DOUGLAS DISCUSSES ‘BLOOD ON THE SHARROW’ ON GREATER LONG BEACH RADIO
By Greater Long Beach
Theo Douglas, the award-winning reporter who wrote this week’s GreaterLongBeach.com investigative update and analysis of the 2009 shooting of Belmont Shore bar patron Ernest Rodriguez by Long Beach Police Department officer Jonathan Steinhauser, discusses the story tonight on Greater Long Beach Radio with Dave Wielenga at 7 o’clock.
The program is available online at the KBEACH.org website. It goes live Thursday mornings at 10 o’clock, repeats Thursday evenings at 7 o’clock and is thereafter available 24/7 at KBEACH.org, where it can also be downloaded by podcast.
Douglas is a native of Long Beach whose journalism has explored many subjects but has rarely strayed from the Greater Long Beach area. He has worked as a reporter for the Press-Telegram, OC Weekly and District Weekly.
Greater Long Beach Radio has been unable to secure a qualified guest to provide expertise and perspective on the law enforcement side of this issue. An e-mailed query to the LBPD by KBEACH.org general manager John Trapper has not been answered. A request to the Criminal Justice Department at Long Beach State was rejected with this explanation: “We don’t comment on these things because it could negatively affect the relationship we have with our justice-agency partners.”
This is not a new problem. Two weeks ago, Greater Long Beach Radio’s request for someone from Long Beach’s city management staff to discuss the city’s violence prevention plans was rejected—with the advisory that future requests would require that city representatives receive a list of all questions to be asked one week in advance, so that they could be sent to City Manager Pat West’s office for review.
Anyone who believes themselves qualified to represent a law-enforcement perspective on the issue of officer-involved shootings—and is available Thursdays from 10 a.m. to 11 a.m.—can apply to appear on Greater Long Beach Radio with Dave Wielenga. Send an e-mail with your name, qualifications and phone number to DaveW@greaterlongbeach.com.
Today’s discussion on Greater Long Beach Radio will begin with a behind-the-story look at the reporting Douglas invested in this week’s GreaterLongBeach.com piece, “Blood On The Sharrow: Ballad of a Police Shooting in Belmont Shore.”
But expect things to branch out into tangential issues—such as the Long Beach Police Department’s so-called reputation for using excessive force and difficulty of accessing information about such cases and the officers involved—drawn both from Douglas’s reporting career as well as personal experience during the lifetime he has lived in Long Beach.
Greater Long Beach Radio With Dave Wielenga is a co-production of GreaterLongBeach.com and Long Beach State’s online radio station, KBEACH.org.
32 Comments
The Criminal Justice Department at Long Beach State explanation for not participating, “We don’t comment on these things because it could negatively affect the relationship we have with our justice-agency partners.”
Shortened version, “We’re don’t want to be retaliated against by the police.”
By declining to help the public better understand recent police activities in Long Beach, the Criminal Justice Department at Long Beach State has officially declared itself an adjunct of the Long Beach Police Department.
I thought the argument for “academic freedom” — indeed the whole argument for having university faculties — was to make them independent of the workaday world, the better to help us all as a society understand how the world works.
President F. King Alexander should be on the phone to the Criminal Justice Department to remind them of their public mission, or he should be deeply ashamed of his leadership of the university. Unless LBPD got to him, too.
Citizen Journalist Quotes of the Day – In the Interest of Justice
“All the great things are simple, and many can be expressed in a single word: freedom, justice, honor, duty, mercy, hope.” — Winston Churchill
“Justice is itself the great standing policy of civil society; and any eminent departure from it, under any circumstances, lies under the suspicion of being no policy at all.” — Edmund Burke
“In matters of truth and justice, there is no difference between large and small problems, for issues concerning the treatment of people are all the same.” — Albert Einstein
“Law and order exist for the purpose of establishing justice and when they fail in this purpose they become the dangerously structured dams that block the flow of social progress.” — Martin Luther King, Jr.
“Parents are not interested in justice, they’re interested in peace and quiet.” — Bill Cosby
(Source: brainyquote.com)
I think the CSULB Criminal Justice Department’s response is very short-sighted and unfortunate. Where CLB and LBPD may well be currently enjoined from commenting extemporaneously for the record concerning any matter that is currently under civil or criminal litigation, CSULB’s CJ Department is not so enjoined from cooperating with GLB radio on KBeach and attempting to offer a counter-balancing perspective.
What an excellent learning opportunity missed for CSULB’s many CJ *and* journalism students. Had any of the university’s CJ professors been allowed and willing to step in and offer even the most general of counter-balancing perspectives, much good discussion and debate could have occurred and in a far more balanced manner.
Perhaps Messrs Trapper and Wielenga should consider reaching a little more far afield…to the CJ departments of other area university or college campuses, for example. While such a person could not reasonably be expected to comment about specific LBPD policies and procedures, he or she might at least offer some more generic perspective about law enforcement practices and policies in general, and some of the statutory and case laws around which police agencies often have to compose their own policies and procedures.
I listened to the broadcast today. The presentation was, I think, heavily slanted against LBPD. To be fair, this may not have been completely avoidable given the lack of cooperation GLB radio and KBeach seem to be experiencing in this area from CLB, LBPD, and the CJ department at the stations own host university. I thought Mr. Wielenga did a bit better job in moderating the discussion in this broadcast, than he did in the program last week. In a studio cram full of people with admitted anti-LBPD biases, as the host, Mr. W did seem to try to offer a few moderating comments.
Finally, I have a ton of respect for frequent GLB commenter LBCityGirl. I think she brings a lot of value to any discussion, here or on the radio. I think, however, that her observations and opinions on this tpoic may have held much more weight and credibility had she chosen to actively participate in the program under her true name, rather than a pseudonym. Either that or I think Mr. W should have explained to the audience why sheasked to participate anonymously, and why the station chose to loow her to do so.
I was invited to participate as LBCityGirl. Apparently Mr. Wielenga wanted it that way.
I think that’s too bad. But it is his show and his right to run it as he chooses.
Give me a break. This BS from recently retired Long Beach Police Officer John B. Greet who for YEARS commented anonomously under the name John B. He now objects to OTHER anonomous commentors even though it was good enough for HIM to do so for years when he was a cop. What a hypocrite.
Considering the city’s history of retaliation against those who question how they conduct their business, it is probaby wise for MANY people to use an anonomous name when they likewise question city conduct or bring new information to light.
However, it is cowardly if launching a personal attack against another commentor is their reason for utilizing an anonomous name.
Mr. Ruehle your premise here is as flawed as many of your other comments are false and fraudulent.
Yes I used to post anonymously several years ago. I no longer do so. Nor was I commenting, here, about anonymous comments on a web-based news site but, rather, about guests offering comment, opinion, and commentary on a public radio program on which the other three people offering comment, opinion, and commentary clearly and accurately identified themselves.
There was no animosity or anger in my observation (quite unlike your response to it). It was neither intended, nor phrased as, a personal attack. It was simply an observation. I have readily acknowledged that Mr. W. has every right to run his show as he chooses. I simply disagree with his decision in this case.
If we are no longer going to be allowed to disagree with one another here, Mr. Ruehle, wherever will you go to continue to post your consisitently false, fraudulent and otherwise misleading commentary?
As I announced at the outset, this was a “Shoot-the-Breeze” edition of Greater Long Beach Radio—reduced to such because my attempt at a discussion of the issues raised in Theo Douglas’s story on the 2009 police shooting in Belmont Shore was short circuited by the lack of participation from anyone who could offer a perspective that was well-informed by familiarity with Long Beach Police Department procedure.
Under those circumstances, I do not think there was anything wrong with permitting LB City Girl to participate (she was not scheduled to) and to use her comment-board alias.
Mr. Greet, I guess I appreciate your suggestions on where I could look for someone, somewhere who could offer some kind of informed perspective on the law-enforcement side of these issues … but first of all, this is radio show is a volunteer effort on my part (as nearly is GreaterLongBeach.com), and secondly, it seems ridiculous.
Wouldn’t it be better if taxpayers who rail against the insulation and wastefulness of government took this case to the Long Beach Police Department and demanded some kind of accountability and cooperation? The LBPD employs a well-paid public relations staff—not to mention administrators and officers—and from that pool it would seem there would be somebody who could find an hour on a Thursday morning to answer some very legitimate questions about some very legitimate issues.
Mr. W, Thank you for responding directly to some of the points I raised here. As I have said, it is your radio show and you can run it as you please. I simply suggest that Ms. LB’s opinions and comments may have held much more weight and credibility had she actively participated in the program under her true name, rather than a pseudonym.
I think it is unfortunate that you find my reasonable and well-intended suggestions for adding a bit of balance to your programming to be ridiculous. While I appreciate the volunteer nature of the radio show, shouldn’t any news and comment broadcast effort aspire to even a casual nod toward more of a balanced presentation? Please understand, in the case of this program, I think you *did* make efforts to bring more balance to the show. But all you can do is extend invitations, you can’t compel anyone to accept them. Perhaps at least one such invitation could have been accepted had a bit more notice been provided. My suggestions here had to do with any future efforts you might make. You’ll forgive me if I disagree that a suggestion to make a phone call or two the CSUDH, or LBCC in the interests of more balanced programming is worthy of ridicule.
I agree that it would be very nice if LBPD would at least issue some sort of statement in response to your direct invitations. As mentioned, they may very well be enjoined from commenting extemporaneously for the record concerning any matter that is currently under civil or criminal litigation but it would be nice if they would least say *that.*
I am all for taxpayers railing against the insulation and wastefulness of government and taking this case to the Long Beach Police Department and demanding some kind of accountability and cooperation. Perhaps some of them will do so. If they do, I will sincerely hope they are successful.
But, Mr. W, everyone works for someone. Off. Steinhauser works for his Chief, his Chief works for Mr. West. Mr. West works for our Council, and our Council, ostensibly, works for and represents us.
If a sufficient number of voters in Long Beach are unhappy with the performance and responsiveness of the elected government, then they have every right an responsibility to change it.
Given the overall apathy demonstrated by more and more local voters these days this is me definitely *not* holding my breath.
Dave, with all due respect, unless something along the lines of KFI radio puts pressure on city hall and gets the FBI to intervene like what is currently happening to the cops in Fullerton, why would the Long Beach Police Department bow to pressure? They haven’t before. Just ask the Zerby family who have been stonewalled since the beginning, despite all the exposure they’ve received.
In my opinion, this issue lies with city council, our policy setters. City Council has the power to force public disclosure from the police. Like most California cities, City Council can force the police to reveal the names of the officers involved and the results of any investigation, let alone participate on your radio show. After all, City Council has the power to hire and fire city staffers who refuse to follow the policies they set.
Until city council supports the public, they will continue to authorize the city attorney to file court order after court order to block any attempt at public disclosure, not unlike the law suit the city filed to countermand the judges order to release the names of the officers who shot Douglas Zerby.
The public has to be willing to recall their council for NOT supporting them in this effort, much like the residents of Fullerton are now seeking to recall their Mayor and two councilmembers for not supporting them on disclosure of the videotape of the cops murdering a handicap homeless man. That might be tough to do in Long Beach, a city that can only get 17% of registered voters to elect their Councilmembers. And the majority of those voters are the very union members fighting the disclosure.
Mr. Ruehle, while I agree with you that all of the challenges extant in city government can be traced back to poor leadership, I disagree with your perception of who those leaders actually are.
The Mayor and Council are intended to lead their respective offices and to set policy for all other city departments, but it is the people, as represented by the electors, who should be providing the leadership.
The people should be providing better direction to and more effective oversight of their elected government representatives. Perhaps more importantly, the people should be visiting reasonable and effective consequences upon their elected government representatives whenever their government is not functioning as the *people* and not the *representatives* prefer.
There are any number of glaring and recent examples of opportunities that the people had, to step up and provide guidance, direction, and leadership to their elected representatives. But in almost every case the people have failed in *their* responsibility to do so.
Until the majority of the people start meeting their *own* responsibilities as the true leaders of their government, very few of these sort of challenges are ever going to change.
Lastly, you said that the City Council has the power to force public disclosure from the police. This is not entirely true in all cases. There exist various state-level statutory laws that hold certain public employee and public- and public-safety personnel information confidentential. Our Council has *no* authority to violate those laws, once asserted. Further, in the case of pending litigation, both parties to a lawsuit are often prohibited from discussing the case or disclosing specifics to the public as a matter of court order. Our Council has no authority to violate the lawful orders issued by a judge.
John, It is unfortunate that you do not understand that LBCityGirl is intended as a character for entertainment value. She is intended to represent any girl/woman in Long Beach. She is sassy and outspoken and often says the things *I* wish I could say. Sometimes she says things just to get a rise out of people like you. Her (my) identity isn’t important so much, only the content of her commentary is. In fact the mystery is part of the character as well.
If you feel you must know my name to take my part of the conversation seriously, feel free to dismiss my comments.
LBCG
Mr. Greet:
Why don’t you volunteer to be on Dave’s show and lend it the law-enforcement perspective you believe it sorely lacks?
Ms. LB, it is unfortunate that you misunderstand my point in this area. Most folks, here, do not know that you and I have met, and have shared what I consider to be some significant discussions on various issues. This is the main source of my deep admiration and respect for your points of view and opinions.
But most readers here have not had what I consider to be the honor of meeting you in person and discussing things in person, on an equal footing, as intelligent, courteous, and respectful adults. Had your comments and opinions on this radio show been restricted to those intended strictly for “entertainment value,” to demonstrate “sass” and “just to get a rise out of people,” then I could certainly understand that. But I do not think you restricted your comments in that way. I think you had some very interesting, important, and serious things to say that were deserving of proper attribution.
When you said these things, *I* knew precisely who it was who was saying them. Most others probably did not, and I think they should have been offered a true name to affix to your comments. I *do* know your name, why shouldn’t others be afforded the same courtesy? Why would you be so willing to have your interesting, serious, and important comments so easily dismissed?
Again, it is Dave’s show and he can run it as he likes, but if it seemed important for everyone else in the room to be accurately identified, why was it somehow less important for you to be?
DWR: As I explained to Mr. W when he called and invited me to participate the day before this program aired, I do not consider myself to be an expert on much of anything and I certainly would not presume to represent either the city or the police department in any of my comments.
I might have something of value to offer during such a program in the realm of general law enforcement and statutory and case law and if Mr. W, thinks my comments in that area might add some value, I might consider participating in the future.
As I alluded in my response to Mr. W here, with more notice I might have been able to accept the invitation he extended the other day. If he decides to extend another invitation in the future, on whatever topic, I will certainly consider accepting it if given sufficient notice.
I would love to be the one to interview you when you decide to join Dave on KBeach.
Assuming Mr.W chooses to extend another invitation, and assuming that invitation is more timely, I would do my best to accept and to present my personal views as clearly and as respectfully as possible. As for you interviewing me, it’d be great to have a conversation with you again, on air or off. : )
Sounds like Greet is packing two guns now.
Mr. Ruehle, when you wrote: “Sounds like Greet is packing two guns now.” What exactly did you mean?
@ John: Thank you for the fine compliments!
BTW, shame you retired, you looked so handsome in uniform…
The truth is I am a sucker for authority…esp. guys in uniform…
Why wait for an invitation, Mr. Greet? Take the initiative and offer to volunteer your time and perspective on a date that is convenient for you.
Funny how CSULB slobbers all over any opportunity to inject itself into anything its’ transportation and trade partner the port of wrong beach has going on, with joe maggotdocio’s never-ending oral diarrhea. How much more lightweight can they get?
Ms. LB: LOL
DWR: I was raised to understand that if one’s presence is desired, an invitation will be extended. Mr. W, was kind enough to extend an invitation to one production that I unfortunately could not attend. He is a very busy fellow with many topics to try to deliver to his audience. I’ll provide him the courtesy of deciding whether to extend another invotation and, if so, when my participation might best meet his needs.
Talking to the greet about current affairs would be the same as talking to the Dodger Stadium peanut vendors about the Dodger/MLB situation.
Mr. wrong, that hardly contributed very much of a mature and intelligent nature to the discussion. But keep trying, perhaps you’ll stumble upon something by accident.
Citizen Journalist Quotes of the Day — Truth Knocks On the Door
“All truth passes through three stages: First, it is ridiculed; Second, it is violently opposed; Third, it is accepted as self-evident.” — Arthur Schopenhauer
“When you cut pieces out of the truth to avoid looking like a fool you end up looking like a moron instead.” — Robin Hobb
“The truth knocks on the door and you say, “Go away, I’m looking for the truth,” and so it goes away. Puzzling.” — Robert M. Pirsig
“The most perfidious way of harming a cause consists of defending it deliberately with faulty arguments.” — Friedrich Nietzsche
“There are some things one remembers even though they may never have happened.” — Harold Pinter
(Source: goodreads.com)
The level of detail of police work that John Greet shared above is exactly what is missing from discussions of the Zerby and Fullerton incidents.
John, it might be helpful if you can share more information about the nature of the 30+ annual cases you investigated as a police manager (without violating disclosure laws). In general:
What actions were being questioned by the reviews?
What principles of good police work were at issue?
Was there something about the officer’s training and qualifications for the job that contributed to the incidents? What were those inadequacies?
What percentage of those reviews (in general) revealed good police work that simply had unfortunate outcomes?
In light of your reviews, how would you improve police management in general (not necessarily LBPD management)? What would you change, and why?
I’m not trying to assign you homework, John. It’s just that I feel many here (myself included) don’t have a lot of information about how police agencies work on the level of assuring that those who wear the uniform know what they’re doing when called to make quick decisions about volatile situations. If you can help with this, you would do a great service.
US, as mentioned, those numbers are only estimates, if admittedly conservative ones. Without being too specific I can tell you that the vast majority of citizen complaints I received over 10+ years were considered “service” complaints. That is, complaints that the officer failed to provide the service the citizen expected, or failed to provide the service in the manner in which the citizen felt it should have been provided. A relatively small number of complaints had to do with more severe allegations of policy, procedure or criminal or civil rights violations.
Either way all complaints were taken very seriously and well-documented for notification up the chain of command.
In my perspective, most citizen complaints proved unfounded. Either their service expectations were unreasonable or they were alleging actions or failures to act that were not considered misconduct (they did not constitute violations of policy, procedure or criminal or civil rights legislation.)
Again, whether I *personally* felt the complaints lacked merit, I accepted, completely documented, and forwarded all of them, because that was part of my job.
Those complaints that were of a serious nature proved, for me, few and far between. Once I completed the initial investigations on these complaints, all of the information went to internal affairs for follow up and forwarding, in turn, to department management. As a supervisor, I sometimes had to formally interview the accused officer(s) later. In each case where the allegation was of a criminal nature or where the investigation might reasonably lead to additional allegations that included violations of law, I had to read the officer his or her miranda rights, on tape, and have them sign a document indicating that they had received that admonishment.
Trust me, this is all taken *extremely* seriously and, in my opinion, there are few administrative things more sobering for a police supervisor than to have to sit across the desk from another cop and read him or her their miranda rights.
Beyond that, the procedure is for the most part out of the field supervisor’s hands unless and until direction returns from management to provide the employee with documented re-training or documented counseling, or serve the employee with some sort of discipline, such as a written reprimand. Anything more severe, such as a suspension or a termination, was usually handled directly by internal affairs.
Officers (indeed all civil service employees) have a right to appeal any and all discipline. If they are not successful in appealing to their department management, they have a right to appeal directly to the Civil Service Commission. As mentioned, the Civil Service Commission has Charter-mandated authority to issue final rulings on these cases. Take a look at the minutes of some of the meetings of that Commission and you will see that they pretty much spend *all* of their time reviewing such appeals and issuing rulings that are then binding upon the chief executive of whatever department the employee works for (including the Chief of Police.)
It has been my experience that most cops make two kinds of mistakes…those of the head and those of the heart. In the latter, the officer truly is trying to do the right thing to the best of his or her ability but just makes a bad judgment call and runs afoul of policy and procedure. In such cases, assuming the violation is not aggregious, it is reasonable to try to correct the person and/or retrain them without allowing that mistake to completely trash an otherwise promising career.
In the former case, however, the officer knew or reasonably should have known that what they were doing was in violation of policy, procedure, or law and/or the violation was so aggregious or resulted in such severe consequences (property damage, injury, or death) that it cannot be so readily accepted or excused. It is in those cases, in my opinion, that discipline must always be swift and severe, both to punish the offender, but also to serve as a clear message to other officers that such mistakes or willful violations will not be tolerated.
In my view, police management, in general, does some things very well, and some things not so well. Despite that there exist legal constraints that often prevent police departments from releasing all of what they know about a given incident, I think they should still make greater efforts to get out into the community and assure folks that they understand how significant an event the incident is *to* the community and make better efforts to assure them that the incident is being fully and completely investigated and that the department will provide regular updates of that information that the law will allow them to release.
And then they have to actually follow up and *do* that.
I get that city government and department management has to be very careful to not acknowledge in civil or criminal responsibility unless/until such can be proven in court, but this should not constrain elected and appointed officials from at least acknowledging the tragic nature of the event, expressing sincere regret that that the event has occurred, and assuring residents that subsequent investigations will be as transparent, as thorough, and as timely as possible.
And then, once the investigations are concluded I think city government has a responsibility to publicly release the results. They do not have to release specifics that may legally remain confidential, but they should at least release the bullet point findings and the conclusions. It is the lack of follow up and reporting back to the community that many views as evidence of a lack of government transparency.
I think we can do a lot better in that area also.
I sincerely hope these responses -offered from my own personal perspectives and not representative of any city department or government agency- have proven helpful to you and others.
John, thanks for your response. This is helpful.
Just to continue on one of your comments – you said that a majority of the complaints you reviewed seemed to rest on an unrealistic expectation on the part of the citizen of what police officers can do. How would you characterize this kind of expectation? What do you think causes it? Is there any way to reduce it?
It seems to me that public expectation of what officers are able to do and can do may be at the heart of many of the lethal force incidents that become news. Are there unrealistic expectations in these incidents as well? How can that unrealistic expectation be reduced in a way that public perceptions of police activity falls more into line with reality (if that is the problem)?
Sorry for the delay in responding.
I believe that the segment of the general public that has unreasonable expectations of law enforcement service is actually relatively small, but, as we see on sites like these, extremely vocal.
I think the best way for anyone to overcome ignorance on any matter, including this, is to educate oneself. There are various ways that members of the general public can educate themselves about law enforcement policy, procedure and practice. One good place to start are the statutory and case laws that govern much of what the police do and how they do it.
(Example: Mr. Ruehle *loves* to allege that the city or PD is engaging in a cover-up whenever either organization declines to disclose some of the specific information contained in personnel files or concerning a specific in-progress investigation. When he offers such allegations he is demonstrating ignorance about various statutory and case laws that legally restrict and restrain the city and department from disclosing such details.)
Another is to review the actual policies and procedures that exist. Police Department policy manuals, training bulletins, and other sorts of official procedural literature are public documents and available for review.
(Example: Mr. Ruehle routinely demonstrates through many of his ignorant comments that he has never once reviewed some or, perhaps, any, of these materials before presuming to critique the manner in which the department and its professional police officers accomplish their missions and do their jobs.)
Another is to apply for and attend a patrol ride-along. Even that brief and superficial glimpse into the shift activities of the average LBPD officer can prove very enlightening.
Another is for citizens to apply for, attend, and complete a community police academy, like the one LBPD offers. Such curricula can offer members of the general public *very* valuable insight and information on criminal law and police policy and procedure, as well as to help the public better understand the vast array of complex challenges that police officers face every single day and night as they go about the business of serving the community.
http://www.longbeach.gov/police/join/community_police_academy.asp
Another, for those interested in actually serving their community as a police officer, but without committing to a full time multi-decade career of it, is to apply for, attend, and complete a reserve police officer academy. Many community members from all socio-economic backgrounds currently serve Long Beach as part time *volunteer* police officers…receiving, in some cases, the very same amount of state-mandated law enforcement training that full time officers do and accomplishing many of the very same tasks throughout their shifts…but they do it for free, out of a sinceere desire to serve their community in this way.
In these ways and some others, I think those unrealistic expectations that exist can be reduced in a way that public perceptions of police activity falls more into line with reality.
Respectfully, John, there’s no way in Helen’s Hat that I’m going to pursue your suggestions right now, which seem open-ended and intended more for someone with a MUCH-greater-than-semi-casual interest in this subject.
I’m more interested in your observations about what SPECIFICALLY constitutes unrealistic expectations that the public has about police work.
If you aren’t interested in providing that, I understand and won’t hold it against you. If you know of a specific article or op-ed piece or even a SPECIFIC police training text that addresses this, that would be helpful. If you know of a particular speaker or expert on this subject who you would recommend, that would also be helpful.
I’m looking for ways to think about this problem of citizen outrage over police deployment of deadly force, and am open to the thought that both sides contribute to it.
Specifics would be helpful, but if you’re not interested in helping with that, or if it’s too complicated to convey in a website posting, it’s honestly OK with me and I won’t insult you over it. I just want to make sure you understand my question and interest.
US: My apologies for misunderstanding your question. I had thought that I was offering a considerable level of specificity in my answers to some of the questions I understood you to have posed.
Q: What causes unrealistic public expectations?
A: In part, ignorance
Q: Is there any way to reduce it?
A: Yes, education, acquired through in the sorts of activities I suggested
Specific examples of what I consider to be unrealistic public expectations include the following hypotheticals:
1. A citizen calls the police to report an auto burglary and desires that an officer respond and take a report. An officer arrives an hour later. The citizen berates the officer for taking so long to arrive. The citizen misunderstands that the officer was not actually dispatched on the call until 50 minutes after the citizen called and that the officer only *actually* took 10 minutes to arrive after he or she was dispatched.
2. A citizen calls the police and complains that there are vagrants loitering at the bus stop near his or her home and asks that an officer be dispatched to run them off. The officer arrives 30 minutes later but by that time the vagrants have already wandered off, leaving a pile of trash in their wake. The citizen is upset that the officer took too long to arrive and now the area around the bus stop is a mess. The citizen misunderstands that the officer that responded is the only one handling mass transit-related calls in the entirety of the city on that day and, because he had responded from his location on the other side of town, following the rules of the road as required, despite that he was dispatched 15 minutes after the citizen called, it reasonably took him an additional 15 minutes to arrive.
3. A citizen decides he wants to take some photographs of our city’s water treatment facility. A passer-by notices this, believes it is suspicious, and reports his activities to the police. An officer is dispatched who arrives and watches the photographer for a time and decides to make contact. The officer is courteous and business-like but asks the photographer to identify himself and explain why he is taking photographs. The officer confirms the photographer appears legitimate and has no warrants for his arrest or other wants. The officer leaves the photographer to his picture taking. The photographer is incensed. He doesn’t like that the police contacted him and doesn’t like that he felt compelled to identify himself. The citizen fails to appreciate the grave nature of domestic and international terrorism, that terrorists often target facilities like the water treatment plant whicjh are considered to be aspects of the city’s critical infrastructure, and that the officer was just responding to a call for service that another citizen fully, and rightly, expected him to handle.
4. An officer is involved in a foot pursuit of a person who mathces the description of someone who has been committing rapes in a neighborhood. The officer catches up to the suspect, tackles him, and is in the midst of struggling mightily to get the suspect to stop fighting and submit to lawful detention. The officer employs several types of control holds and other sorts of physical force that are all authorized in department policy and, eventually, manages to get the suspect into custody. But all that the on-lookers in the area see, and ultimately file complaints about, is “a cop beating up some poor man for no reason.” The on-lookers do not have all of the facts and background behind the foot chase and susbsequent use of force and the officers and supervisor who respond are limited in what they can share because the suspect has not been convicted of any wrong-doing and the rape victims are all guaranteed confidentiality as victims of sexual assault, according to well-established statutory law. Despite these very valid reasons for not over-disclosing, some vocal members of the community choose to accuse the police department of a cover-up and trying to “protect their own.”
These are just a few hypothetical examples of unrealistic public expectations, particularly in the area police response. Most citizens have no realistic idea of just how many calls for police service come into the police department each day and night (thousands), how and why they are prioritized, and how difficult it can sometimes be to get them all handled in a timelier fashion with the finite and ever-shrinking patrol staffing the department has to work with.
The best resource for police training texts are college bookstores. Another ready resource is the California Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST) website: http://post.ca.gov/
I hope these answers proved more helpful to you.