the DOJ is flat fucking wrong. And that's what's being asked here. Regular officers don't have to do it, and there's no need whatsofuckingever for the gang unit officers to have to do it.

Again, this is utter bullshit of the highest possible stench imaginable.

ygmir · Post by **ygmir** » Tue Jan 11, 2011 6:04 pm

is the mayor in L.A. a democrat?

Post by **Elderberry** » Tue Jan 11, 2011 6:40 pm

ygmir wrote:is the mayor in L.A. a democrat?

Yes.

JK

Post by **Elderberry** » Tue Jan 11, 2011 6:43 pm

Kinetic V wrote:The request is bullshit. Just because you are a sworn officer doesn't mean you have to give up all your rights and submit yourself to political rape all in the name of bullshit transparency.

To ask ANY officer anywhere in the USA to have to give up their bank statements to the DOJ is flat fucking wrong. And that's what's being asked here. Regular officers don't have to do it, and there's no need whatsofuckingever for the gang unit officers to have to do it.

Again, this is utter bullshit of the highest possible stench imaginable.

I agree with you. I think all police officers should make their bank statements public. It's not only gang enforcement officers susceptible to taking a bribe.

JK

Rabbi Dali Rick · Post by **Rabbi Dali Rick** » Tue Jan 11, 2011 6:50 pm

I don't know...

being around all that cash, and bad people with cash is pretty powerful. If you are a straight up cop you should not have millions floating around in your finances, and one of the only ways to catch a crooked cop is the paper trail .

I'm not saying release personal info on the cops, that would be crazy.

the rebbi

TomServo · Post by **TomServo** » Tue Jan 11, 2011 7:07 pm

I liked Jello Biafra's proposal of Cops being elected to power.

can't sit still · Post by **can't sit still** » Tue Jan 11, 2011 7:44 pm

ygmir wrote:is the mayor in L.A. a democrat?

Hmmm, not sure if he's a zombie or a democrat;

Post by **Elderberry** » Tue Jan 11, 2011 7:47 pm

can't sit still wrote:
ygmir wrote:is the mayor in L.A. a democrat?
Hmmm, not sure if he's a zombie or a democrat;

That was funny! No, really, it was.

JK

theCryptofishist · Post by **theCryptofishist** » Tue Jan 11, 2011 8:44 pm

If there's good reason to suspect a particular cop, then get a warrant and look at his finances. But being a cop is the same as having no privacy? What kind of power mad idiots, who can launder money like (okay, I can't really say "like a village of chinese immigrants, but I'm sure hta there's a clever metaphor that could go here), are you going to end up with? At some point treating cops like the enemy is going to make them the enemy. I understand why there's a gap between police and citizens and I think that would be there under any circumstances, but no need to push them further away.

And anyway, who's next? Teachers? (Want to make sure she's not running a numbers racket with our kids.) Fire fighters? (Oh, he looted instead of putting out the fire!)
Start with congressmen. And elected city officials. They can be much more corrupt than the rest of us.

Post by **Elderberry** » Tue Jan 11, 2011 8:50 pm

theCryptofishist wrote:If there's good reason to suspect a particular cop, then get a warrant and look at his finances. But being a cop is the same as having no privacy? What kind of power mad idiots, who can launder money like (okay, I can't really say "like a village of chinese immigrants, but I'm sure hta there's a clever metaphor that could go here), are you going to end up with? At some point treating cops like the enemy is going to make them the enemy. I understand why there's a gap between police and citizens and I think that would be there under any circumstances, but no need to push them further away.

And anyway, who's next? Teachers? (Want to make sure she's not running a numbers racket with our kids.) Fire fighters? (Oh, he looted instead of putting out the fire!)
Start with congressmen. And elected city officials. They can be much more corrupt than the rest of us.

Don't they already do background checks before hiring new teachers to make sure they won't molest your kids?

Cops have lost a lot of credibility since the invention of cell phone video cameras. With the arguments given against financial checks, I am still not convinced they are a bad idea.

JK

Kinetik V · Post by **Kinetik V** » Tue Jan 11, 2011 9:49 pm

There is no reason to do anything more than background checks on teachers. Their finances are going to suck because a vast majority of them dip deep into their pockets to fund things that parents and the State seem to not be able to do. In my mind...having family now working in LE no less, they took an oath to uphold the law and along with that oath comes an expectation of trust. To circumvent that trust by requiring these financial disclosures weakens a system that while it has it's cracks is still fundamentally strong...and has served us well for many years.

If a cop is corrupt, their greed usually gets the best of them and they eventually slip up and get caught. If you feed a problem enough rope it will take care of itself over time. I do believe cops should be drug tested...in fact I support drug testing for cops, EVERYONE directly involved in public transportation / transit for that matter should be tested and randomly at that. But that's where I say the line should be drawn. Cops, teachers, etc are people too...and they deserve our respect, our trust, and due diligence can be carried out in a balanced and uniform manner...singling out the gang unit for this onerous disclosure crap just isn't acceptable.

Post by **Elderberry** » Wed Jan 12, 2011 12:07 am

Interesting. I don't care if they want to use drugs when not on duty and I think drug testing is a much greater invasion of privacy. But I do care if they are corrupt and I'd rather have them required to disclose their finances. The president and most other public officials are required to disclose, so I don't see anything wrong with the cops doing so as well.

JK

Bluemandrew · Post by **Bluemandrew** » Wed Jan 12, 2011 1:11 am

Kinetic V wrote: they took an oath to uphold the law and along with that oath comes an expectation of trust.

Someone taking an oath doesn't really earn them any level of trust in my play book. I know too many people who are more than happy to lie to anyone at anytime, even with no reason. Add the incentive of tax free blood money? Hell yeah.

can't sit still · Post by **can't sit still** » Wed Jan 12, 2011 9:24 am

jk, I really don't have anything against Villriagosa. He's typical of California Dems.
"Without revenue from the parking garage lease, the city would be $62.7 million in the red. Another $350 million deficit looms in the next fiscal year."
OK, so the brain-dead boneheads sell the parking garage to squeeze by this year. Typical idiots, What plan do they have for the $ 350 million shortfall next year?
http://www.dailynews.com/news/ci_17075690?source=rss

FIGJAM · Post by **FIGJAM** » Wed Jan 12, 2011 9:28 am

That's nothing.

We sold our capital building, so now we lease it!

Post by **Elderberry** » Wed Jan 12, 2011 11:25 am

can't sit still wrote:jk, I really don't have anything against Villriagosa. He's typical of California Dems.
"Without revenue from the parking garage lease, the city would be $62.7 million in the red. Another $350 million deficit looms in the next fiscal year."
OK, so the brain-dead boneheads sell the parking garage to squeeze by this year. Typical idiots, What plan do they have for the $ 350 million shortfall next year?
http://www.dailynews.com/news/ci_17075690?source=rss

That's interesting...I actually don't care that much for Villariagosa. Fortunately, I live in West Hollywood.

JK

The CO · Post by **The CO** » Wed Jan 12, 2011 12:45 pm

I think police should be & are (to some extent) held to a higher standard. Once you give someone the powers that to affect lives as much as they can, from shooting to arrests & all points between, we (the society they are supposed to protect and serve) have every right to expect them to show in word and deed that they are worthy of that power.

In the specific case of the LA Rampart Division gang unit, we're talking about a specialized group that about 10 years ago was found to be movie-villain levels of corrupt. Pretty nearly the whole damn group. In order to stop things like that, financial disclosure began to be required by DOJ.

We require criminals to prove that they are at least trying to improve/rehabilitate themselves with things like parole & probation. Even if they "pass" the system, they are branded for life. By the same token, I have no problem with requiring those officers that want to work for a unit that was found widely corrupt a little over a decade ago to prove they are trying to improve/rehabilitate the trust to be placed in the department.

To turn around a phrase I hear law enforcement types use frequently;

If they are not doing anything illegal, what are they worried about? This requirement will only affect wrongdoers.

Post by **Elderberry** » Wed Jan 12, 2011 1:00 pm

Well spoken TCO. I had forgotten about the Rampart Corruotion scandal.

JK

Kinetik V · Post by **Kinetik V** » Wed Jan 12, 2011 6:45 pm

So...let me get this straight. Because of the mistakes made 10 years ago, every officer who joins that division should be considered suspect?

Things change. People change. Organizations change. And perceptions have to change as well...even though they do fall far behind on the change curve compared to everything else. In short...I still think what the DOJ is doing is BS, and this policy needs to be tossed out. And so far between what I'm reading here and in the media I haven't seen anything that's made me even slightly think I should change my mind on the topic.

The CO · Post by **The CO** » Thu Jan 13, 2011 10:24 am

Kinetic, ease off the throttle, man. DOJ is who made the rules, yell at them.

I think that calling the Rampart Division scandal "mistakes" is minimizing, but that's a discussion for another thread.

the AP article wrote: "Paysinger said gang officers who chose to quit rather than fill in the forms did not have a full understanding of the policy, and said the financial disclosure forms were less intrusive than credit card applications."

If that is indeed the case*, I don't see the problem. Employers & housing managers use perform credit checks on prospective employees & tenants. Security and background checks become more rigorous the higher you get in "top secret" classifications. When the potential for harm that can be done by someone corrupt in a position of power increases, it seems reasonable to me to increase the oversight of that position.

*All information I have been able to find regarding this is the Associated Press article. There is not a lot of information out there, my opinions based on what little info I have found & some personal experiance. Void where prohibited, taxes not included, actual product may vary.

Kinetik V · Post by **Kinetik V** » Thu Jan 13, 2011 7:40 pm

If you think I'm on the throttle hard now...just get me started on credit score abuse and discriminatory credit profile use.

The CO · Post by **The CO** » Fri Jan 14, 2011 2:12 am

I am totally with you on credit score abuse et al. <!!!!!!!>

OMFG!

(but that is for another thread)