Once again, The Sun has entered the realm of debate concerning the brutality of Baltimore's police officers, and that subject offers all sorts of opportunities for discussion. Legislation, the Police Officers' Bill of Rights, civilian review boards, disciplinary action — oh, what fertile ground we have ("Police body camera rules narrowly failed, while easing measure survives," April 4)!
First of all, I believe that police brutality, wherever it exists, is an affront to a civilized society, and there is nothing that can mitigate, justify or excuse its presence. Having said that, it must also be acknowledged that we live in the real world and sadly, injustice happens. Recently, we have seen some very violent reactions to alleged occurrences of police abuse to the extent that we had citizens marching in the streets and the murder of police officers. My point is this, violence is not only a prerogative of police. Would it serve the better good of society to have those marchers serving on a civilian police review board?
As a retired Baltimore City police officer myself, the officers' bill of rights has no real teeth as I recall. Unless something has been changed, there were no penalties assessed against "officials" who were proven to have violated the an officer's rights. Offenders were lightly slapped on the wrist and told not to do that! I also have a problem with the "Internal Investigation Division" or IID for short. Just as some jack-booted trooper, IID was feared and in some cases, rightfully so. It is good to have some fear of being caught doing evil. However, in order to "encourage" citizens to be fearless in reporting police misconduct, officers were required by "official policy" to violate their oath of office which requires them to enforce the law fairly and equitably for all! If one of the "good citizens" of Baltimore made a report (an "official" police report) to IID and their investigation later proved that the complaint was a lie, the case was concluded. No charges were placed against the liar who committed a crime by making a false report and causing a costly and unnecessary police investigation as well as causing apprehension, fear, illness and diminished performance by the officer who was the subject of this investigation!
In far too many cases, the conclusion was "not sustained" which meant no justification was found to support the allegation which may or may not have been true. The finding should have been "unfounded" and the liar or liars charged! How is that "fair" to an officer who has been falsely accused or should we even care about fair treatment for our police? I remember, as a lieutenant, having a heated "discussion" with my counterpart in IID who was defending the misconduct of his officers who did not prosecute those false reports as the crimes which they were, in violation of their oaths. He said that the policy of doing that originated in the police commissioner's office. I informed him that amounted to an illegal order as no one can "order" a police officer not to honor his sworn oath to enforce the law!
Of course, as I said, I have been retired for some time. So, if the Officers' Bill of Rights now exacts a real penalty against its violators, and if IID now "honors" the maker of a false report against police officers with a prosecution of their criminal effort to harm or destroy an innocent officer, then I stand corrected.
Robert L. Di Stefano, Abingdon