As part of the Berkeley Police Department's (BPD) strategy for the implementation of Community Involved Policing, meetings have been held in many of the 18 beats of the city of Berkeley. Members of Copwatch have attended most of the beat meetings thus far and have obtained an opportunity to deepen our understanding of the very different areas of Berkeley.
Has the BPD decided to fundamentally alter its relationship with the community it patrols? Hell no!
Here are the facts with our analysis of exactly what the BPD was up to in its "Community Involved Policing" meetings. A report on one typical meeting went as follows:
"On July 21, 1993, Brian and Gerald of Copwatch attended a meeting entitled 'Community Involved Policing' at the Franklin School, on Virginia St. This particular meeting was called by the BPD to sell the idea of 'Community Policing' to the residents of beat 18 (northwest Berkeley)."Linda Maio, Berkeley City Council- person for District One, opened up the meeting with her explanation of 'community based policing'. She read from a leaflet on Public Safety. She called for enhanced communication between the BPD and the Berkeley community.
"Officer Hamilton of the BPD gave a presentation for the cops. He went out of his way to make it clear that the meeting was called exclusively for the residents of beat 18. Officer Hamilton then proceeded to introduce the Beat 18 police, the Chief of Police, etc.
"There were less than a hundred people present at the meeting. Among those present were 15 uniformed police. As the meeting dragged on we realized that there were a fair number of city employees, and low level bureaucrats, and plain clothes cops in the audience. The BPD with the cooperation of other City of Berkeley departments had obviously stacked the meeting.
"Hamilton then explained the reasons behind 'community policing,' which from his perspective were:
"1) Officers should be involved with members of the community, and 'form a partnership'.
"2) The 'new' philosophy implies and dictates that police officers will be orientated towards 'problem solving' -- getting at the heart of problems -- and social work, rather than simply law enforcement.
"Community Policing is planned to go into effect January 1, 1994, in Berkeley.
"Officer Hamilton made an appeal for cooperation for safety in 'our' city. He was articulate and effective in his arguments, and in generating a feeling of inclusiveness.
"But the point of utmost importance, because it can be thrown back into the faces of the BPD and their cheerleaders: Hamilton claimed that the information gathered at the community meetings would be the basis of how the Police Department would shape its 'community policing' program."
The BPD, with the assistance of the city council, want to convey the image to the Berkeley citizenry that community policing is some form of a mass participatory grassroots anti- crime 'movement.' Indeed, it is not.
For example, the BPD had already chosen for the residents of Beat 18 who the Beat cops would be for that particular area. At the same time, the BPD is talking to the residents of Beat 18 about "empowering the community." If the community is to be empowered, and to "form a partnership" with the Berkeley BPD, then the Beat 18 residents should have been involved in the decision- making process of choosing the beat cops.
The police are a para-military force that exist to defend the property and interests of the rich and powerful. Thus, this community policing operation is conceived and managed from the top down like all military campaigns.
The aims of community policing have nothing to do with 'partnership' and 'empowerment.' It is simply another tactic used by the state in parallel with the on-going fiasco called the 'Drug War.' Previously, cops took on a military-like posture in the Drug War. Now, they are taking on the angelic image of a 'friendly neighbor.' It is clear that the city of Berkeley is not addressing the causes of social problems like homelessness, or the introduction of an illegal economy in certain neighborhoods (drugs and prostitution). One cannot cure social problems through a military campaign. It will be unsuccessful and at the very least a waste of tax dollars.
The report continued:
"The question and answer period that followed Hamilton's presentation was revealing. First up was an elderly African-American woman who lambasted the BPD for poor service and being ineffectual against crime."There was no response by Hamilton or anybody else from the BPD.
"Second speaker was a white male who called for more anti-loitering laws.
"Hamilton responded extensively.
"Third speaker, a white male, complains about lack of enforcement of traffic laws (speeding), prostitution, and homelessness.
"Once again Hamilton responds extensively. This time he goes on to say that "the police are in part social workers". Their main method of social work is referral, he said."
Recent examples of the type of "social work" the police have in mind can be found in our Cop Blotter: officers pouring beer on an arrested homeless man, or citing a homeless man with eleven kids for spare- changing passersby.
What is a policeman trained to do, be a marriage counselor or enforce the law? Can marriage counselors walk around with handcuffs, billy clubs and revolvers as well? As the city's social services shrink, the city is essentially saying, "That's all right, the police will do the social work. We'll hire plenty of police, and they'll do it all!" This political tactic on the part of the BPD is in line with the Weed and Seed program cooked up by the FBI in the wake of the civil unrest in Los Angeles in 1992.
According to a leaflet distributed by the BPD, the definition of "Community Involved Policing" is as follows: "Simply stated, Community Involved Policing involves police officers getting to know all of the citizens on their beat in order to prevent crime and to solve problems. Another goal is to empower the community as well as the beat officers to address problems."
Since the police spokesmen at these meetings asserted that community policing will allow the beat cop to "get to know the residents of his or her jurisdiction" and only a few beat cops will be assigned to each beat, one resident asked: "How can one policeman get to know 7,000 people?"
Good question. In fact to ask this question is to answer it. "One policeman" cannot possibly "get to know 7,000 people." Not to worry, the police have a solution to this apparent problem...more police. This reveals the utopian/reactionary character of the whole campaign surrounding this scam. Community Policing is utopian because it will never really operate as its advocates describe it. And it is reactionary because the BPD uses this "crusade" and these meetings as a platform to advocate their solutions to crime (anti-loitering laws, more police, "war on drugs"), which, by the way, have all failed.
"For the first half of the Q+A period officer Hamilton refused to recognize Brian, who had his hand up from the beginning of the discussion period, but who the police had seen earlier handing out Copwatch Reports. Gerald suggested to Brian that he move to the front of the room where everyone in the room could see that Hamilton was refusing to recognize him. After Brian moved to the front of the room, he was called."Brian asked a question about the community's power to hire and fire police who are guilty of misconduct.
"At this point an interesting thing happened. Before Hamilton could answer ,BPD Chief Butler hopped up to answer Brian's question. This had obviously been worked out in advance. However, Butler did not answer Brian's question directly. He stated that the Berkeley Police Review Commission served the function of examining claims of police misconduct along with the BPD's internal affairs department. His delivery was real smooth. Given the general pro-police feeling in the room no one challenged his handling of Copwatch's question. In fact, not even the PRC has the power to hire and fire officers; only the police chief does. Hamilton did not call on Gerald who put his hand up at this point.
"Someone asked a question about the Neighborhood Advisory Council, ostensibly the community's part of the decision-making process of the community policing 'process.' The councilwoman took the microphone but oddly failed to directly answer the question.
"Thus it became clear that the police and politicians had agreed in advance not to directly answer any 'hostile' or even probing questions."
The BPD cannot allow a democratically organized discussion at any meeting they control. They cannot afford to. Whoever is sure of his or her position need not fear the presentation of an opposing standpoint. Only those who are obliged to defend a false position, must use bureaucratic means of suppressing a contrary standpoint, such as taking questions selectively or ignoring or evading sharp questions.
The Rodney King incident is a watershed in the history of the American police. Because the video of the Los Angeles Police Department at work caught them in the act, it was understood by the millions around the world who viewed this vicious beating that this sadistic ritual was standard procedure for the LAPD. The racist brutality of the American police could no longer be denied.
Desperate to shore up the damage inflicted on the credibility of the police, the politicians, in alliance with the media, embarked upon a public relations campaign designed to gift-wrap the still violent and corrupt police forces.
The "reforms" they came up with were the leftovers from previously unsuccessful PR campaigns -- none of which represented a significant step forward. We've heard plenty about Police Sensitivity Training, calling in the feds (who were supposed to review 15,000 cases of police brutality, in the wake of Rodney King), more black cops, more Police Review Boards, etc., etc.
According to the New York Times of March 24, 1991, "Mr. Siegel, of the NY ACLU, said that such reforms are necessary if the country is to avoid a replay of the urban violence of the 1960's. 'What's alarming is that rage stays,' he said. 'There's a percolating anger out there and if you don't have a safety valve, I think it's going to blow up.'"
The "blow up" occurred in Los Angeles and reverberated throughout the country after the Simi Valley jury found the cops that beat Rodney King innocent. Now community policing is the latest "safety valve."
The real logic behind community policing was bluntly laid bare by a Labour Party official in Britain:
"If you read police literature you find that most forms of policing are pretty ineffective, so you might as well give the people what they want, which is police officers on the beat... I wanted to push beat policing not because it reduces crime but because it increases people's acceptance and confidence in the police." (Crime, Class, and Corruption: The Politics of the Police, by Audrey Farrell, p. 163).
We of Copwatch see it as our duty to expose these attempts to put a more palatable face on the coercion, intimidation and brutality which lie at the very core of the BPD. We will continue to expose every instance of police misconduct that is brought to our attention, large and small. Join us!