Police Brutality Rears Its Ugly Head in Memphis

David Thornton

David Thornton is a freelance writer and professional pilot who has also lived in Georgia, Florida, Kentucky, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas. He is a graduate of the University of Georgia and Emmanuel College. He is Christian conservative/libertarian who was fortunate enough to have seen Ronald Reagan in person during his formative years. A former contributor to The Resurgent, David now writes for the Racket News with fellow Resurgent alum, Steve Berman, and his personal blog, CaptainKudzu. He currently lives with his wife and daughter near Columbus, Georgia. His son is serving in the US Air Force. You can find him on Twitter @CaptainKudzu and Facebook.

Related Post Roulette

48 Responses

  1. Jippo says:

    Everyone knows that a fist to the face is a decent “nonlethal assault.” (Other nonlethal assaults, like tripping a perp or smashing someone’s face into a wall, function on similar principles of “small doses of violence.”)

    Yet, “everyone” continues to assert that they want fewer cops capable of controlled nonlethal assault, and more cops that cannot control situations with non-lethal violence. This also includes “non-cops” who are deliberately not trained in how to deliver judicious and measured violence — except, of course, to people who unable to fight back (CPR training involves “how to break ribcages”, which is measured violence.)

    When a cop’s duty (following orders) is to incite violence, your “code of conduct” is fundamentally flawed.
    Is it appropriate to incite violence upon someone capable of handling it, in order to prevent violence towards the weak? Perhaps, provided it doesn’t compromise their ability to continue doing their job.Report

  2. Chip Daniels says:

    LAPD ban of ‘thin blue line’ flags is latest salvo in culture war
    https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2023-01-21/lapd-ban-of-thin-blue-line-flags-latest-salvo-in-culture-war

    Radley Balko has done an excellent ob of documenting why the fundamental structure of policing tends to injustice and oppression, because the police see themselves as a “thin blue line” between chaos and order.

    They see us, the citizens, as hostile aliens to be subdued and crushed rather than citizens to be protected and served.

    And much of this is with our blessing and tacit approval.

    There have been plenty of suggestions from abolishing QI to police unions, to diverting budget recourses into mental health and non-armed responses (why do you need a gun to give someone a traffic ticket?), but one thing that we as citizens can do immediately is reject forcefully the “thin blue line” narrative and demand that cops be viewed the same way we view DMV clerks or road crews, as public servants.Report

    • LeeEsq in reply to Chip Daniels says:

      I think one problem that a lot of criminal justice reformers have is that they really do think that most people need to learn to live with quite a bit more disorder and even low level crime than they want to because they believe fighting this disorder and low level crime causes even more problems. They just can’t come out and say it or if they do come out and say it make sure it is in the safest community. Like I get an impression that at least for cheaper stuff, shoplifting is something that should be basically tolerated. Or how homeless advocates rejected the latest attempts to provide treatment for the homeless because it isn’t entirely voluntary and robs at least some people of their autonomy. This isn’t really a popular position and it is a big ask for most people who do behave themselves.Report

      • InMD in reply to LeeEsq says:

        As someone deeply invested in this issue before it became cool I think modern activists have it backwards. Reform is contingent on order. Absent order people will revert to not caring how the sausage is made in keeping the peace. But part of order is the order of the police themselves. And on that count Chip is 100% right about the culture change necessary.Report

      • Chip Daniels in reply to LeeEsq says:

        You might be referring to the battle over Gavin Newsoms plan for court mandated treatment for the mentally ill or Karen Bass’s moving of homeless people to shelters.

        In which case I agree that some activists are self defeating.

        But I don’t think we can apply that criticism broadly to the police reform movement or worse, use it as some sort of justification for the militarization of police.

        As Jan 6 demonstrated the loudest yelps for order come from the drivers of lawlessness.Report

        • LeeEsq in reply to Chip Daniels says:

          I am referring to the battle over Newsom’s treatment plan and Bass moving homeless people to shelters. I’m also thinking about how low level crimes like shop lifting or some light vandalism and other anti-social behavior are treated as things that people just need to learn to live with because the current alternative is worse. I think the activists are right on this but there is no way you are going to convince the citizenry of this.Report

          • Philip H in reply to LeeEsq says:

            If citizens knew how much money the police spent responding to those low level crimes, they might.Report

          • Dark Matter in reply to LeeEsq says:

            If you’re not going to enforce the law then it’s legal.
            If it’s legal then everyone can do it.
            If everyone does it then there is no whatever.

            Those are policies which will concentrate poverty big time.Report

            • Chip Daniels in reply to Dark Matter says:

              The law in its majesty allows Walgreens to defraud their employees of pay and for the employee to purloin a bottle of soda.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels says:

                Yeah, it’s like people complaining about police brutality in neighborhoods with a high crime rate, isn’t it?Report

              • Dark Matter in reply to Chip Daniels says:

                These activists think no one else will change their actions if we stop enforcing low level disorder.

                We’d be encouraging gated communities, private ownership of private police forces, and “for members only” stores. These already exist but this would be rocket fuel to that movement.

                If the gov can’t supply law and order then people will create it themselves. This is a terrible outcome.

                We’d be massively concentrate poverty. “Private” stores/communities/whatever would have order while “public” stores could have their windows broken every day because it’s fun. Since those windows need to be paid for the poor would be paying a lot more for whatever.Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to Dark Matter says:

                Oh no, I’m all in favor of strict enforcement of laws.

                Like, we need to drastically ramp up our criminal investigations of crime because, as you say, if we don’t enforce it, its destructive to society.

                Because if employees start to suspect that wage laws aren’t being enforced, it will produce all sorts of unintended consequences like pilfering and turning a blind eye to shoplifting, that sort of stuff.

                So, yeah. Git tough on crime baby.

                ETA: Unfortunately, the last time someone stole 4.5 Million dollars at Walgreen’s, the soft on crime judges let them pay a fine and walk away scot free.

                But they got the guy stealing soda! So, there’s that.Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to Chip Daniels says:

                What’s really funny is how guys like the Walgreen’s exec who decided to steal from his employees, probably lives in a gated community with private cops, and probably goes around telling people how he lives in a nice zip code with hardworking law abiding people not like those dysfunctional “urban” zip codes.

                Except…there IS crime in his neighborhood, and HE’S THE CRIMINAL!

                Imagine if there was some Black Mirror type of thing where suddenly Nextdoor or Citizen app would discover all the secret crimes that people commit and mark them with a little tag on a Google map.
                And we would see how all the “nice” zip codes would be awash in flashing lights of “Fraud”, “Embezzlement” Tax Cheat” and so on.Report

              • Black Mirror, Season Six, Scripts by O. Henry and Zach de la Rocha.Report

              • Dark Matter in reply to Chip Daniels says:

                the Walgreen’s exec who decided to steal from his employees

                Thousands of people affected over the course of years, not clear we’re dealing with one guy. Corporations can drift into this situation with it unclear if any specific person really thought about what they were doing.Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to Dark Matter says:

                No.
                This is unequivocally bullsh!t.
                They didn’t “drift” into this, anymore than the guy filling his bag with soda and chips “drifted” into shoplifting.

                They consciously and with malice aforethought stole money from thousands of people, again and again.

                You sound just like some caricature of a bleeding heart 1970s type liberal in a Dirty Harry movie, except your heart bleeds for powerful rich people.

                They didn’t know what they were doing! It was an accident! They come from a broken home! Gee Officer Krupke, they need a social worker! And most importantly, no one should go to jail, they should just pay a fine or something!

                This is why I sneer at the “Git Tough On Crime” stuff because it always is just a cover for the Wilhoit Principle.Report

              • Dark Matter in reply to Chip Daniels says:

                The word “they” is doing a lot of heavy lifting here.

                Senior management probably doesn’t know they’re doing wage theft on 0.5% of their employees.

                Lower management might know that it’s illegal to have a security check while people are standing in line but before they’ve punched in.

                Now I didn’t know that and I’ve done timecard programming professionally.

                The level of complexity for that is non-trivial and not intuitive.Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to Dark Matter says:

                What makes you think this?

                You’re acting like the corporation defense counsel, desperately seeking any exculpatory angle, making unfounded assumptions of good faith and ignorance.

                Why?

                Why not adopt this same attitude towards the shoplifter, that he innocently forgot to pay, or didn’t realize this or that blah blah blah.

                Again, in your very own words failure to enforce the law leads to very bad consequences.

                The Walgreens execs are responsible for their actions.

                They stole money and are therefore thieves, criminals, and society should regard them no differently than a purse snatcher.Report

              • Dark Matter in reply to Chip Daniels says:

                Good intentions on the part of whom?
                A bit ago you were claiming it was one guy.
                Now you’re claiming it’s several.
                You’re also claiming it’s deliberate and clear, which by implication would mean we can and should arrest someone over it. That’s fine and even desirable if it were law enforcement chasing this and if we assume guilt.

                But what we know at the moment is WalGreens settled a class action lawsuit affecting less than one percent of their workers. By definition, law enforcement isn’t interested and prison isn’t on the table.

                Is it one exec making all these decisions?
                Is multiple execs making the decisions independently?
                This took place over years, did those execs step down and were replaced?

                The fog of the unknown here is very wide.

                I don’t know what best practices are in this industry for setting up timecards nor how different what happened here is from those standards. I don’t know what best practices are for dealing with security and how that interacts with time cards.

                That link I supplied suggested these practices are “widespread” which should give us pause.

                You are assuming not only guilt but maliciousness. Then you’re getting outraged that the clearly guilty and malicious are being let go.

                Shoplifting is typically a lot clearer in terms of who is at fault and what is going on. If you want to claim that some undefined shoplifter “innocently forgot to pay” then that’s fine, but has little to do with an effort to decriminalize it.Report

              • DensityDuck in reply to Chip Daniels says:

                “What’s really funny is how guys like the Walgreen’s exec who decided to steal from his employees”

                do keep in mind that when you hear about “wage theft” it’s very often something like “it was exactly 120 minutes after the beginning of my shift, which is my scheduled break period, and I completed an in-process task instead of immediately starting my break, and the supervisor allowed me to offset the time spent completing the task to the end of my scheduled break instead of forcing me to stop working, therefore I am a victim of wage theft”Report

              • Dark Matter in reply to DensityDuck says:

                The rounding down of timecards hits the radar as crossing some lines.

                Having said that, when I was did timecard programming professionally, I’d occasionally find rules that interacted in insane ways.

                Timecard rules are created by lawyers and/or HR but you get multiple people in a room negotiating and you’ll end up with more layers of logic cases than humans can evaluate. Now I was implementing hospitals who were dealing with multiple unions so maybe the complexity is less in other situations.

                The worse was where you could check in and check out multiple times within one minute and get paid a full day for less than one minute of work.

                I’d assumed that was my fault and I’d miscoded it. Then I did a deep dive on the logic and decided no, this was how the rules actually interacted.Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to DensityDuck says:

                And they came from bad neighborhoods with absent fathers and really, society made them this way!

                They are victims, if you stop to think about it.Report

              • Dark Matter in reply to Chip Daniels says:

                if employees start to suspect that wage laws aren’t being enforced, it will produce all sorts of unintended consequences like pilfering and turning a blind eye to shoplifting, that sort of stuff.

                In your example we have 2,600 employees doing a few minutes of unpaid work a day for six years so each gets something like $1,200.

                https://www.fslawfirm.com/blog/2020/12/walgreens-workers-to-receive-4-5m-wage-deal/

                When wage theft happened to me, I quit, the company folded, and the corporate officers were eventually arrested.

                Of course that was theft in the traditional sense.

                I’m fine with doing more to fight wage abuses. If you’re saying [this wrong] means we should tolerate [that wrong], then I disagree.

                Some crimes make the wheels come off. The company I worked for had all it’s workers quit over the course of a week.Report

              • Philip H in reply to Dark Matter says:

                The company I worked for had all it’s workers quit over the course of a week.

                Using that analogy, the way to fight wage theft in Walgreens is for all 331,000 employees to quit. Good luck with that.

                Shoplifting costs American retailers around $94.5 billion annually which is on the order of 1.4-1.5% of revenue in the retail sector. Wage theft is estimated at about $50 Billion annually. One of those crimes nets you jail and possible career ruination; the other gets you promoted. Your call which has greater societal impacts I guess.Report

              • Dark Matter in reply to Philip H says:

                the other gets you promoted.

                If you lose the company 4 million dollars because of unlawful activity, then you should expect to be fired. The expectation should be that the people involved were fired long before the deal was made.

                Using that analogy, the way to fight wage theft in Walgreens is for all 331,000 employees to quit.

                Hardly. That they didn’t have everyone quit while we did showcases the level of abuse.

                Theirs was a problem but a small problem spread over lots of people. It’s also coming from a largely law abiding company. Put some attention on this and they’ll stop.

                Shoplifting costs American retailers around $94.5 billion annually which is on the order of 1.4-1.5% of revenue in the retail sector.

                For perspective, personal income was $21 trillion in 2021 (statista.com) so wage theft was 0.2%. That implies it’s about one seventh the problem that shoplifting is.

                However these statistics obscure more than they illuminate.

                If every store only has a 1.4% loss (or every person a 0.2% loss), then it’s not much of a problem. In practice it is will very wildly from company to company, store to store, and person to person. So I lost more in one pay period than those people lost over the course of 6 years and that’s before we adjust for inflation which we should.

                More importantly, we have the issue of how people’s actions will change if we decriminalize something.Report

  3. DavidTC says:

    One of the first reforms that I would make is to give police officers better training on how to de-escalate potentially violent situations.

    Yeah, because the people who immediately escalate the situation into ‘beating someone to death’ just haven’t been _taught_ how to ‘de-escalate’, and by which we mean ‘not escalating instantly to an infinite level’.

    Yeah, it’s just lack of knowledge of how to _not_ murder people, I guess.

    The problem isn’t white cops assaulting a black motorist. The problem is a more basic issue of police brutality that transcends race.

    The problem is that cops can do whatever they want, to protect whatever social structures and people they want to protect.

    ‘Whatever they want’ is often, but not always, violence against Black people. Sometime it’s violence against other people. Sometimes the violence is at the hands of Black people who have internalized various racism. (It is, interestingly, rarely Black cops against white victims, one suspects they subconsciously know they won’t get away with that.)

    And, I keep trying to point this out: The problem isn’t ‘white cops assaulting a black motorist’, it is that police (of all races) see Black people as _inherently_ criminal. We tend to focus on the murders and even other lesser violence, but we all do understand that Black people are harassed and imprisoned by a system that directly targets them, right? Even when the system ‘works’, and no one ends up dead, it works in a manner that is _incredibly_ discriminatory.

    Because, again, the police exist to protect existing social structures, and thus will aim themselves directly at anything perceived as not part of that. And the social structure in this country is, like it or not, implicit white supremacy…white people are assumed to have a right to do anything, whereas other people have to earn that right and be policed to make sure they have.

    Fun random fact: Black people are pulled over proportionally more than white people, which is an easy thing to dismiss (Maybe they’re just worse drivers or in more policed areas(ha, wonder why) or whatever) until you realize that if you separate it into daylight hours and nighttime hours, the difference nearly disappears at night. (And does disappear once you correct for different types of cars and location.), and gets worse during the day. Odd, that, almost as if the police become weirdly more egalitarian when they can’t see someone’s race.Report

  4. Philip H says:

    It’s hard to argue for reform of a system that is working as intended:

    https://naacp.org/find-resources/history-explained/origins-modern-day-policingReport

  5. Burt Likko says:

    I’m not in favor of defunding the police, but we do need police reform. One of the first reforms that I would make is to give police officers better training on how to de-escalate potentially violent situations.

    Proposed for discussion purposes: mainstream acceptance that a debate about police reform, and what that reform looks like, did not occur until more-extreme advocates of defending reached a critical mass, pushing the center of political gravity from “let’s focus on why the non-police officer in this scenario might have deserved some level of violence” to “let’s focus on how encounters between police officers and non-police officers can stay nonviolent.” (Which is a good development, earned with far too much blood and pain.)Report

  6. Jaybird says:

    One of the takes that I have seen is that there are two kinds of police stops:

    1. It’s cops pulling you over for some kind of traffic citation and they want to give you a ticket for $200 that you’d rather pay than go to court over and then get back to pulling over the next guy. (Maybe they’ll give someone with sufficient deference to law enforcement a warning and get back to pulling over the next guy.)

    2. A pretextual stop. They pulled you over for not using your turn signal. They pulled you over for a busted taillight. They pulled you over for Chicagoing a stop sign at an *EMPTY* three way. It’s not about the pretext. It’s about the fact that they think you have drugs. They think you have contraband. They think that you are likely to have some open warrants. They are *ITCHING* for a reason to pull you over and then they know that you’re going to do something stupid and then they will have their numbers go up and they’ll get a bullet point on the next powerpoint slide.

    I’d say that most people here are overwhelmingly familiar with the former and to the extent they might be familiar with the latter, it’s due to something like “had a Colorado license plate whilst driving through Kansas” or similar. “Had a peace sign bumper sticker.”

    So in a world where pretty much everybody who votes in primaries or off-year elections is going to overwhelmingly experience the former (and only the “peace sign bumper sticker” version of the latter), how are you going to change things at the political level?

    Well, it seems to me, that you change the policies by pointing out the awful policies and getting the policies, one by one, overturned.

    Taking on pretextual stops.
    No, fixing pretextual stops will not fix everything. But it’ll fix pretextual stops.
    Which means taking on QI.
    No, fixing QI will not fix everything. But it’ll fix QI.
    And so on through a list as long as your arm.Report

  7. Damon says:

    ““They’re desperate. They want police officers,” Alcazar said. “They’re going through it, they check off some boxes, saying, ‘Ok, they’re good enough, get them on.””

    You could stop lowering your standards for one thing. That’s probably NOT the area you want to ease up on. You could also try better pay.

    https://nypost.com/2023/01/28/memphis-cops-in-tyre-nichols-murder-hired-after-pd-relaxed-job-standards/Report

    • Philip H in reply to Damon says:

      Better pay either equals more taxes or decreases in other services somewhere else. Neither of those is going to be popular, especially in Memphis.Report

      • Damon in reply to Philip H says:

        Neither are multimillion dollar civil judgements.Report

        • Philip H in reply to Damon says:

          Police departments have insurance for that. So do cities. And states. Its just another cost of doing business.Report

          • PD Shaw in reply to Philip H says:

            Most police department do not have insurance for police misconduct, at least in any traditional sense. In large cities, they tend to self-insure, passing on large judgments to taxpayers or with cuts in public services. Small communities do tend to get insurance, it basically smooths out less common, high-dollar claims from year to year. Others enter into intergovernmental mutual risk pools with other communities in which each pay into a fund, and receive money from the fund to cover any payouts. When payouts exceed contributions, then member contributions are increased. In those cases, the communities are sharing the risk with each other to prevent dramatic budget shortfalls.Report

            • CJColucci in reply to PD Shaw says:

              This is essentially correct. At the state level, in any state I know about, the state self-insures, largely through an annual appropriation paid for by taxpayers.Report

              • Philip H in reply to CJColucci says:

                We are self insured at the federal level as well.

                Damon was trying to make the point that the citizens of Memphis should be angry about the money the department will have to spend settling the inevitable law suits. Best I can tell he thinks will somehow drive reform. My counter – which I stand by – is that departments won’t change simply based on that because they have structural relationships in place to pay for these things.Report

              • Dark Matter in reply to Philip H says:

                You are correct. It’s the 3rd party pays problem. The same issue shows up in Health Care.

                The cops don’t pay. Even the city doesn’t pay. The tax payers pay. And very few tax payers are voting on this issue.Report

              • Philip H in reply to Dark Matter says:

                And very few tax payers are voting on this issue.

                Much to our detriment.Report

              • Dark Matter in reply to Philip H says:

                Next election there will be soaring rhetoric, accusations of racism, promises to “do something”.Report

              • A few years back Colorado passed a law that put cops personally on the hook for a small portion of any payouts due to their use of excessive force, etc. I think it was capped at $25,000.

                There was a small bump in cop turnover, mostly early retirements from the larger forces. My expectation, which didn’t happen, was that it was the rural sheriff’s offices that would have the bigger attrition.

                I don’t recall reading about any cases where it has actually been used.Report

              • PD Shaw in reply to Michael Cain says:

                Can’t speak to Colorado situation, but I believe studies have found that when cops have legal responsibility for at least some portion of the settlement/judgment, they almost always never pay anything. I believe that was just from looking for evidence of any such payment in the government records.

                I can speculate that one such reason is the belief that the cop is judgment proof, so not worth the effort. Another related issue might be that lawsuits are primarily directed at police departments for failure to train/supervise probably for the same reason, that’s where the money is, but they have to prove some sort of governmental culpability.Report

              • InMD in reply to PD Shaw says:

                I think that the threat of civil or even criminal liability is too remote to reliably factor into day to day law enforcement officer decision making. Which isn’t to say reforming those things isn’t the right thing to do. The ubiquity of cameras alone also seems to be resulting in prosecutions that as recently as 15 years ago I do not believe would have happened, which is a good thing.

                However the legal system is really a reactive mechanism, and no substitute for good performance management. Maybe I will be proven wrong, and sometimes even really good cops screw up or do outright terrible things. But my bet is that it will eventually be discovered that all of the officers involved in this incident have significant disciplinary records related to lesser incidents, but where they nevertheless kept their jobs. No one thinks they’re going to wake up tomorrow to commit a murder, but we are all pretty conscious about the possibility of screwing up and losing our jobs. All of us except the police.Report

              • Philip H in reply to InMD says:

                Four of those officers — Haley, Martin, Mills and Smith — were reprimanded or suspended earlier for their failure to report when they used physical force, failure to report a domestic dispute, or for damages sustained to their squad cruisers, according to the files from Memphis police. Bean did not have any reprimands or suspensions in the files.

                The two discipline cases about the use of force focused on whether the officers filed the required reports about the incidents and did not appear to examine if the officers’ used of force was warranted.

                https://www.npr.org/2023/02/01/1153151044/tyre-nichols-memphis-police-violationsReport

    • Chip Daniels in reply to Damon says:

      Citizen: “This incident is terrible! How could they do such a thing!”
      Scorpion Unit: “You knew what I was when you set me up.”

      There is a lot of talk going on about “more training” but not much about “What kind of training are they getting now?”

      Because the training that they get right now, is designed around training them to be militarized occupiers suppressing hostile natives.

      The Tyre incident is an example of policing working as it is designed to do. No one should pretend to be surprised.Report

    • Brent F in reply to Damon says:

      Police officers are already pretty highly paid, I’m skeptical that’s the real reason for the problem. More like that current police culture attracts people who shouldn’t be given weapons and authority and detracts those that should.

      Seems to me the issue is the police behave exactly how you’d expect an unchecked and unaccountable institution to behave. Ruthlessly promoting their narrow interests while spinning BS about what the tax payer gets in return for their massive investment.Report

  8. CJColucci says:

    Whatever the merits of qualified immunity reform*, QI will play no role in this case.The wrongfulness of beating a non-threatening citizen to death for no good reason is about as clearly established as it gets.

    * As I’ve said many times, though, I think QI reform is a “meh” issue in its practical impact. I’ve spent 30 years in a job in which it is supposed to be important and it has almost never come up in my cases. I’ve heard similar things from other similarly-situated people. In many other cases, the result would be the same on the merits if the court didn’t decide to take a QI short-cut. Empirical research, particularly by Joanna Schwartz, a QI opponent, is consistent with my experience. In the rare cases when its important, it can be very important, and the current state of QI law, especially in some of our more benighted circuits, has metastasized and needs to be pruned back even if you’re pro-QI. But if a police reform bill came up and I were asked to vote for or against it, QI would not be a deal-breaker for me either way.Report

  9. Damon says:

    While we’re at it….

    https://www.waff.com/2023/02/02/family-facing-eviction-after-fbi-raid/

    “Family members said they were handed a 30-day eviction notice the day after the raid, claiming Jones was arrested at the residence.” They didn’t do anything and are being kicked out because the cops, err basically lied to the Landlord.

    “Family members said they were handed a 30-day eviction notice the day after the raid, claiming Jones was arrested at the residence.”Report

    • Jaybird in reply to Damon says:

      Exclusive Ring camera footage showed officers moving in and banging down the door at Westlake Apartments, breaking the porch light, and then destroying the doorbell camera immediately ending the recording.

      You’d think that this would be addressable by the legislature somewhere.Report