A Stunning Example of Poor Leadership in the LAPD
[Guest post by Jack Dunphy]
A consistent theme in my posts here and in my columns at National Review Online and Pajamas Media has been the frustration so often experienced by working police officers when burdened with poor leadership. Today I learned of a stunning example of this.
Police officers observe the tradition of wearing black mourning bands over their badges in honor of comrades who have fallen in the line of duty. The bands are most often worn when a member of one’s own department has been killed, and also for officers killed while working in neighboring communities or the surrounding region. After all, if we were to wear them every time a police officer somewhere in the country was killed, we would seldom take them off.
But the murder of the four police officers in Lakewood, Wash., on Sunday was felt far beyond the Seattle area, and many LAPD officers took to wearing the mourning bands as a demonstration of solidarity not only with the officers of Lakewood, but with police officers everywhere. There is an obscure provision in the LAPD Manual, however, that prescribes when the bands may be worn, and under a strict reading of the rules they are not authorized to honor an officer in another state.
Most of us felt this provision in the Manual was best ignored under the present circumstances. Incredibly, an LAPD captain disagreed, and he directed the officers at his station to remove the bands. Fortunately, word of this nonsense reached LAPD Chief Charlie Beck, who immediately issued a city-wide order authorizing the wearing of mourning bands.
I hope he also had a few words with that captain, who clearly is unfit for the position.
Well, I, for one, can see why the good Captain reacted as he did. Clearly, it is racist to cover a badge with black – especially when the alleged perp is roughly of the same pigment.
Seriously, though….why the hell do I have to first hear about this in a blog? Where is the electronic drive-by L.A. media? Those tools devoted hours and hours to Beck’s ascension. Here we have a highly symbolic, powerful, and decisive action taken by the new Chief.
Disgusting.
Thank you, Jack Dunphy.
Ed from SFV (1333b1) — 12/3/2009 @ 1:06 amwhat a f-ing idiot….. undoubtedly our next Chief.
(either that or mayor…. %-)
redc1c4 (fb8750) — 12/3/2009 @ 1:25 amBut, isn’t it a bit strong to say “who clearly is unfit for the position?” These by-the-book guys are certainly a pain in the ass as well as frequently wrong, but “unfit,” I don’t think so.
“Unfit” should be reserved for abuse of power and other serious problems.
mikeb302000 (6127bb) — 12/3/2009 @ 2:11 am“Unfit” should be reserved for those who are unfit for any reason, such as the Captain referenced above, not merely for those who, like Obama, abuse their authority, thinking it’s power.
Nimnul (look it up).
John Hitchcock (3fd153) — 12/3/2009 @ 2:20 am“unfit for the position” is *not* too strong….
“so stupid that he is lucky breathing is autonomic” is a much better fit. cheese eating may be a key survival trait in hierarchies, but it isn’t necessarily a survival trait per se.
i had a CO once that, just before our unit went to a *very* warm environment for several weeks of fun, decreed that we would all be ‘sleeves down’ for the duration, even though it was August, and the day temps were going to be north of 120*F.
the reason he gave was that this would cut down on sweat evaporation, thereby reducing water loss in the troops, which would mean fewer heat casualties.
this, of course, ignores the fact that, if sweat doesn’t evaporate, the body can’t cool itself (basic physics & physiology) and you therefore become a heat casualty. i offered to go explain this blindingly obvious fact, but was told not to.
surprisingly, during the exercise, no one could understand why we had so many people drop out as heat casualties, which kept me very busy.
redc1c4 (fb8750) — 12/3/2009 @ 2:32 amredc1c4: Doc, were you a medic or a corpsman? From what my daughter said and from my own memory, it sounds like you were a corpsman.
John Hitchcock (3fd153) — 12/3/2009 @ 2:37 amThere’s no need to declare the guy unfit, maybe he’s a Muslim and proud of his brother’s jihadi victory over the white terrorist police.
See my comment #13 at Patterico’s Huckabee post of 12/2/09 @ 9:46pm.
ropelight (5a624a) — 12/3/2009 @ 3:32 amI love it when someone who is supposed to follow the rules gets upset because someone follows the rules. If you don’t like the rule, move to change it, don’t blast those who believe rules are meant to be followed and aren’t merely guidelines. If you want police officers to have the discretion to disregard department rules whenever they think it appropriate, then move to enshrine that as department policy.
steve sturm (369bc6) — 12/3/2009 @ 5:19 amI agree with #8 that the captain isn’t really to blame. The best you could have hoped for is that he would have first sought approval from his superiors to allow the armbands rather than asking that they be removed. However, I don’t think taking out your understandable frustration and anger about the killings on a captain who is enforcing department rules makes a lot of sense. It’s a big leap to interpret his actions as insensitive or disrespectful to the officers who were killed.
Regret (0116ce) — 12/3/2009 @ 5:48 amZero tolerance was invented because of idiots like the good captain who can’t think for them selves, and never come up with the right answer when they try. See Obama Daily.
PCD (1d8b6d) — 12/3/2009 @ 5:49 amSure, an example of poor leadership…
But it did lead to an example of excellent leadership.
My opinion of Chief Beck has improved from its already high level. You got a good one there, Jack. Make sure he stays around.
I also suspect that you could, at the least, “come out” to Beck. I wouldn’t tell anyone else, but I suspect that if you showed up with a stack of stuff you’d written, he’d give you his personal OK.
Scott Jacobs (445f98) — 12/3/2009 @ 5:53 amMy guess is that police Captain had one of
the highest scores on the captains exam.
Of course if Obama was making the decision,
jack (e383ed) — 12/3/2009 @ 6:05 amit would have taken weeks.
Looks like the LAPD promotion system is based on “knows how to read” rather than “knows how to lead”
tmac (5559f7) — 12/3/2009 @ 7:53 amEvery crowd contains at least one fool. The police captain and redcic4’s CO are examples that they are not always at the bottom of the scale. It’s amazing that someone could get to be a CO and not know that much about heat casualties. When I was in basic training in San Antonio, a kid died from heat stroke on the obstacle course one day. It is a particular problem in the military where kids will obey orders in very dangerous situations.
Mike K (2cf494) — 12/3/2009 @ 8:19 amThanks for the information on this particular issue. But it is hardly a news flash that the overall majority of LAPD leadership are cowards and unfit to lead.
Rookdick (e9798b) — 12/3/2009 @ 8:33 amThere was a rule against honoring officers in other states.
Ordering the police officers to remove the armband was the only way to get the chief’s attention and rescind that rule for good.
It would be worse if the police could simply ignore rules that they did not like.
Michael Ejercito (6a1582) — 12/3/2009 @ 8:37 amanybody know who the captain is? just curious…
Susan (3c3998) — 12/3/2009 @ 8:42 amDoes the LAPD use these to cover their badge numbers? I’ve seen cops do this and find that pretty low — to use sympathy for dead cops to hide their identities from the public.
imdw (b1e447) — 12/3/2009 @ 8:50 amGreetings:
I wish that someone would explain to me who exactly was supposed to authorize a disregard of published regulations. It seems to me the captain took his shot at a solution, it went up the chain of command and he was over-ruled by a superior level of command. Isn’t that how it’s supposed to go when their is disagreement.
I get a sense that this is an emotional issue for some of the captain’s subordinates and others. But, it’s not like this is a situation of totally altruistic grief. There’s an aspect of both marketing and politics to these demonstrations of grief that I guess that I’m not supposed to perceive. This captain may well be unfit for command, but this incident doesn’t establish it in my mind. I wonder if there is more of a “back story”.
I live on the California coast. When Senator Ted Kennedy died, our little municipality lowered our town flag to half staff. I complained that it was inappropriate unless we were going to do it for every other US Senator who passed away. The flag was returned to it’s full height.
11B40 (5e7f51) — 12/3/2009 @ 9:41 amThis is anonymous score-settling. The captain at issue is not guilty of “poor leadership”.
Mid-level managers are often caught between what the rules tell them to do and what is reasonable under the circumstances. It’s fine for the new chief to waive a rule; that’s his remit. But publicly chastising a mid-level for doing what the rules require is wrong unless he is vested with explicit discretion to waive the rule, which there is no suggestion was the case.
Indeed, there’s nothing wrong with a police captain or a policeman who is a fanatical stickler for following the rulebook and procedures, since this reduces the chance that a mistake will result in the guilty going free.
But it does highlight the fact that it might be appropriate in the new regime to explicitly vest captain with authority to veer from certain categories of regulations. It also raises the question of whether the LAPD’s regulations might deserve some paring.
Cyrus Sanai (311cd8) — 12/3/2009 @ 9:51 amRules are expressions, which are made to be followed. Someone in position who has to enforce the rules should be respected for doing his job. Picking what rules to follow or not, leads to chaos. If its a bad rule, get rid of it. And if no one is following the rule, what is the sense of having a rule.
kmkopka (996c34) — 12/3/2009 @ 10:24 amThis all gets to the heart of the larger issue from its own micro angle. The heart being the universe of laws and regulations and the spaces in between. The unruly hordes of humans and the righteous moral elites more than eager to set the rules and call the exceptions. In the end, you can regulate some of the people some of the time…etc. The question here and elsewhere revolves around when the exceptions are to be applied, and who applies them. One man’s judgement is another man’s misjudgement.
Most Americans, military excepted for reason, seem to take well to a loosely held set of regs. Not too loose, not too tight. Mama Bear gets to run the regs, Papa and Baby Bear have “issues.” Neither authoritarian nor anarchist be. We loves our situation by situation calls. While sometimes it’s okay for boys to be boys, other times we squawk about living in a dangerously retrictive nanny state. If Kojak were still on the tube it’d be “who’s your nanny?”
End point…we got ourselves a moving line in the sand, boss. And shifting sand at that. Comes down to doing what you think is right. No whiners, just do it. Constitution, Communist Manifesto, Bible, Koran, Torah, Zen for Atheists…anyone can claim their own book of What is Right. But if one does not comprehend the limitations of getting your marching orders from a literal or virtual book, and doesn’t know and do what’s really ‘little r’ right, the pasture is right out there, graze away in blissful compliance.
political agnostic (1ad523) — 12/3/2009 @ 10:47 amActually, uniform regulations are commonly modifiable at the Captain level. This is standard in fire departments, police departments, and even the entire military.
Cyrus claims otherwise, but I am sure the captain had every ability to permit this common sense application. If we didn’t want a captain to exercise discretion, we wouldn’t have captains.
Dustin (cf255c) — 12/3/2009 @ 10:54 amHere’s a somewhat related issue: A veteran wants to fly American flag in front of his house despite homeowner associations rules that don’t allow it. Should they allow it? Sure. But they don’t, the guy knew they didn’t when he moved in and he is violating the covenant he agreed to follow when he moved in.
steve sturm (369bc6) — 12/3/2009 @ 11:48 amIncompetent management in a public agency. I’m shocked.
glenn (757adc) — 12/3/2009 @ 11:50 amNowhere does Jack say that the Captain asked for guidance on this from Command. The way it is written projects that the Captain was uncomfortable with his unit’s officers taking it upon themselves to breach the Uniform Code, and directed that his unit observe the Code as written.
AD - RtR/OS! (2eab1e) — 12/3/2009 @ 11:55 amPerhaps a bit insensitive on his part to the feelings of solidarity in the ranks.
The issues I would have with the Captain are his insensitivity to the feelings of his “men”, and whether or not he bucked this decision up the chain. Plus, it might have been a good idea if the unit’s Police Assoc Rep had approached him beforethefact to apprise him as to what the rank-and-file wished to do in this situation.
It sounds like there is a communication problem at that post (both up and down the chain), and that is always a killer to leadership, and morale.
Comment by steve sturm — 12/3/2009 @ 11:48 am
A H-A that is so hide-bound as to prohibit the display of the National Ensign should be tarred-and-feathered, and then sued for personal damages.
AD - RtR/OS! (2eab1e) — 12/3/2009 @ 12:01 pmBTW, the last case of this I heard about resulted in the H-A losing in court, but the homeowner IIRC was instructed to modify the size of flag he wished to display.
Thanks Jack for the article (tiny one I may add, miss the poetic long ones). Having been around the LAPD for over a decade, the issues there are about the Chief selection process notwithstanding, anyone that knows Charlie, can attest to his never letting the rigid institutionalized BS cloud the mission. His first order regarding the Class A’s and that no tie was required was not about the damn Class A’s or the goofy Dilbert tie. It was directly aimed and letting the hard working (and you know who you are) coppers out there understand that he doesn’t buy into the ‘well this is how LAPD always did this or that and its tradition’ etc).
Yes, he’s playing a bit into the pomp and the politics now but that’s expected and probably the correct route. I believe his promotions and demotions was a bit politics, strategy and payback [Papa to Valley Bureau :)].
Anyone that worked Rampart during his tenure learned that to please him was to do your job. Period. Excuses were best left at home. On the other hand, this was a captain that had an open door policy and took the time to assist officers with their personal situations as well as their career.
Thank you Chief for setting the tone as you entered your 10th floor office (get rid of the weird looking furniture that no question a Bratton VIP groupie chose) and stick to the important stuff. We’ll back you up and expect the same.
And thank you Jack for sharing but get back to being our eyes and ears and don’t let anyone on the 10th floor get away with incompetence. Keep on shining the spotlight on any cockroaches. It makes them scurry 🙂
Sam Michaels (b7f647) — 12/3/2009 @ 12:11 pm#23
Actually I don’t claim otherwise. I don’t know. If it is the case that he did have the explicit authority to waive the rule and refused to do so, then that is a very significant fact absent from Dunphy’s write-up.
Cyrus Sanai (311cd8) — 12/3/2009 @ 12:42 pmThe provision regarding the black bands is obscure as per Dunphy so that means that Captain had to go out of his way to enforce a meaningless, and rediculous point. When something of this magnitude occurs it should be obvious to any idiot that the black bands will be worn. Its clear none of the other Captains felt it necessary to make a silly proclamation that his research had shown that the black bands are not to be worn.
Its called using your brain. This Captain obviously is not a leader, he’s a robot!
Trouble (0247fc) — 12/3/2009 @ 6:45 pmIIRC, LAPD were wearing mourning bands immediately after 9/11. Many across the nation were.
Nathan (136b95) — 12/4/2009 @ 8:50 amWhat do you expect from a lib-Dem city?
Federale (a589e9) — 12/4/2009 @ 9:37 amI noticed no officers are covering their badge for Officer Kenny ARagon who was killed riding his motorcycle reports say on the way to work. So isn’t he entitled for the honor or did he have to be in uniform? Does anyone know the answer?
Dennis (eb8e12) — 12/4/2009 @ 12:57 pmIn regards to 33, yes, they have to be on duty. Years ago, several LAPD officers from FTHL division wore mourning bands for a Sergeant who killed herself. What a disgrace that was. Believe it or not, Chief Parks was the one who changed that policy that mandated it was for in the line of duty deaths. GOOD JOB!!!. Why would we honor someone who killed themselves involvinig a love triangle?
Back on topic, whether the captain was right or wrong in this case, Beck was even more wrong. He basically just told that captain I don’t care what you say. I will override you on every decision.
Thomas (dd41fa) — 12/7/2009 @ 8:07 amAre you fucking high??
One decision indicates a future pattern for EVERY decision?
Especially when this was the ONLY captain who stated that officers couldn’t wear the black bands – while it isn’t stated, I believe that all other areas wore the black band, and ONLY Lakewood officers were barred from doing so.
And good for Beck. His job, in part, is to override idiotic decisions made by subordinates.
[note: released from moderation filter. –Stashiu]
Scott Jacobs (445f98) — 12/7/2009 @ 8:12 amWho was the captain?? Was it Capt Rick Wall? It sounds like something Big Bird would do!
Cgopat (9d1bb3) — 12/7/2009 @ 10:00 amI am a former LAPD officer now working in Washington and knew one of the fallen officers from Lakewood. It has been a very hard couple of years with 7 officers in our area gun down in cold blood. All of us LE in the area are angry and feel a bit alone in our anger.
On Thursday of last week I came down to LA to visit old friends and went into several stations and was very moved by the black bands. I felt less alone in our struggle and pain. Knowing that others felt my pain and loss helped eased mine.
What this Captain doesn’t understand is that this is a tiny little world and that many look to the LAPD for leadership and support and that the support of the LE family is critical during these times of cut backs, reforms and early releases that threaten our lives.
Bravo Chief Beck for seeing the big picture. This is a man who after hearing that I was in his building tried to set up a simple hello and hand shake which fell through becasue of time. This is a man who gets it.
Thank you for sharing our pain. It means a lot to your brothers and sisters from the north.
Trevor
Trevor (f441ee) — 12/7/2009 @ 12:54 pmIt seems like the captain made a mistake. But, don’t condemn him without hearing the reasons for his decision. We all make stupid decisions at one time or another and then regret them later.
Michele (e59c61) — 12/7/2009 @ 3:25 pm(For #18) Imdw – No, with all due respect, the mourning bands used by LAPD Officers to express their sympathy and solidarity with fallen police officers DO NOT cover their badge numbers, they go across the middle of the badge, covering the city seal, leaving the top and bottom portion of the badge, along with badge numbers exposed. And, now, that the “due repect” part’s been done, your comment, alone, reminds me why I retired after 30 years and left So. Cal. F— Off, Di-kwad!
Kieth M. in CO (LAPD retired) (8eb932) — 12/7/2009 @ 4:14 pmonly in California would this happen-please name the Captain! he needs to be “shamed” in public!
John (996c34) — 12/7/2009 @ 4:35 pmFor #33, Dennis – Per the LAPD Manual, the mourning band is for any L.A. County Peace Officers and Firefighters killed in the line-of-duty, worn until midnight following the funeral. The captain, in the case of the four Lakewood, WA Officers, followed the book to the letter. Too bad some guys/girls with bars on their collars can’t think outside of the LAPD manual.
I knew Ken at Hollywood Division, and liked him. Even so, dying in an off-duty T/C on his personal M/C and being my buddy would not have me wearing a mourning band for him. There’s a reason they are called “honors.”
Rest assured, though, that Ken will (if he hasn’t already) get an honor guard, rifle salute, and taps (if his family wants it).
Stay safe!
Kieth M. in CO (LAPD retired) (8eb932) — 12/7/2009 @ 4:36 pmLAPD badge numbers are very hard to track and identities of officers assigned will only be released to the public with a court order. Basically the number is all but useless to the general public. LAPD Officers wear name plates and will provide anyone who asks with a business card. People who go around writing down badge numbers are guilty of watching to much TV.
As far as the Captain goes. Stupid! In the academy everyone is taught the difference between the letter of the law and the spirit of the law. Yes, this even applies to LAPD policy. The Captain must have missed that day.
George (5b98b7) — 12/7/2009 @ 4:43 pmHow typical of this Captain, clearly a robotic person making a very insensetive order to have his officers at his station take off the black bands from their badge. The officers felt a need out of respect to place the mourning bands on their badges to show their respect and honor for four brave officers who died at the hands of a criminal.
I agree with #42, yes this idiot missed the class of Letter of the Law and Spirit of the Law, as he does not have any spirit. Yes, just another typical insane kneejerk decision by big bird. Luckily, my ass is retired from the LAPD and has been for many years. Cheif Beck is a great new leader of the LAPD, perhaps someone should be removed from that division so that a “SPIRIT OF THE LAW” captain can take the helm.
mike (fc7119) — 12/11/2009 @ 11:21 pm