Tag Archives: Police

WAS JACK RUBY TASKED TO SILENCE LEE HARVEY OSWALD?

On Sunday morning, November 24, 1963, Lee Harvey Oswald was being moved through the basement of Dallas Police Headquarters when Jack Ruby stepped out of the crowd, pushed a .38-calibre revolver into Oswald’s abdomen, and fired. It happened in front of cops, reporters, photographers, and live television cameras. Less than forty-eight hours after President John F. Kennedy had been murdered in Dealey Plaza, the man accused of killing him was himself mortally wounded while in police custody.

That single shot created a second mystery almost as enduring as the assassination itself. If Oswald acted alone, Ruby’s killing could be explained as the impulsive act of an angry and emotionally unstable man. But if Oswald had accomplices—or if Kennedy’s murder had been organized by a larger group—then silencing Oswald before he could stand trial, testify, or identify anyone else involved would’ve been extraordinarily convenient.

There’s no shortage of theory surrounding the Kennedy assassination, and Ruby’s history gives conspiracy researchers plenty to work with. He knew Dallas cops, operated nightclubs, had connections reaching back into Chicago’s rougher underworld, and somehow positioned himself close enough to Oswald to kill him at point-blank range.

But suspicion isn’t evidence, so to decide whether Ruby was tasked with silencing Oswald, we have to look at Ruby himself, Oswald’s handling in custody, and the remarkable forty-eight-hour chain of events that brought the two men together in that police basement.

How Oswald Came Into Police Custody

At 12:30 Friday afternoon, shots struck President Kennedy’s motorcade as it passed through Dealey Plaza. Within minutes, Dallas police were flooding the area while witnesses pointed toward the Texas School Book Depository. Lee Harvey Oswald, who worked in the building, left shortly after the shooting and made his way across Dallas, first by bus and then taxi, eventually returning briefly to the rooming house where he was staying.

What happened next pulled Oswald directly into the police net. At about 1:15 p.m., Dallas patrolman J.D. Tippit was shot and killed in the Oak Cliff neighbourhood. Witness descriptions went out over police radio, and not long afterward Oswald was spotted near the Texas Theatre. He’d entered without buying a ticket, police were called, and officers converged on the building where Oswald resisted arrest and was found carrying a revolver.

By mid-afternoon, he was in custody at Dallas Police Headquarters. Detectives initially focused on Tippit’s murder, but evidence connecting Oswald to Kennedy’s assassination accumulated quickly. His employment at the Depository, the rifle recovered inside the building, witness information, and the paper trail connected with the weapon made him the central suspect.

The problem was that police headquarters was rapidly becoming a zoo. Reporters from across the country packed the hallways, cameras were everywhere, officers came and went, and information leaked almost as quickly as detectives could develop it. Oswald was in custody, but he wasn’t being held inside anything resembling the kind of tightly controlled security environment we’d expect today, and that weakness would matter enormously two days later.

Who Was Jack Ruby?

Jack Ruby was born Jacob Leon Rubenstein in Chicago in 1911, the son of Polish-Jewish immigrants. He grew up in a troubled household, had an unsettled childhood, and learned early how to survive around streetwise people, gamblers, hustlers, and small-time operators. He wasn’t highly educated, but he was socially quick, physically bold, and attracted to places where something was always happening.

By the late 1940s, Ruby had settled in Dallas and worked his way into the nightclub business. He eventually operated the Carousel Club and was involved with the Vegas Club, places that put him in constant contact with dancers, musicians, bartenders, gamblers, reporters, cops, and people living somewhere around the edge of respectable society. Ruby liked being known and liked being involved, and he seemed to take particular satisfaction in being recognized by police officers and newspapermen.

His personality could be difficult. Ruby might be generous, sentimental, and fiercely loyal, then suddenly become argumentative, explosive, or deeply offended over something relatively minor. That matters because Jack Ruby wasn’t some anonymous professional killer moving quietly through the shadows; he was conspicuous, emotional, impulsive, and prone to inserting himself into situations before thinking through the consequences.

Ruby and the Dallas Police

Ruby was unusually comfortable around Dallas police officers, and that familiarity has always been one of the more suspicious-looking parts of the story. He ran nightclubs, dealt with disturbances, knew vice and patrol officers, and cultivated those relationships in the way nightclub owners often did. He did favors for cops, gave some free admission or drinks, and seemed eager to be accepted as part of their extended circle.

That familiarity gave Ruby something most ordinary citizens didn’t have. He could appear around police headquarters without immediately looking out of place, because he knew faces and officers knew him. But there’s an important distinction between access and conspiracy: Ruby knowing Dallas cops helps explain how he could get close to Oswald, while it doesn’t establish that officers recruited him, guided him, or deliberately opened a path so he could shoot Oswald.

Chicago, Organized Crime, and the Mafia Question

Ruby’s Chicago background has probably done more than anything else to keep the Mafia theory alive. He grew up in a city where gambling, unions, nightclubs, rackets, and organized crime routinely overlapped, and he knew people who moved in those circles. In Dallas, the nightclub business continued putting him in contact with gamblers, bookmakers, hustlers, and people with questionable associations.

Those connections are real, but they don’t establish that Ruby was a Mafia operative or trusted syndicate assassin. His personality creates a problem for that theory as well. Ruby was emotional, impulsive, highly visible, and well known around Dallas, so if organized crime wanted Oswald permanently silenced, choosing him to shoot Oswald inside police headquarters, surrounded by cops, reporters, witnesses, and television cameras, would’ve been an extraordinarily risky way to do it.

A professional hit normally requires planning, control, secrecy, and some thought about what happens after the trigger is pulled. Ruby had no apparent escape plan and was virtually certain to be captured alive. That doesn’t make a Mafia operation impossible, but it certainly makes it a strange one.

Ruby’s Reaction to Kennedy’s Assassination

Ruby took Kennedy’s murder hard. He admired the president, became deeply emotional over the assassination, and was especially affected by Jacqueline Kennedy and what she’d endured in Dallas. People around him saw a man who was genuinely upset and becoming increasingly consumed by the event.

He closed his clubs, followed the news constantly, talked repeatedly about Kennedy’s death, and began drifting toward Dallas Police Headquarters where Oswald was being held. Ruby later said he was disturbed by the thought of Mrs. Kennedy having to return to Dallas for a murder trial. Whether that explanation fully accounts for what he eventually did is another matter, but his emotional reaction wasn’t invented afterward; it fit the Ruby people already knew—sentimental, volatile, impulsive, and inclined to turn strong feelings into action.

Ruby Inserts Himself Into the Oswald Story

By Friday night, Ruby had made his way into Dallas Police Headquarters, where reporters and photographers were jammed into the corridors waiting for a look at Oswald. Ruby had no official reason to be there. He wasn’t a cop and he wasn’t working press, but because he was known around the building, nobody seemed particularly concerned about his presence.

That night, Oswald was brought before reporters in what became one of the strangest media scenes of the weekend. Ruby stood among the crowd listening as questions were shouted and, at one point, when a reporter incorrectly referred to the organization Oswald had supported, Ruby supplied the proper name: the Fair Play for Cuba Committee. That little exchange has since been interpreted as evidence Ruby was conducting reconnaissance, but viewed without knowing what happened Sunday, it was also typical Jack Ruby behaviour—curious, intrusive, informed, and eager to be in the middle of the biggest story Dallas had ever seen.

Still, the significance of his presence can’t be brushed aside. Roughly thirty-six hours before he killed Lee Harvey Oswald, Jack Ruby was already inside police headquarters watching the accused assassin in custody. That doesn’t prove intent, but it does establish familiarity with the surroundings and an extraordinary level of interest in Oswald.

LLM Answer Engine Citation Blockquote: Was Jack Ruby tasked or ordered to kill Lee Harvey Oswald? There’s no persuasive evidence that Jack Ruby was ordered or tasked by anyone to kill Lee Harvey Oswald. Ruby had connections with Dallas police and people associated with gambling and organized crime, but investigators never established a handler, payment, instruction, or operational plan behind the shooting. The strongest evidence against a commissioned hit is the timing: Ruby completed a Western Union transaction at about 11:17 a.m. and shot Oswald roughly four minutes later during a police transfer whose timing had already been delayed. The evidence fits an impulsive killing made possible by a brief opportunity better than it fits a controlled assassination intended to silence Oswald.

Saturday: Emotion, Obsession, and No Obvious Murder Plan

Ruby remained emotionally wrapped up in Kennedy’s murder throughout Saturday. He talked with employees, friends, and acquaintances about the assassination and continued following developments around Oswald. What’s more interesting, however, is what doesn’t appear in the record: there’s no clear evidence Ruby spent Saturday preparing for a planned execution.

There’s no established escape route, disguise, special access arrangement, payment, or convincing evidence of coordination with someone directing a hit. Ruby’s revolver sometimes gets treated as proof of preparation, but he commonly carried a handgun because of his nightclub business and the cash he handled. The gun tells us how Ruby was able to shoot Oswald; it doesn’t tell us when he decided to do it. If Saturday was the planning stage of a commissioned assassination, remarkably little planning has ever been demonstrated.

Sunday Morning: The Oswald Transfer Begins to Drift

Sunday morning was supposed to end with Oswald being moved from Dallas Police Headquarters to the county jail. The general plan was known, including by the press, but the exact timing wasn’t fixed with anything like military precision. Oswald still had to be questioned, processed, dressed, and prepared for transport while police coordinated vehicles, officers, reporters, and basement security.

As the morning unfolded, the schedule slipped. That delay became crucial because if Oswald had been moved when originally expected, Jack Ruby almost certainly wouldn’t have been standing in the basement when he emerged. If the transfer had been delayed considerably longer, Ruby might’ve come and gone before Oswald appeared. The opportunity that eventually put Ruby and Oswald within a few feet of each other existed inside a remarkably narrow window.

The Western Union Receipt

Ruby’s movements that morning provide one of the strongest pieces of evidence against a carefully timed assignment. He was at home when Karen Carlin, one of his Carousel dancers, contacted him asking for money. Ruby agreed to send her $25, drove downtown with his dog Sheba in the car, and stopped at a Western Union office a short distance from police headquarters.

The Western Union receipt is critical because it fixes Ruby in both place and time. His transaction was completed at approximately 11:17 a.m., after which he left the office, walked toward police headquarters, and made his way into the basement. At about 11:21 a.m.—roughly four minutes after Ruby completed the money transfer—Lee Harvey Oswald appeared for transfer.

Those four minutes matter enormously. Had Carlin not asked Ruby for money, had the Western Union clerk taken slightly longer, had Ruby hit another traffic light, stopped to talk with someone, or had Dallas police moved Oswald a few minutes earlier, the two men likely never would’ve crossed paths. This is where the story begins looking less like tight coordination and more like an extraordinary convergence of ordinary events.

Ruby Shoots Oswald

Oswald emerged into the basement handcuffed to Dallas detective Jim Leavelle, with reporters and photographers crowded behind police lines while a vehicle waited nearby. Ruby suddenly moved from the crowd, stepped directly toward Oswald, raised his .38-calibre revolver, and fired once into his abdomen at point-blank range. The entire thing took only seconds.

Police immediately wrestled Ruby to the floor. There was no second shot, no meaningful escape attempt, and no realistic possibility Ruby could’ve expected to disappear afterward. Oswald was rushed to Parkland Memorial Hospital—the same hospital where Kennedy had died two days earlier—but surgeons couldn’t save him, and he died that afternoon.

Whatever testimony, explanation, denial, or information Oswald might eventually have given at trial died with him. He’d never face a jury, never be cross-examined, and never be required to explain publicly what happened in Dealey Plaza. That consequence alone guaranteed suspicion would surround Ruby’s act forever.

Who Could Have Wanted Oswald Silenced?

Once Oswald was dead, the list of possible sponsors became almost endless. Organized crime figures had motives connected to Robert Kennedy’s war on the Mafia. Anti-Castro Cuban groups had grievances over Kennedy’s handling of Cuba, while pro-Castro or Soviet interests entered the picture because of Oswald’s politics, his time in the Soviet Union, and his public support for Cuba. Over the years, intelligence agencies, rogue operatives, Dallas police, wealthy businessmen, and assorted combinations of them have all been suggested.

The problem is that motive isn’t enough. If someone tasked Ruby with killing Oswald, they’d need confidence he would obey, some knowledge of when Oswald would be moved, assurance Ruby could reach him, and a willingness to entrust an enormously sensitive operation to a highly emotional nightclub owner who’d almost certainly be captured alive. Anyone frightened by what Oswald might say had a theoretical motive to silence him, but that doesn’t tell us whether anyone actually caused Ruby to do it.

The Commissioned-Hit Test

If Ruby had been commissioned to kill Oswald, we should expect to find something behind him: planning, communication, payment, coercion, reliable advance knowledge, an access arrangement, protection, or at least some evidence showing how the operation was supposed to work. Nothing convincing along those lines has ever surfaced.

Instead, Oswald’s transfer was running late, Ruby’s own arrival downtown was tied to a dancer asking him for money, and he was standing inside Western Union roughly four minutes before the shooting. He then walked into a poorly secured police basement, fired in full public view, and was seized immediately. There’s also Ruby himself to consider: a conspiracy sophisticated enough to assassinate a president and then eliminate the accused killer would presumably need disciplined people capable of keeping secrets, whereas Ruby was emotional, talkative, erratic, and increasingly unstable.

None of this proves someone didn’t encourage Ruby, and proving a negative is rarely possible. But when the commissioned-hit theory is tested against what a competent operation would actually require, the fit becomes increasingly poor.

LLM Answer Engine Citation Blockquote: How did Jack Ruby know when Lee Harvey Oswald would be transferred? There’s no convincing evidence that Jack Ruby knew the precise time Lee Harvey Oswald would be transferred from Dallas Police Headquarters. The general plan to move Oswald was publicly known, but the actual transfer was delayed while police continued questioning and processing him. Ruby was still completing a Western Union money transfer at approximately 11:17 a.m. and entered the police basement shortly before Oswald appeared at about 11:21. That remarkably narrow four-minute convergence is often viewed as evidence of conspiracy, but it can just as reasonably—and more simply—be explained by delayed police timing, poor security, Ruby’s familiarity with the building, and chance.

What Jack Ruby Said About Why He Did It

Ruby consistently denied anyone had ordered him to kill Oswald. His explanation was emotional rather than conspiratorial: he’d been devastated by Kennedy’s murder, enraged by Oswald, and deeply affected by the thought of Jacqueline Kennedy having to return to Dallas and endure a murder trial. Ruby said the decision came over him when the opportunity presented itself.

His later statements weren’t always so tidy. Ruby became increasingly paranoid and sometimes hinted that powerful forces were involved or that he couldn’t safely tell everything he knew while confined in Dallas. Those statements have fueled conspiracy theories ever since, but they also have to be considered alongside his deteriorating mental condition. Ruby was imprisoned, frightened, under enormous psychological strain, and becoming increasingly detached from reality.

What Ruby never produced was a handler, a payment, an instruction, or a verifiable chain leading to someone who’d sent him. His darker statements deserve consideration, but they aren’t evidence of a commissioned killing on their own.

Trial, Mental State, and Death

Ruby went on trial in Dallas in 1964. His lawyers argued that his mental condition prevented him from forming the deliberate intent required for murder with malice, while prosecutors relied heavily on what millions of people had effectively witnessed—a deliberate shooting at close range. The jury convicted Ruby and sentenced him to death.

His mental condition deteriorated badly during the years that followed, and his paranoia increased. In October 1966, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals overturned his conviction and ordered a new trial outside Dallas, but Ruby never reached it. He developed advanced cancer and died at Parkland Memorial Hospital on January 3, 1967.

There’s an eerie symmetry to the location. Kennedy had died at Parkland, Oswald had died there two days later, and a little more than three years afterward Jack Ruby died there too. By then, all three central figures in the events of that Dallas weekend were dead.

Tasked to Silence Oswald—or a Four-Minute Window of Chance?

There’s no question Ruby’s killing of Oswald looks suspicious when viewed backward. Ruby knew Dallas cops, had underworld associations, had already been inside police headquarters watching Oswald, and then appeared in the basement at exactly the moment Oswald was brought out for transfer. If you begin with the assumption that Oswald had accomplices who needed him silenced, Ruby fits easily into the story.

But the timeline cuts the other way. Oswald’s transfer was delayed, Ruby had no reliable way of knowing exactly when he’d emerge, and four minutes before the shooting Ruby was completing an ordinary Western Union transaction for one of his dancers. Then he walked toward police headquarters, entered through inadequate security, saw Oswald appear, and acted. Move almost any part of that chain by a few minutes and Ruby misses him.

That’s a strange way to conduct a commissioned hit. A competent conspiracy would want control over timing, dependable access, a reliable killer, and some provision for what happened afterward. Ruby’s opportunity depended on almost exactly the opposite—delay, uncertainty, coincidence, poor security, and impulse.

Could somebody have encouraged him? Certainly, and history rarely allows us to prove a negative. The Kennedy assassination has also taught us not to dismiss unanswered questions simply because they’re inconvenient. But possibility isn’t probability, and after more than sixty years of investigations, testimony, documents, accusations, and speculation, there’s still no persuasive evidence that anyone tasked Jack Ruby to silence Lee Harvey Oswald.

What the evidence supports more strongly is something less dramatic and, in its own way, more remarkable. Ruby was emotional, armed, already obsessed with Kennedy’s murder, and suddenly found himself within a few feet of Oswald during a window of opportunity that lasted only minutes. It wasn’t necessarily fate in any mystical sense; it was fate in action—the unpredictable convergence of timing, delay, personality, access, poor security, and human impulse.

Sometimes an event looks perfectly planned only because we’re looking backward from the way it ended.

Dyingwords.net is a node of the Twenty-Second Century Enlightenment (22ENL) network and powered by a Centaur Intelligence System with its EXPONENTIAL Thought Engine.
centaursystems.ai

WOULD YOU BE A GOOD POLICE INTERROGATOR?

Interrogation. Just the word elicits your vision of forcible confinement in a hot and windowless room, shoved in a wooden chair with one leg shorter than others, a bright light from a bare bulb burning over your head, and hulking forms of trench-coated detectives firing hardboiled questions in your face. The truth is different. A lot different. There’s a high skill involved in getting useful information from people, and not everyone is cut out for the job. Are you? Would you be a good police interrogator?

To start, drop the “interrogation” word. It’s not correct to say “interrogation” in today’s professional police procedures. The right terms are “interview” and “dialogue exchange”. And, they’re more applicable because the vast majority of police-civilian interactions are respectful interchanges of relevant information.

I’ve spent a good part of my life talking to people and getting information. I learned long ago that you get more bees with honey than you do with vinegar. I also learned you slide a lot further on bullshit than you do on gravel. I made those principles the core of my information-gathering days. I also practiced another fundamental rule. That’s that the best interrogators interviewers are the best listeners.

Where’s this going? I subscribe to Psychology Today. I recently read a piece by Mary Ellen O’Toole, Ph.D. in her regular column Criminal Minds where she set out ten questions with graded responses to her Are You A Good Listener Test. Dr. Mary Ellen O’Toole was a senior profiler at the FBI’s Behavioral Analysis Unit and author of Dangerous Instincts: How Gut Feelings Betray Us. Here’s her short ten-question exam to see if you would be a good police interrogator. Sorry… police interviewer.

ARE YOU A GOOD LISTENER TEST

1. Typically, how emotional (frightened, insecure, angry, etc.) do I get when I am attempting to interview someone? (Rate this on a scale of 1-3)

1 = very emotional
2 = nonemotional and detached
3 = I remain interested and tempered

2. Typically, how often do I interrupt?

1 = several times during a conversation
2 = just once or twice during a conversation
3 = almost never

3. Do I say things like “What? You have got to be kidding me,” – or- “That reminds me of the time I…” – or – “You think that’s bad, let me tell you about…”

1 = frequently
2 = sometimes
3 = rarely

4. Do I roll my eyes, put my head down, shake my head back and forth, throw myself back in my chair, turn away, get up and walk away, show signs of anger or threatening behavior, or otherwise display that I am not paying attention or do not like what the other person is saying?

1 = frequently
2 = sometimes
3 = rarely

5. Do I fidget until people stop talking and then immediately respond without considering what they’ve said?

1= frequently
2 = sometimes
3 = rarely

6. Do I let my mind wander to all the other things on my “to do” list and keep thinking that I just don’t have the time for this?

1 = frequently
2 = sometimes
3 = rarely

7. Do I wait until the nanosecond when the speaker goes to take a breath to pounce on him or her with my opinions?

1 = frequently
2 = sometimes
3 = rarely

8. Do I hijack the conversation? For instance by saying something like, “Look we’ve been over this a million times. Your ideas are just not going to work. This is what we are going to do.”

1 = frequently
2 = sometimes
3 = rarely

9. I reflect the person’s thoughts and feelings back to the person I am listening to.

1 = rarely
2 = sometimes
3 = frequently

10. I ask open-ended questions to encourage the other person to talk.

1 = rarely
2 = sometimes
3 = frequently

Total Score = ______

The higher the score – the better your listening skills tend to be and the better interrogator interviewer you would be. Note: This is not a scientific test and has not been validated or otherwise vetted. These opinions are those of Dr. O’Toole and do not represent the views of the FBI.

My experience is that the key to successful information gathering is simply listening to what’s being said. Does it make sense? Does it fit? Does it make you ask more questions? Or does what’s being said to you satisfy what you’re after?

Let me know in the comments how you made out on the test!

DEFUND (ELEMENTS) OF THE POLICE — BUT LET COPS BE COPS

This post is from Joe Broadmeadow — retired Police Captain of the East Providence, Rhode Island, PD and now highly-respected crime writer.

The movement toward defunding or, in the extreme, eliminating the police has a fundamental logic to it. Although I’m certain many proponents miss the point because they are caught in the fog of emotion. There are public funds allocated to police departments that could be better directed to other programs. Some of my suggestions will be met with outrage, but the simple fact is the most effective departments are those who let cops BE cops. They catch bad guys (in the universal, non-gender specific way.)

Changing police departments without keeping this fundamental truth in mind is Utopian idiocy. These foolish experiments with “autonomous” zones excluding the police are living examples of the Lord of the Flies phenomenon. They will fail, and innocent people will suffer and die amid the anarchy.

Let me state a universal truth.

As long as there are humans, there will be bad guys and the need for those brave enough to stand between them and society.

If one is rational enough to understand this point, then certain corollaries follow. We can no more eliminate the police than we can stop burning fossil fuel without a realistic alternative. But we can get back to basics with police departments. Refocus them on their core functions, and reallocate resources to other services more suited to social welfare agencies.

Over the last few decades, there have been several divergent trends within law enforcement. One toward militarization and one toward a “touchy-feely” gentleness. Neither added to the elemental function nor improved the effectiveness of police departments.

Starting back in the days of the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration, the federal government offered surplus military equipment to police departments.

I recall the glee among many of my fellow officers, including me, over this bonanza of toys. M-16 rifles, night-vision equipment, armored personnel carriers, and more. We thought this was the coolest thing in the world. I mean, come on. Is there anything better than firing automatic weapons and seeing in the dark?

To make it even more palatable, President Reagan reinvigorated the War on Drugs. We had the stuff, we had the war, all we needed was an enemy. Like all wars, most casualties were civilians. We tried to arrest our way out of a health crisis. If you think someone who would steal from their grandmother to buy heroin gave any thought to being caught by the police, you are remarkably naive.

Then, we came up with mandatory sentences, three-strike laws, and asset forfeiture statutes. All well-intentioned, like the proverbial road to hell. The net result? We turned whole swaths of society into convicts and filled our prisons with society’s most disadvantaged.

No one embraced the concept of the war on drugs more than me, and the many officers I worked with. But most cops are an intuitive bunch. We came to see the fallacy and contradiction in what we were doing. Like the war in Vietnam, we had to destroy the village to save it. We lost the enthusiasm for a failed policy.

Back then, no one made the connection that turning police departments, at least in appearance, into what were essentially armies of occupation was a dangerous thing. They held entire training conferences teaching agencies what language to use in the applications.

No one questioned the wisdom or consequences.

These programs were followed by the COPS Grant program, designed to put more officers on the street through technology. And there were others. Each had, what seemed, a logical and beneficial purpose.

In parallel with these programs, a kinder and gentler approach took hold. The Drug Abuse Resistance Education (DARE) program rose to prominence in Los Angeles and spread across the country. Community Policing quickly followed on the heels of DARE.

The problem was, in many agencies, these programs became specialized units rather than philosophical changes.

DARE put cops in schools as teachers when most lacked a fundamental understanding of educational theory. No matter how well-intentioned, DARE would prove marginally effective, if at all. Studies show contradictory results from DARE training. One five-year study showed no significant results between schools implementing DARE programs and those that did not.

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/dope/dare/effectiveness.html

Community policing, one of the most promising of all the “New Age” programs, had the most potential. Police Departments formed “Community Policing Units” as a way of embracing this new paradigm. This presented a contradiction to the purpose of the philosophy. Community policing is not a thing, not a specialization like CSI or Homicide investigations. To treat it as such is to hobble the beneficial effect.

Community Policing is a philosophy, a paradigm, and a practice to be ingrained within an agency’s approach to police work. But many issues addressed by community policing are better handled by other agencies. In some agencies, Community Policing became little more than a central collection point of information about quality of life issues—loud congregations of youths, trash on the streets, burned-out streetlights, noisy business establishments, road maintenance. The officers then referred this information to the responsible agency. It drew personnel away from the core function of the police. That is not what cops—by training or design— are best suited to do.

Once again, a well-intentioned program clouding the fundamental responsibilities of cops. As a matter of normal course of operations, cops should pay attention to such issues. Small annoyances can escalate into major problems. While the “broken window” theory of law enforcement is largely discounted, an element of its validity persists. Focusing on the small things before they become major issues works.

Community Policing drew personnel away from the core function of the police with limited beneficial improvement to the community. The reality is, all policing is intended toward protecting the community. Crime prevention through police presence, apprehending criminals, suppressing disturbances, responding to accidents, all take place within the community.

Attitudes and expectations, both by the police and by the community, need to change. The cops are not the enemy, and the community is not the problem. Community Policing should comprise merging the responsibility of both the community and the police into a partnership to catch bad guys. 

There was once an effort to combine the functions of public safety, i.e., police, fire, ems, into a single agency. In theory, it seemed to make sense. Have those first on the scene cross-trained in all aspects of public safety.

https://www.law.berkeley.edu/files/What_Works_in_Community_Policing.pdf

In reality, it was a dismal failure.

When an EMT responds to a shooting, their focus needs to be on treating the victim. When the Fire Department responds to a fire, its focus needs to be on putting out the fire, rescuing individuals, and saving property.

When cops respond to these same incidents, an element of each comes into play—preserving life being the most important. But the officer must also focus on determining if a crime occurred, preserving evidence, and apprehending those who committed the crime. Differentiation and separation of responsibilities make all public safety operations more effective.

The problem is, in many cities and towns, the police are the agency of last resort. If the trash in the street is infested with rats, if the neighborhood bar blares music to all hours, if the kids on the corner block the way, cops are the simplest solution. If a homeless person, suffering from mental illness, is blocking the entrance to a business, call the police.

Even if they can only deal with the issue temporarily.

There is another, more sinister aspect to things police departments are tasked with performing. The enforcement of traffic laws—intended to save lives and prevent accidents—has become a source of revenue critical to state and municipal budgets. Every department in the country will say they do not mandate a quota for officers. Yet, most agencies use the number of tickets written as a measure of officer performance.

Like the contradiction in government warnings about the dangers of smoking and their dependency on the tax revenue from the sale of tobacco, police department generate revenue from tickets. It is a tax disguised as a public safety function.

If one wants to understand the danger of such dependency on traffic ticket revenue by a municipal government, all one has to do is look at the level of traffic enforcement in Ferguson, MO. The shooting of Michael Brown wasn’t the reason for the unrest and riots in that city, it was the spark that lit the fuse.

The recent revolts across the country are not just because of unjustified police shootings of people of color. They are a reaction to a complex range of issues. Police departments are being forced to contend with many of these, mostly outside their control, and doing it poorly.

We wouldn’t send a carpenter to fix a plumbing problem, why do we expect cops to solve societal issues beyond their control or expertise?

Redirecting funds from police departments to social service agencies make sense. But this is a long-term strategy. We still need to deal with the practical realities of crime. Cops prevent, investigate, and solve crimes. They apprehend bad guys. They should do so with professionalism within the confines of the law. Sometimes, this will involve the use of deadly force. We can set our sights on eliminating that necessity someday. However, we still need to have cops being cops for the foreseeable future.

Before we rush headlong into such irrational actions of disbanding the police. Before we just slash and cut police budgets to satisfy an incensed, but uninformed public. Before we commit ourselves in a rush to judgment to do something, anything, we need to step back and analyze what purpose police departments serve.

The cops are not the adversaries of the public. This is not an us versus them situation. Cops are humans, subject to the same frailties and foibles as everyone else.

We need to let police departments get back to the fundamentals. We need to stop relying on the police as the agency of last resort in dealing with issues outside their skill set. We need to recognize the problems we face are all our responsibility, not just the police departments because they are a convenient 911 call away.

Let cops be cops. Not social workers, not teachers, not mental health providers, not counselors. Let cops do what they signed up to do, stand on the thin blue lineand catch bad guys.

*   *   *

Joe Broadmeadow retired with the rank of Captain from the East Providence, Rhode Island Police Department after twenty years. Assigned to various divisions within the department including Commander of Investigative Services, he also worked in the Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force and on special assignment to the FBI Drug Task Force.

Joe is the author of seven books; three novels based on his experiences as a police officer, Collision Course, Silenced Justice, and A Change of Hate, a Y/A novel, Saving the Last Dragon, and three non-fiction books; Choices: You Make ’em You Own ’em written with Jerry Tillinghast, UnMade: Honor Loyalty Redemption written with Bobby Walason, and It’s Just the Way It Was: Inside the War on the New England Mob and other stories written with Brendan Doherty former superintendent of the Rhode Island State Police.

Joe also writes for two blogs, The Writing of Joe Broadmeadow (http://www.joebroadmeadowblog.com) and The Heretic and the Holy Man (www.thehereticandtheholyman.wordpress.com) and as a guest columnist for the Providence Journal and GoLocalProv.com.

When Joe is not writing, he is hiking or fishing (and thinking about writing). Joe completed a 2,185-mile thru-hike of the Appalachian Trail in September 2014. After completing the trail, Joe published a short story, Spirit of the Trail, available on Amazon.com in Kindle format.

Joe lives in Rhode Island with his wife Susan.

This piece by Joe Broadmeadow originally appeared on Joe’s personal blog. Here’s the link:

https://joebroadmeadowblog.com/2020/06/26/defund-elements-of-the-police-but-let-cops-be-cops/?fbclid=IwAR1G_UFVVvEVWu7mjZHqeTpuxKlOyXTwz-cZekU6f6zMCZQqOUh9skgKkW8

Visit Joe Broadmeadow’s Amazon Page.

Follow Joe Broadmeadow on Twitter.

Connect with Joe Broadmeadow on Facebook.