Ex Top Cop: We Need a New Model of Policing
L.E.A.P.'s Neill Franklin reacts to Philando Castillo and Anton Sterling shootings, the deaths of Dallas police officers, and #BlackLivesMatter.
The horrific deaths of Philando Castillo in St. Paul, Minnesota, and Alton Sterling in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, give us an updated and up-close glimpse of police encounters gone bad—but they are rooted in decades of problematic policing in America. "Historically in this country, the police have never really been the friends of the black community," says Neill Franklin, a former officer with the Baltimore Police Department and current executive director of Law Enforcement Against Prohibition (L.E.A.P).
Franklin talked with Reason TV Editor-in-Chief Nick Gillespie at this year's Freedom Fest in Las Vegas, Nevada, pointing out that slavery may have ended officially in the late 1800s, but a lot of policing was born out of that era and the one that followed, when police deliberately enforced laws in ways that targeted black citizens. Even today, police are tasked with enforcing laws—from driving without a license to missing a court date—that tend to target poor communities and communities of color.
"You know a $250 fine doesn't mean much to people who have money," says Franklin. "But when you enforce these policies in poor communities, a hundred dollar fine can devastate a family."
It comes down to the need for a new model of policing in America, says Franklin, not just tweaks of the same old system. "What we have now is not like trying to fix a broken car, this car was a used car in the first place."
Approximately 9:57.
Scroll down for downloadable versions and subscribe to ReasonTV's YouTube Channel to receive notification when new material goes live.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Again with the "ex". When will a current so-called "top cop" say this shit?
(BTW, I admire Neil Franklin & LEAP. Not a criticism of them. It's a criticism of current cops who remain silent through the thick blue wall)
"NYPD Commissioner Bill Bratton: Donald Trump 'Scares the Hell Out of Me'"
It's a start.
Yeah, that's totally relevant...
If anyone knows what cops are capable of, it's a cop.
When he wants to get forced out of his job.
Well, the Dallas COP kind of did.
When they don't have to worry about getting the Serpico treatment? IOW, never.
Where, in the article, did it say he was a "top" anything but in this silly organization?
It said he was an officer in Baltimore. So freaking what? For how long? Why did he leave?
He is talking through his ass, as is usual for those who don't seem to know jack-shit about being a good police officer.
So other than attack the messenger, do you have anything to say about the message that current drug laws and police culture cause great harm to US citizens with a bias towards the poor and racial minorities? Or are you just interested in everyone knowing that you were/are a "good" LEO?
Anybody can earn 450$+ daily... You can earn from 9000-14000 a month or even more if you work as a full time job...It's easy, just follow instructions on this page, read it carefully from start to finish... It's a flexible job but a good eaning opportunity.. go to this site home tab for more detail... http://bit.do/ctDjs
Pot legalization: "We didn't expect that to happen in our lifetime." - Ye of little faith.
The horrific deaths of Philando Castillo in St. Paul, Minnesota, and Alton Sterling in Baton Rouge
We're just going to continue pretending these were identical cases of police incompetence, aren't we?
We're just going to keep pretending we don't have too many blue-uniformed zombies running around out there, aren't we?
I oppose suit-jackets* with polo shirts.
that is all.
(*sportcoats/blazers are a different story; still not endorsed, but accepted as a unpleasant fact of life. but suit jackets + izod are strictly Haram )
Pinstripes, no less.
Yeah, that takes it from a mere "beheading" to "torn apart by dogs" in the Fashion-Police handbook.
What about t-shirts with printed ties?
You have to be in a band that has a chick playing synthesizer. Do you even check the footnotes before asking??? please, educate yourselves people.
It's all so confusing.
*checks to make sure all five collars are popped*
Only if the shirt has a pocket with at least four pens/mechanical pencils.
"I oppose"
Don't care, didn't bother reading any further.
1. Get rid of public sector unions. All of them, but here we can just speak solely of the police themselves.
2. Street cops should be drawn from the community they serve, as close to the source of the area they patrol as possible. I actually think a less 'professional' approach is a good thing here because the disconnect between the people being policed and the enforcers is too large right now. It leads to enforcement of petty, stupid shit.
3. Body cameras. Mandatory for all.
4. Get rid of victimless crimes - especially the shit that allows cops to basically act like highway robbers.
5. Address the issue where prosecutors can charge people with everything under the sun to force plea deals. I saw a case the other day where someone was either going to walk on 3 years of probation or face going to court with charges that added up to 75 years in prison. What the fuck do you think they did?
Sure a few more things could be added to this and people may disagree on some points.
Any time an officer discharges his firearm seperate from any criminal charges that may result an automatic administrartive proceedure is started where the officer has a positive obligation to prove the shooting was justified and if it is not he loses his job and all accrued benefits.
Cops are required to personally be bonded and insured and they bear the consequences of police use of force lawsuits, not the taxpayers
Easier rule: Discharging your duty weapon is an automatic termination. Make sure its worth it.
Easier rule: Discharging your duty weapon is an automatic termination. Make sure its worth it.
It is my understanding that most jurisdictions don't issue handguns. The weapons that cops are carrying are not "duty weapons" but simply personal arms.
You either don't understand what duty weapon means, or you think it's the same as "public property"
That may be so, but you could have offered a definition. I was using, essentially, "issued by the department to the officer for official use" which is not at all synonymous with "public property".
The trend is large/urban departments issue handguns and duty holsters, small/rural departments let officers pick their own. Your understanding is true because "most jurisdictions" are small/rural.
Whatever primary handgun a cop carries on the job is a "duty weapon."
Very well. I'm assuming that Brett's point was more about the act of shooting someone than over the nature of the gun that was used, anyway.
The trend is large/urban departments issue handguns and duty holsters, small/rural departments let officers pick their own
Is it? You said 'trend' so I can't really argue that because I have no data. But I believe Seattle allows its officers to purchase their own sidearm, as long as it's approved and conforms to the guidelines.
http://www.seattle.gov/police-.....--firearms
Guidelines: http://www.seattle.gov/Documen.....eb2016.pdf
That'll make it easy to recruit people to do the job.
"BECOME A POLICE OFFICER:
IF YOU HAVE TO PROTECT YOURSELF, OR OTHERS, YOU ONLY GET TO DO IT ONCE"
Sure to bring them in, in droves.
This is ridiculous. If we rely on a police force for protection, we must demand that they are well trained in the use of their weapons and in the law and the rights of the citizenry. Automatic termination for discharging their weapon when defending themselves or the citizens they are supposed to protect is idiotic. Perhaps you misspoke.
Guilty until proven innocent?
I'm pretty sure the legal system doesn't operate that way. Or do you think that the police don't deserve the same considerations that everyone else does?
Of course they. But, since so few of these cases even make it to trial, your point is mostly irrelevant anyway.
I see the Peelian principles as a strong model for what policing needs to be. But it's important to understand that perhaps the most important of those principles is also a double-edged sword (emphasis mine):
Many people seem to want cops to do a job that they themselves are unwilling to do. This is not the same thing as saying "if you want to change the police, then join the force" which is a bit asinine and misses the point almost completely. Indeed, almost the reciprocal should be held up instead, "if the cops want more respect, then they should turn in their badges and special privileges and live more like the people they claim to protect". But neither really conveys the sentiment of the principle, which is roughly along the lines of: nobody else can give you the society you want but are unwilling to help shape.
That's acerbated by a government that is more than willing to have the cops do the job these people don't want to do themselves along with a attitude that any attempt to maintain order *yourself* is a usurpation of and a threat to government's authority.
If the people had to ferret out drug users, prostitutes, and the guy who waters his lawn on the wrong day of the week, there'd be a lot less laws criminalizing petty bullshit.
Indeed. There are definitely "true believers" in the sanctity of government. As though a slim majority of whoever bothered to show up to vote last election confers moral superiority over the actual people purportedly being represented.
But I'm saying there's a flip-side to this coin, which is basically that government cannot be held up by so many as the instrument for solving social ills. A lot of the freedom that government withholds from us is not so much taken by force as given to it by fetishists of vicarious living.
Consider the case of Tamir Rice, the 12yo boy who was killed in Cleveland after brandishing a realistic-looking toy gun.
Now, I've said many times and still believe the police acted recklessly and directly contributed to the circumstances leading to his death, in a way that non-cops would be much more likely to face charges and jail time for.
But consider the person who called them on him. What did he or she expect to have happen? I'm guessing: for the cops to "deal with" Rice, either by telling him to stop or else taking the (non-)weapon away from him. Maybe give him a ride in the cruiser and a lecture about consequences.
Well, what stopped that person from stepping outside and talking to Rice directly? Fear of something happening, I presume. For Rice to get angry? Violent?
Ok. Is it any better that the cops face that risk than a private citizen? Under our system of crooked laws, special privileges, union-extorted benefits, and vast public deference to uniformed cops... maybe. But that's setting a precedent for cops and the public to continue diverging. You deal with the riff-raff, and I'll agree to your next set of union demands. Isn't that what got us where we are?
I would love to see Socrates' method given a try. Boys and girls are raised to be police starting at around 12. They are removed from their families, given a strict diet, only allowed to listen to certain kinds of music, and given a good education. And they're not allowed to own anything. Everything they need must come from the public.
-Bluebell's litter of puppies.
This is not the same thing as saying "if you want to change the police, then join the force" which is a bit asinine and misses the point almost completely.
It's also completely backwards. Police don't run the PD, in that they don't set the policies and procedures they operate under. In large measure, "change from within" is a misdirection.
If you want to change the way a police force operates, change the city council/county government/higher government/agency leadership that sets their priorities and approves their budget.
You are barking up an unpopular tree, here, with talk like that.
Just read how the poor politicians are powerless before the public employee unions, who get to dictate every aspect of how the police do their jobs.
Bottom line is that it is the police, who are the ones, who mostly bust the REASON commenters for smoking their weed. So, anything that works to get rid of the cops is good - those legally enacted laws can't be enforced if there is no one to enforce them.
You make a good point and I think most agree that the laws need to change which relieves law enforcement of that burden. That said, the WAY in which laws are enforced by police is highly variable and, when 'aggressive' often leads to unnecessary suffering and death. I grew up in a rural area where every person brandishing a weapon wasn't at near certain risk of being shot by police and where police often looked the other way when victimless 'crimes' were committed. That approach seems to have changed to the detriment of all.
In regards to #2: NYC used to have a rule that NYPD cops had to live in the city. Not sure if my grandparents moved to Long Island before or after the rule was lifted. I'm sure some captain or A-chief was the first to move just down the road from Queens but not in the city, and next thing you know you've got NYPD cops riding the train in from New Jersey to work their shifts. What are you going to do? Tell them they have to raise their kids in some shitbox walkup when they could have a house and a yard? Who's gonna be able to afford to live on the Upper East side and patrol there? Its a nice idea, but it doesn't survive contact with reality.
I'm surprised that there weren't 25 cops with an address of 'living in a single bedroom 6th floor walkup in a shitty part of town' while actually sleeping across the border in Jersey.
I mean, FFS - *junior enlisted* figured out that 'officially residing in' and 'where I spend every night' are not the same thing.
Communities like that have the fewest issues with their cops in the first place, I'd wager. It's the shitty neighborhoods where you have the complete breakdown between police and the community. It's impossible to create a cookie cutter model for every department across the country. My post probably attempted/came off that way. But it's ultimately up to the local communities to police their neighborhoods as mentioned above.
Why don't they just do what Seattle does, pay them to live there?
LEAP is really a great organization. Kudos to Neil Franklin and others who are willing to carry this message to the pols and LE community.
Sort of OT: I used to always think that perhaps Libertarians and the Progressive Left can work together to reform the criminal justice system, but these past couple of years have proved that to be sort of false.
While many in the Progressive world believe that the system needs some sort of reformation, it only goes as far as to remedy the supposed racial disparities in the criminal justice system. With Libertarians, while we do acknowledge that there are some racial disparities in the system, we view it as a much larger symptom of concentrated and centralized power largess of government.
And that's the issue. Progressives don't mind concentrated power in the hands of the few and actually advocate for such but don't care to realize that this sort of power can be abusive especially towards those who aren't able to defend themselves.
That's just my $0.02.
A lot of progressives love the violence of the criminal justice system. They just want that violence to smite their enemies.
Not all. I have several progressive friends who would gladly ally with Libertarians to make the system less nasty. But most of the progressives I know feel that there must be a stick to compel people who would behave selfishly to do that which benefits society.
I came to this conclusion because a lot of my Progressive friends agree that there are too much abuse within the system, but when you start talking about reducing the power of the government to have less abuse, that's when the disagreement sets in and you're called an anarchist.
It's been my experience that progressives believe that Libertarians want to make the system more nasty. Removing things like set-asides, lowering taxes, reducing regulatory burden will ipso facto leave us with a nastier society. This is why I feel there's such a chasm between progressives and libertarians.
The progressives want more of what we already have, but better and run by the right people. Libertarians want less of what we have because we don't believe the right people will ever be in charge, and even if they are ever-so briefly, the wrong people get back in charge-- because democracy.
These are not just details we can haggle over.
It's funny though, because they don't seem to have a problem with nastiness, as long as it's directed at people they don't like. I think a better way to frame the issue is that they want society engineered from the top down, whereas libertarians generally want society formed organically from the bottom up.
I witnessed this during the, "getting rid of due process and creating secret lists so we can whittle down the 2nd Amendment" situation. It's amazing that people who preaches equality have no problem with allowing the government to be able to arbitrarily fuck with people.
A lot of my Progressive friends where cheering this shit on and whenever I tried to tell them the implications that this policy has along with the same Progressives decrying this shit during the Bush years, they closed their ears.
I'm not gonna paint all Progressives with a broad brush but there a lot who don't care about the trampling of rights as long as it tramples the people they don't like.
What the?
Let's try again.
I don't know any progressives who understand rights beyond those that are granted by government. If a right is not backed up with state violence, how can it exist? So the concept of natural rights is a joke to them.
And principals. See how many progressives turned on that criminal justice reform bill because the mens rea requirement would apply to white collar crimes.
That was fucking nuts.
Libertarians and liberals could.
Progressives are a lost cause.
Leftists love state violence. They worship it. They truly believe that might makes right, and so they try to ally themselves with the side of might. The idea of spontaneous order baffles them because all they understand is force. They truly believe that people only work because they are forced to by the corporations, and that people only buy products because they are forced to by the corporations. (Of course this doesn't apply to them, just everyone else) They fail to understand that only government can compel people to do things. So when we advocate for less government compulsion, they hear more corporate compulsion. When we argue for less government involvement in the economy, they hear more corporate power. When we argue for more liberty, they hear chaos and anarchy. When we support self defense, they hear vigilante justice. When we support school choice, they hear corporate indoctrination. When we support less occupational licensing, they hear more fraud. And so on and so forth.
Years ago I talked to this guy who was one of the organizers for Occupy Wall Street Chicago and I posed him this question: Who the fuck has the guns? Jamie Dimon or Timothy Geithner?
I don't really remember the answer he gave me but it was probably an incredibly bullshit answer.
They live chaotic lives because they are incapable of self-governance. This is why they want big government to rule them.
I do not think it is a thing they can learn not to do. Maybe they could have as children, but now, not so sure.
Its amazing how cops grow brains and spines after they retire, isn't it?
yeah, its like every retired Attorney General who comes out saying, "we need to end the war on drugs" or "mandatory minimums are horrible" etc.
You know what happens when you leave the [service of choice]? You get your brains back.
Know what happens when you leave the force? You get your spine and balls back.
This officer, Franklin, had a fellow officer killed in the line of duty, during a drug sting. He felt that loss was not justified by the fact that we were trying to police victim-less drug crimes, creating the problem. He was a higher-up in Baltimore policing, and the Maryland State Police. He was a 34 year veteran.
Does he have any useful suggestions as to how we can eliminate cops' paranoia and insularity?
I haven't watched the video, but i totally expect his argument is, "We need to end police-unionization"
Right?? Because otherwise there's absolutely no chance of implementing any 'different model'. So i can only assume that was his starting point.
just me or a slow day here at Reason? Maybe it is just a slow day at work and Im checking it more often and seeing the same stuff up...
"I never really enjoyed hassling junkies, but it was... you know... my job. I was just following orders."
I want a new policing model, one that won't hurt my head,
One that won't make me talk too much, or make my face break out... in nightstick welts.
i'm pretty sure huey lewis references warrant a red-card.
Huey who now?
Don't pretend you don't know. First song on every mix tape you ever made. Ever.
If I knew what a mix tape was mine would only ever included songs from three artists: Matchbox Twenty, Skynyrd or Def Leppard. Except maybe for that one Georgia Satellites song. You know the one I mean.
@5:04.
I'm not sure I agree with him here. How many times has decriminalization of drugs (like Marijuana) been suggested, and cops have angrily responded, suggesting they want to continue to enforce these things. I believe that by and large, most police departments want an expansion of their mission, not a narrowing of it.
I think there's different factions among the police, but it does seem that the majority of cops support the drug war generally, even if they might differ on some of the specifics.
Two words: Gravy. Train.
Yeah, i noted the same thing below.
Nick had the opportunity there to ask why police have for decades endorsed politicians who'd keep the same "War" footing, or even expand it.... (and the answer is obvious = money).... but no. LEAP might be the exception, but for the former-officer to pretend his view is shared by all police... is inconsistent with historical reality.
Most of the people I know who became cops look on drug users as morally reprehensible dirtbags. Obviously anecdotal, but if a large number of cops shared that sentiment the laws would be far less enforced already. I don't think a lot of cops have much issue with it.
Shit. Back in the 80's the Hampton cops would shake down the Van Halen fans for alcohol and pot, then take it all to a private party afterwards.
It's just power.
breaking down what Top Cop actually says
1 - "Cops used to enforce jim crow". that's not exactly clarifying about why they suck now.
2 - "cops were always been functional tax collectors". well - solution = cut taxes?
3 - He finally makes the point that "politicians are to blame" (@4m) for creating the drug war, which cops are just the enforcers of. "If cops had their choice they'd go after murder and violence".
Really? what's odd (or, "completely inconsistent" with that claim) is that there has been little no support from police for Drug Law reform in the last 40 years. In fact - there's been active opposition to marijuana legalization, needle programs, and anything else that even slightly modified the method of approach to the drug war.
4 - We need a new car/reboot! - And Nick asks what the preconditions are for reinventing the police. (*please say, "End Unions"...? ....nope)
his answer, "We need to have a big hug." Understanding. Work together. Better relations. Commitment.
Rhetoric.
5 - final question - what is your view on BLM?
him = jibberjabberjibberjabber feels.
I don't feel like anything really transpired there. Hand-wringing, but no actual analysis.
You are confusing police support with what the politicians, who are the "top cops" want.
It is the Chief's of Police and the Sheriffs that you hear from, not the rank-and-file.
The Politician cops want the WOD to continue because it brings in lots of money to use to make them feel more powerful.It is estimated that the WOD costs taxpayers $600 billion, annually.
Shit! How many people would be put out of work if all drugs were suddenly made legal, nationwide - say with a SCOTUS ruling along the lines of Obergefell?
Well, the Establishment has always come down hardest on the sheep. True in any culture, anywhere, throughout time. It simply has more of a black/white veneer here in the US. But poor white people get pushed around too. Socio-economic functions are what they are. It's all part and parcel of what is contained in the NAP. Sniffing out where Force is used, and if there's real interest or disinterest in the manner in which it's used. If THAT could be established, then the "executive" function would follow. Policing is a function of policy (hence the same roots of the words), and policy is a product of culture. Have a culture in which Force First is the lay of the land, you get the clamp down.
How about this "new" policing model:
1.To prevent crime and disorder, as an alternative to their repression by military force and severity of legal punishment.
2.To recognise always that the power of the police to fulfil their functions and duties is dependent on public approval of their existence, actions and behaviour, and on their ability to secure and maintain public respect.
3.To recognise always that to secure and maintain the respect and approval of the public means also the securing of the willing co-operation of the public in the task of securing observance of laws.
4.To recognise always that the extent to which the co-operation of the public can be secured diminishes proportionately the necessity of the use of physical force and compulsion for achieving police objectives.
5.To seek and preserve public favour, not by pandering to public opinion, but by constantly demonstrating absolutely impartial service to law, in complete independence of policy, and without regard to the justice or injustice of the substance of individual laws, by ready offering of individual service and friendship to all members of the public without regard to their wealth or social standing, by ready exercise of courtesy and friendly good humour, and by ready offering of individual sacrifice in protecting and preserving life.
6.To use physical force only when the exercise of persuasion, advice and warning is found to be insufficient to obtain public co-operation to an extent necessary to secure observance of law or to restore order, and to use only the minimum degree of physical force which is necessary on any particular occasion for achieving a police objective.
7.To maintain at all times a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and that the public are the police, the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence.
8.To recognise always the need for strict adherence to police-executive functions, and to refrain from even seeming to usurp the powers of the judiciary of avenging individuals or the State, and of authoritatively judging guilt and punishing the guilty.
9.To recognise always that the test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and disorder, and not the visible evidence of police action in dealing with them.
This is all great, but I don't see where the Union fits into this.
Remember, all of those things above are subject to negotiation of the contract.
Pussy!
/any cop who reads that.
My model has no cops.
Stormy,
That's radical wild talk! No police force has ever operated that way!!!! 😉
I don't like #1.
Law enforcement is about enforcing laws already broken. Crime Prevention utilizes "fencing" of laws like "Broken window" policing to intimidate people into compliance before a REAL crime has been committed.
While it would probably result in a slight uptick in violent crime, by utilizing swift and harsh punishments, could potentially result in a better system.
My mothers neighbour is working part time and averaging $9000 a month. I'm a single mum and just got my first paycheck for $6546! I still can't believe it. I tried it out cause I got really desperate and now I couldn't be happier. Heres what I do,
----------- http://www.Max43.com
UNCONSTITUTIONAL: UN Announces Support for Obama's Nationalization of Police..
After recently demanding everything from "robust gun control" and reparations for slavery to constitutional amendments altering the supreme law of the land, the United Nations has now publicly endorsed the Obama administration's illegal efforts to federalize America's local police departments. A UN official also offered to provide "technical assistance" to the U.S. government in implementing its radical demands.
Fortunately, there is a very simple solution to the UN and its outrageous meddling in American affairs: an American exit, or Amexit, from the UN. Legislation sitting in Congress, dubbed the American Sovereignty Restoration Act (H.R. 1205), would not only end U.S. involvement with the UN, it would also evict the scandal-plagued outfit's headquarters from U.S. soil. With the UN's attacks on police, constitutionally protected liberties and even the American system of government becoming increasingly extreme, Americans should re-double their efforts to get the United States out of the UN with an Amexit. At the same time, as this magazine has advocated for decades, Americans should continue working to support their local police, and keep them independent of federal control.
http://www.thenewamerican.com/.....-of-police
Yes: private security firms with full civil and criminal liability. Nothing new about it.
Drug war. Religious treatment of sex work. Asset seizure.
Get rid of those and we'll have a police force that can do their job.
The converse proposition is true as well...
I am making $89/hour working from home. I never thought that it was legitimate but my best friend is earning $10 thousand a month by working online, that was really surprising for me, she recommended me to try it. just try it out on the following website.
??? http://www.NetNote70.com
$89 an hour! Seriously I don't know why more people haven't tried this, I work two shifts, 2 hours in the day and 2 in the evening?And i get surly a chek of $1260??0 whats awesome is Im working from home so I get more time with my kids.
Here is what i did
===============>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.factoryofincome.com
Facebook gives you a great opportunity to earn 98652$ at your home.If you are some intelligent you makemany more Dollars.I am also earning many more, my relatives wondered to see how i settle my Life in few days thank GOD to you for this...You can also make cash i never tell alie you should check this I am sure you shocked to see this amazing offer...I'm Loving it!!!!
????????> http://www.factoryofincome.com
nice post thanks admin