You're About To Be Struck By A Vehicle!

Fri, 04 Jul 2008 04:42:11 GMT

</lj-embed>

DARK KNIGHT TRAILER # 4

Sat, 14 Jun 2008 07:39:51 GMT

New footage. New Dialogue. More Joker!

New Empire Magazine

Sun, 25 May 2008 05:43:56 GMT

featuring The Dark Knight: http://forums.superherohype.com/showthread.php?t=303228

Some buttery-flavored goodness:

Mon, 21 Apr 2008 03:27:31 GMT

First, a sad story with a funny title:

Dry Another Day
Don't worry, they've got, like, 10 of 'em.

And on the lighter side:
The Goonies: Where are they now?
You know you gotta look!

THE DARK KNIGHT

Mon, 07 Apr 2008 04:57:30 GMT

*pics stolen from BubbaGump on the SHH boards*

Amazing cast. Check.

IMAX format. Check.

Done filming. Check.

Leaked photos. Double check.

102 says left.

I WANT IT NOW!!!!!

P.S. Thanks to StarwriterLv, aka Assistant DA Dawes, for the Superlative new icon. Which may also be illegal.

/
:oD
\

LIVEjournal FREE or...

Wed, 27 Jun 2007 18:35:15 GMT

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OTyw6cq86kY

*mad laughter*

Don Szechuan Sean TRIUMPHANT!

Wed, 27 Jun 2007 17:33:34 GMT

I'm back. And better. And Badder.

Who loves you, baby?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mSvJwUFI_es

RACHEL!!!

Fri, 26 May 2006 16:20:36 GMT

Marathon 'Runner'
WB preps 'final cut' of sci-fi classic

By DIANE GARRETT

Warner homevid has disentangled "Blade Runner's" famously thorny rights issues to pave the way for a September reissuereissue of the remastered "Director's Cut" version, followed by a theatrical release of a version promised to be truly Ridley ScottRidley Scott's final cut.
Warner's rights to "Blade Runner" lapsed a year ago, but the studio has since negotiated a long-term license. The pic, now considered a sci-fi classic, has had a troubled history from the start: When Scott ran overbudget, completion bond guarantors took control of it and made substantial changes before its 1982 theatrical release, adding a voiceovervoiceover and happy ending. That version was replaced by the much better-received director's cut in 1992, but Scott has long been unhappy with it, complaining that he was rushed and unable to give it proper attention.

The helmer started working on the final cut version in 2000, but that project was shelved by Warner soon after, apparently because the studio couldn't come to terms with Jerry Perenchio over rights issues.

The restored "Director's Cut" will debut on homevid in September, and remain on sale for four months only, after which time it will be placed on moratorium. "Blade Runner: Final Cut" will arrive in 2007 for a limited 25th anniversary theatrical run, followed by a special edition DVD with the three previous versions offered as alternate viewing: Besides the original theatrical version and director's cut, the expanded international theatrical cut will be included. The set will also contain additional bonus materials.

The massive "Blade Runner" project comes on the heels of Scott's four-disc treatment for "Kingdom of Heaven," released this week by Fox homevid, less than a year after the pic's initial homevid release.

Date in print: Fri., May 26, 2006, Los Angeles

CRASH and Burn

Fri, 12 May 2006 15:40:27 GMT

CRASH and Burn:

Corruption, Gangs, and the L.A.P.D.

Sean Culkin
SOC 301
Tim Delaney
5/04/06
Word Count: 5,629

Introduction

The line between those who break the law and those who enforce it is dangerously thin. Gang-members and police officers are often reflections of each other, holding many similar customs and practices, i.e., a shared tradition, code of loyalty, group isolation, etc. Often the distinction between the two is hard to define. It is common for police officers to cross that line and participate in criminal activity. This paper will examine police corruption, and the gang mentality in relation to the infamous LAPD CRASH Units, with a special focus on the Rampart Scandal of 1999.

The formation of CRASH Units

The Community Resources Against Street Hoodlums Unit (CRASH) was a group of anti-gang units within the Los Angeles Police Department. Begun in the 1970s, CRASH Units were “set up to tackle increasing gang-related crime in the city” (“L.A.P.D. Blues,” 2001). “CRASH officers were required to get to know gang members – their names, habits, friends – to keep on top of gang activity (“L.A.P.D. Blues,” 2001). Former Chief of the L.A.P.D. Daryl Gates said the Units were made up of “the very best – individuals who are not afraid – people who are willing to work, people who are willing to get out and mix with the gangs, and get a better understanding of the gangs, who are not intimidated by the gangsta" (“L.A.P.D. Blues,” 2001).

According to Gerald Chaleff, Former President of the LA Police Commission CRASH officers were "some of the most, you could say, gung-ho or ambitious officers.” (“L.A.P.D. Blues,” 2001). The title was a prestigious one, highly prized. The position offered “freedom of movement and activity" (“L.A.P.D. Blues,” 2001). The responsibilities of the Units were varied.

The duty of CRASH Units

Sergeant Brian Liddy, a former CRASH officer, defines the primary mission of the Unit as gathering intelligence on and monitoring the activities of criminal street gangs. Liddy says, “There are kind of two sides to it. There's the intelligence side, where you kind of got to know all these people by their nicknames, where they hang out, what kind of cars they drive. Then there's the crime suppression mode, where you're out trying to keep them from doing drive-bys and robberies and extortion – the criminal end of their involvement” (“L.A.P.D. Blues,” 2001). In April 1988, Police Chief Daryl Gates initiated Operation Hammer, “a series of street sweeps of gang-infested areas in South Central” conducted by as many as a thousand police officers moving from one neighborhood to the next, resulting in the arrest of hundreds of suspected gang members and drug dealers (Cannon, 1997: 17). CRASH Units were assigned to special details aimed at getting gangsters off the streets. According to Joe Domanick, there were ‘tag teams’ set up to enforce the operation, consisting of motorcycle cops who conducted traffic sweeps.

They knew the vehicle code backward and forward, every clause in the section. Every

clause. They knew that a car had to be parked eighteen inches from the curb, and if

it was twenty-two, it was a ticket. If the windshield wipers didn't work, it was a

ticket. If there were no floor mats, it was a ticket. They knew everything and could

get anybody...Sure, you pissed off a lot of people, and sure most of them weren't

involved in killings or serious violence, but it was a way, the LAPD way, of getting

at the problem" (Domanick, 1994: 324).

Liddy describes the expertise of the Units further: “Some gangs are into stolen cars. Some gangs are into dope. Some gangs are into robberies. Some gangs are into burglaries. Then the bigger gangs have different cells--this group of gangsters sells dope, this group of gangsters does this. You need to know all that to be an expert on the gang that you're assigned to” (“L.A.P.D. Blues,” 2001). Liddy offers a description of the CRASH Unit acting as a community experiment in goodwill, rather than a hammer, saying that the majority of time is spent talking with gang members, relating to them on a personal level, in order to get information (“L.A.P.D. Blues,” 2001).

CRASH Culture

A sense of elitism and privilege was fostered among members of the police unit, deriving from their use of unmarked cars rather than the standard black-and-whites, freedom from radio check-ins, and being sought out by other officers to answer gang questions (“L.A.P.D. Blues,” 2001). Sergeant Liddy notes a feeling of being important, of not being tied to the “day-to-day business of a policeman in any city. You're just dealing with gang members. You're not being assigned radio calls unless it strictly pertains to gang activity. You're supervised, but you're supervised at a different level. You're expected to be mature, responsible, go out there and do what you're supposed to do” (“L.A.P.D. Blues,” 2001).

Liddy cites a positive effect on the quality of life, especially in his own Rampart area, as a direct result of the CRASH Unit:

In 1990, I believe Rampart had right around 150 murders in the division. In 1997, it

was down to about 33. When I left Rampart, in the afternoon, people would take their

kids to the park and play at Rampart. When I had first went to Rampart, nobody took

their kids to the park. So the quality of life in those eight years had changed

drastically in Rampart. Crime was down. The gangs were nowhere near as bold as they

had been. They had taken to staying in the back of the buildings and not showing

their face, because they could expect to get visited by the CRASH officers (“L.A.P.D.

Blues,” 2001).

The Rodney King Legacy

In the early 1990s, Los Angeles was generally thought of as a harmonious, culturally diverse city; a near utopia (Cannon, 1997: 4). However, “Poverty and discord rippled through forty square miles of mean streets. This Los Angeles was the city of which mystery writer Walter Mosely said, ‘It's a land that on the surface is of dreams, and then there's a kind of slimy underlayer’” (Cannon, 1997: 4). Racial tensions and deteriorating conditions for minorities did not receive attention from national or local media, the belief that such squalor was an “old hat” story, and unfashionable as news in the decade of political correctness (Cannon, 1997: 14).

The public image of the police received a damaging blow on August 1, 1988, when eighty Los Angeles police officers, acting on a false tip, “decended on four apartments near Thirty-ninth street and Dalton Avenue that they believed were gang-controlled crack cocaine houses. They smashed toilets, destroyed furniture, broke windows, and wrote pro-police graffiti on an outside wall” (Cannon, 1997: 17) Thirty-three African Americans were arrested, but the raid turned up less than an ounce of cocaine and resulted in only one single successful prosecution on a minor charge. “Dozens of officers were disciplined, and three were prosecuted on felony vandalism and other charges" (Cannon, 1997: 17).

Operation Hammer was regarded by many as an inconvenience; many of those arrested in sweeps were simply teenagers in the wrong place at the wrong time. Chief Gates was seen as unresponsive to the community’s needs, and out of touch (Cannon, 1997: 17). "While some activists described the LAPD as an occupying army, polls showed that a majority of blacks and Latinos were supportive of the police. One objective measure of the community's attitude was the consistent support given by South Central voters, especially blacks, to ballot measures that would have raised taxes to pay for additional officers or better police equipment" (Cannon, 1997: 17). Individual officers in high-crime precincts often developed ties with citizens (most often Latinos) who supported a crackdown on gangs (Cannon, 1997: 18).

That all changed with the release of a videotape of the beating of Rodney King. The world witnessed an unarmed man being beaten with batons by several police officers, while others looked on in the background. The consensus was that this was a case of excessive force (“L.A.P.D. Blues,” 2001). Following the incident there were a number of comments from police trying to be supportive of their fellow officers, but these were viewed by the public as an attempt to justify King’s treatment, and as a result the L.A.P.D. lost credibility with the community (“L.A.P.D. Blues,” 2001). This inevitably led to citywide riots after the officers were acquitted.

The incident served to “handcuff” the police department; Chief Gates was unwilling to offer a forceful response to the riots for fear of appearing too aggressive or provocative. The result was millions of dollars worth of property damage, a wave of lawsuits against the city, and the irreversibly tarnished image of what once was the greatest police force in the country (Domanick, 1994: 426-427). The near-reverence of the community for their police department was gone, replaced with “a white-hot cauldron of hatred and resentment” at the arrogant behavior of the police (Domanick, 1994: 333).

According to Los Angeles civil rights attorney Gregory Yates “the public began to view L.A.P.D. as being a corrupt, an almost SS troop kind of organization. I think the people that lived here wanted to deny it as long as they could, because you have to feel that you're protected. Who are you going to go to if you're in trouble (“L.A.P.D. Blues,” 2001)?”

Chief Gates reluctantly retired from the force, causing an upheaval in the leadership in the department:

They brought in a chief of police from the East Coast. That was a mistake…He came in,

a very nice guy, and all of that. But he was an individual who did not understand the

Los Angeles Police Department, did not have…"the L.A.P.D. mentality"…and didn't

understand any of that. He didn't understand the structure of the Los Angeles Police

Department, and he undermined that structure…He took away an awful lot of the kinds

of things that are necessary in order to make sure that you don't have police

officers doing things that they ought not to do…It's important to have that

supervision…he really screwed up by taking the CRASH units away from the supervision,

and putting them down at another location outside of Rampart, where they were on

their own. What in the hell did anybody expect was going to happen? And it happened.

It happened (“L.A.P.D. Blues,” 2001).

The Rampart Scandal

On March 18, 1997 Undercover L.A.P.D. officer Frank Lyga shot and killed off-duty L.A.P.D. officer Kevin Gaines in a case of apparent road rage. The fact that Lyga was white and Gaines was black created a highly publicized controversy. Lyga claimed that Gaines “had ‘I'm a gang member’ written all over him.” (“L.A.P.D. Blues,” 2001) The investigation into the shooting revealed that Gaines, and several other officers had been working off-duty as a security guard for Death Row Records, a rap recording label owned by Marion "Suge" Knight. Indeed, it appeared that several officers had played a role in the murder of rapper Notorious B.I.G. (“L.A.P.D. Blues,” 2001)

Nearly eight months later, an investigation into a bank robbery revealed the participation of officer David Mack and his ties to Death Row Records. It was discovered that two days after the robbery, Mack and several other officers, including Rafael Perez, a member of the Rampart CRASH Unit had gone to Vegas, spending thousands of dollars. (“L.A.P.D. Blues,” 2001).

In March, 1998 the investigation of Perez lead to the discovery of several pounds of cocaine missing from the L.A.P.D. property room. Perez had switched the drugs with Bisquick and sold them via his girlfriend (“L.A.P.D. Blues,” 2001). Chief Bernard Parks established the Rampart Corruption Task Force to root out ties between any other CRASH officers and Death Row Records (“L.A.P.D. Blues,” 2001). Perez cut a deal with prosecutors, meeting with investigators more than 50 times over a nine-month period. Perez provided more than 4,000 pages in sworn testimony, implicating about 70 officers in misconduct ranging from bad shootings to wrongful arrests to filing false police reports to drinking beer on the job. Perez was quoted as saying, “Believe me when I tell you, if there was 15 officers in CRASH, 13 of them were putting cases on people” (“L.A.P.D. Blues,” 2001).

Based upon Perez's allegations nearly 100 convictions were overturned and 58 officers were brought before an internal administrative board (“L.A.P.D. Blues,” 2001). 12 of these officers were suspended, seven, and five were fired outright (“L.A.P.D. Blues,” 2001). On March 3, 2000 Chief Parks disbanded the CRASH Units, replacing them with new anti-gang details that he assured “would include more rigorous requirements for membership, stressing the officers' level of experience” (“L.A.P.D. Blues,” 2001).

CRASH Corruption

In the late 1980s, as a result of a newly instated consent decree, the L.A.P.D. experienced an influx of new police officers from various backgrounds. The police department was effectively integrated and became much more diverse. Daryl Gates, chief at the time, confirmed that the measure was largely a positive one, but unfortunately, in the struggle to make quotas, often one is forced to compromise:

You can't hire all the people you need. So you've got to make all of those quotas.

And when that happens, you get somebody who is on the borderline…And we made some

mistakes. No question about it, we have made some mistakes. No police department

should hire more quickly than they can assimilate the people that they bring in, and

we did…Some folks became cops, L.A.P.D. officers, who shouldn't have: "That's right,

no question about it. The background investigators slipped, probably because they

were overwhelmed. . . . They did not do the depth of research that's necessary in

order to really weed out those that ought not to be police officers. Some people were

slipped in that ought not to have been police officers" (“L.A.P.D. Blues,” 2001).

As a result, incidents occurred such as the rousting of fifty-five year-old Jessie Larez by CRASH officers, in the search for a gun allegedly used in a murder. Larez’s nose was broken during the early morning raid and his family won a settlement against the L.A.P.D. (Domanick, 1994: 353). Ruben Rojas, a Temple Street gang member, recounts that CRASH officers often went beyond just doing good police work, conducting surveillance on the houses of gang members and even pitting gang members from different neighborhoods against each other just to watch them fight (“L.A.P.D. Blues,” 2001).

Their job was to keep us off the street.... But they just forgot that, you know? You

just don't put cops in neighborhoods like that, because there is a lot of temptation,

and the temptation will get you. You will bite into it--especially in West L.A…You

know what I can say about that? They were a wannabe mafia (“L.A.P.D. Blues,” 2001).

Gangs policing gangs

Gerald Chaleff, former President of the L.A. Police Commission, describes the nearly rogue behavior of the CRASH Units:

First of all, there was something in L.A.P.D. called the “Rampart Way” – things in

Rampart were done differently. But second of all, this particular Rampart unit was in

a building away from the main station because of space problems, without supervision.

So you had these sergeants, senior police officers and others doing whatever they

wanted to. That's always a problem (“L.A.P.D. Blues,” 2001).

Chaleff says the CRASH Units developed their own methodology of police work, apart from departmental policy. “Many people who would say that the CRASH unit in Rampart became just another gang, and that's how they dealt with things. If some of the things that are alleged are true--and I'm certain that some of them are--they were as violent as gang members are” (“L.A.P.D. Blues,” 2001).

Without proper supervision, the CRASH Units began redefining the rules for what constituted “good guys” and “bad guys.” Their sense of autonomy and superiority led to officers acting extra-judicially, or outside the law (“L.A.P.D. Blues,” 2001). Clearly the line between those who enforce the law and those who break it began to blur.

Detective Mike Hohan, the principal investigator on the Rampart Corruption Task Force notes the CRASH Unit’s adoption of a motto: “We intimidate those who intimidate others” (“L.A.P.D. Blues,” 2001).

I believe that had to deal with that they created such fear in the gang members,

because no matter what had to be done, again, stretching whatever had to be

stretched, you would go to jail if you were a gang member. He told us that officers

in the CRASH unit carried what we call our drop guns, which are guns that they

recover on the street, but they don't recover them from anybody. The policy would be

to book them as evidence. And what these CRASH officers would do, including Perez, is

keep them. When they found a gang member that they wanted to go to prison or wanted

to go to jail, they would plant one of these guns on him. They would do a similar

thing with rock cocaine (“L.A.P.D. Blues,” 2001).

Hohan also reports that CRASH officers would hold back some of the narcotics from drug busts. “They would use it to give to informants. They would use it to plant on people that they couldn't get a case on any other way” (“L.A.P.D. Blues,” 2001).

The Unit operated very much like a gang; painting graffiti, identifying themselves with specific clothing and a unique logo, and, above all, engaging in criminal activity. Hohan continues:

They would give plaques. And they had tattoos and patches that they wore on jackets,

sort of like bomber jackets that they had. And the tattoo and the patch had a cowboy

hat with a skull, and then aces and eights on it. The aces and eights, of course,

stood for the dead man's hand that Wild Bill Hickock had. When an officer was

involved in a shooting and the officer had a hit, he would get a plaque that had the

aces and eights in it, a patch, and some other memorabilia. And allegedly, they would

put a couple of shell casings for the number of times that the officer hit the person

he was shooting at. There were two types of plaques. One was for a fatal shooting,

and one was for when they wounded somebody (“L.A.P.D. Blues,” 2001).

According to Ruben Rojas, “CRASH was basically an organization that was created like a gang. Their method was to get us off the street, to arrest as many gang members as possible and lock them up. That's what the CRASH unit was based on” (“L.A.P.D. Blues,” 2001). Chief Parks points out that much of the gang-like behavior of the Unit stemmed from the officers’ personal lifestyles.

So all those things begin to reflect on [Kevin Gaine's] off-duty associations, how

he's conducted himself. And the variety of complaints that were going on around him

at the time began to give some concern about who he associated with, who were some of

his friends, what was going on. And we finally began to realize that some of our

officers, in working off-duty, were heavily involved in the whole hip-hop culture,

providing security for many of the rappers that were involved with other kinds of

crimes. These things began to reflect a completely different view of some of our

personnel than we had before…any time you deal with a criminal element and you're

being part of a security force, you become part of that criminal element, because

it's difficult to separate yourself ("L.A.P.D. Blues," 2001).

Ethics in policing

What does the Rampart scandal reveal about the nature of law enforcement? How much does personal character have to do with one’s performance as a police officer? Should officers be held to a higher moral standard than normal humans being?

Edwin Delattre (1994) cites the Law Enforcement Code of Ethics in his book, Character and Cops: Ethics in policing:

As a Law Enforcement Officer, my fundamental duty is to serve mankind; to safeguard

lives and property; to protect the innocent against deception, the weak against

oppression or intimidation, and the peaceful against violence or disorder; and to

respect the constitutional rights of all men to liberty, equality, and justice. I

will keep my private life unsullied as an example to all; maintain courageous calm in

the face of danger, scorn, ridicule; develop self-restraint; and be constantly

mindful of the welfare of others. I will never act officiously or permit personal

feelings, prejudices, animosities, or friendships to influence my decisions. With no

compromise for crime and with relentless prosecution of criminals, I will enforce the

law courteously and appropriately without fear of favor, malice or ill-will, never

employing unnecessary force or violence and never accepting gratuities. I recognize

the badge of my office as a symbol of public faith, and I accept it as a public trust

to be held so long as I am true to the ethics of the police service" (Delattre, 1994:

31).

With the passage I will keep my private life unsullied as an example to all; maintain courageous calm in the face of danger, scorn, ridicule; develop self-restraint; and be constantly mindful of the welfare of others, there is a clear distinction made that police officers serve as models for the rest of society. How can the law be enforced by those who do not believe in it and do not follow it to the letter? Delattre emphasizes the importance of the police officer’s authority, and the power of its effect on society:

A police officer is authorized to make decisions about the lives of others, an

enormous power the rest do not have. Such power should be exercised only by those

whose public and private behavior befits authority. A person who is hung over or

weakened by other intemperance is more prone to errors of poor concentration,

inattention to detail, and so on. The public cannot allow those who have special

powers to indulge in excesses allowed others. The rights of police arise from their

institutional mission (Delattre, 1994: 156).

Delattre makes it clear that (ideally, at least) holding the position of a police officer requires a very hard sacrifice. They must adopt the manner befitting the model officer at all times. Unlike the average McDonald’s employee, the police officer can not turn it off at the end of the day and be himself. They are expected to uphold the values of their police department and adopt them as their own.

In Police Deviance Thomas Barker and David Carter (1986) define police occupational deviance as “the deviant behavior--criminal and noncriminal--committed during the course of normal work activities or committed under the guise of the police officer's authority.” They posit that occupational deviance is one of the many forms of the general topic of police deviance. This is usually thought of in two forms, police corruption and police misconduct. Barker and Carter note that both of these specifically apply to the officer's role as an employee rather than to the practice of policing in general (Barker and Carter, 1986: 4).

Even though every occupation may provide the basis for deviant acts, there are few

occupations which place their members into work settings with so many opportunities

for deviant acts as does the police occupation. This phenomenon is particularly

aggravated by the authoritarian nature of policing as well as the subcultural

solidarity associated with law enforcement (Barker and Carter, 1986: 5).

Moreover, Barker and Carter emphasize the fact that the ramifications of police deviance can be devastating to the community. “A cop engaging in corrupt acts is not only subverting his/her authority but he/she is also denigrating the public trust in and respect for the law. The officer who commits a theft during the course of a criminal investigation not only violates the criminal law but also damages the relationship between the community and the entire criminal justice system” (Barker and Carter, 1986: 5). This damages the effectiveness of law enforcement activities. As in the case of the L.A. riots, the authority of the police was totally undermined and mass destruction ensued.

Barker and Carter note that “persistent deviance typically is not a solitary enterprise; rather is best flourishes when it receives group support. Second, deviance typically is not an individual or group innovation, rather it has a history in particular locales” (Barker and Carter, 1986: 16). This, of course, is true of the L.A.P.D.; the Rodney King beating was a group effort, and the Rampart scandal was one of many examples of uncovered police corruption in the department.

The authors found that “officers who engaged in shakedowns of criminals and accepted payoffs from vice operators and businessmen who operate outside the law were likely to be reported. Over 70% of the subjects believed that a policeman who engaged in any of these acts would be reported” (Barker and Carter, 1986: 18). Yet, the Rampart scandal was uncovered only after a tragic incident of “friendly fire.” One might assume that the gang mentality of the CRASH Units existed elsewhere in the department, and that certain forms of police corruption were not disapproved of.

Barker and Carter persist: “Those most likely to witness police actions are other police officers…But police will rarely incriminate another officer. They will either support the officer's actions or deny knowledge of the incident. This attitude has come to be referred to in police circles as the blue curtain” (Barker and Carter, 1986: 273). Is this “curtain” of silence the accepted norm in the Los Angeles Police Department? Is corruption really so tolerated? The authors offer an explanation:

(1) The police see themselves as members of a group aligned against common enemies.

An attack upon any one of their members is considered an attack on the group. (2)

Officers are greatly dependent upon one another for help in difficult situations. If

an officer wants to count on fellow officers when his own life is endangered, he

cannot afford to develop a reputation for “ratting.” (3) The police are vulnerable to

false allegations. An officer can easily imagine himself accused of wrongdoing in a

difficult-to-review incident. He hopes that his defense of fellow officers when so

accused will result in their willingness to assist him should their situations be

reversed. (4) Police officers are as aware as their administrators of the disparity

between formal policy and actual practice. The feeling emerges that it is necessary

to cover up wrongdoing because practices that have developed which the police have

rationalized as serving the public interest will not stand up to scrutiny. (5) An

officer has no occupational mobility. He must anticipate continuing to work in the

same place with the same people. He cannot ordinarily avoid an uncomfortable

situation by transferring to another agency. He may even have to work, at some time

in the future, under the supervision of an officer whose wrongdoing he observed

(Barker and Carter, 1986: 273-274).

One can see that there are many reasons for officers to turn a blind eye toward corruption. Things are never so black-and-white as to allow for the correctness of only one viewpoint toward the issue. If corruption were perceived as commonplace, it would surely not be fair to condemn the inactivity of honest police officers. Indeed, with so many obstacles to justice in the form of threats to the well-being of officers and their families, it’s a wonder that any instances of corruption are reported at all.

Returning to Delattre’s (1986) emphasis on the importance of personal character in police corruption, two types of personality prone to corruption appear: “meat eaters” and “grass eaters.”

A person of bad character will seek opportunities to profit by victimizing others.

Other people exist for him only to be used for his own advantage. Whatever he may

have been taught about right and wrong has nothing to do with the conduct of his

life. He feels no shame in abusing his authority. The so-called meat eaters are

dangerous to life and property, they are often shrewd, and they are invariably

rapacious and without conscience. Such persons must simply be weeded out by

background investigations, by observant academy instructors, by careful field

training officers, and so on (Delattre, 1994: 8).

Of course, as seen above, proper background investigations can often be compromised by other circumstances, such as a lack of funds or a need to fill quotas.

A person who is uncontrolled in some aspects of his character may behave like a

person of bad character, if his passion for gain overrides his regard for the law. A

person who is weak willed and vulnerable to childish temptations may be teachable but

does not belong in a position of public trust. Such ‘grass eaters’ cannot trust

themselves under pressure for peers or in circumstances of illicit opportunity and

may fall into progressively worse behavior. They can be ‘reached’; they ‘have a

price’ (Delattre, 1994: 9).

According to Delattre, a police officer's fitness to wear the badge depends on the adoption of morally sound behavior. The officer is expected upon taking up the position to be able to change his/her own behavior and shape it to the requirements of the badge.

A just officer will see that providing special-even if legal-services in return for

gratuities takes time and unjustly deprives other members of the public of the

attention they deserve. Officers who respect justice will have nothing to do with

racial prejudices, will not exceed their authority in the exercise of discretion,

abuse the powers of their office, falsify reports, or give perjured testimony"

(Delattre, 1994: 10).

Of course, as with the case of the Rampart scandal, not every officer will be willing – or even psychologically capable – to make that adjustment.

Delattre notes that police studies address the “curtain of silence” more frequently and extensively than studies of any other profession. “In its monopoly on the use of force, undercover investigation, and so on, police work is distinctive but probably no more subject to corruption than other activities” (Delattre, 1994: 93-94). Some police departments are corrupt to the core, and others are scarcely corrupt at all. Some individual police are corrupt but many officers are not. “The same can be said of ministries, businesses, educational institutions, industries, retirement centers, hospitals, and government agencies” (Delattre, 1994: 93-94).

The bottom line is: humans being are not perfect. We are not incorruptible, and perhaps there is no basis for allowing one group to exert authority over the other. After all, what is the measurement for the superiority of one group when compared to the next?

Rafael Perez's statement to the court reveals much about him and the nature of police officers as a whole. He says that in the Rampart CRASH Unit “The lines between right and wrong became fuzzy and indistinct. The ‘us’ against ‘them’ ethos of the overzealous cop began to consume me and the ends seemed to justify the means” (“L.A.P.D. Blues,” 2001). Here Perez presents himself as being confused and overwhelmed by the situation as surely anyone could have been.

He goes on to say: “There is no justification for my misdeeds, either on or off duty. I can only say that I succumbed to the seductress of power” (“L.A.P.D. Blues,” 2001). Again, humans being are not infallible. We all make mistakes. The importance of Perez’s position, however, adds a gravity to his mistakes such that the average person would be thankful he/she does not have to contend with.

Perez continues:

Above the threshold of doors that lead to CRASH offices, you will read such

philosophical statements as: ‘Some rise by sin and some by virtue fall,’ as well

as ‘We intimidate those who intimidate others.’ To those mottos, I offer this:

Whoever chases monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a

monster himself (“L.A.P.D. Blues,” 2001).

Here Perez acknowledges the fact that the proverbial line between those who break the law and those who enforce it is dangerously thin. Gang-members and police officers are two sides of the same coin. Not because of their involvement with crime. But because they are both merely human.

Chief Parks sums up the dilemma presented by the participants in the Rampart scandal:

We hold our people accountable for their off-duty and on-duty behavior. And it's very

difficult to have a life outside of L.A.P.D. that deals in the criminal element, and

then come back to work, and put on your badge and your uniform and say, “I'm now

protecting the community and enforcing the law.” I don't think we can ever take the

human nature out of this job, and I don't think we'll ever be able to overcome a

situation where a person chooses to be personally dishonest. That's something in

which people always will have to make their own judgment. It's our role to eliminate,

to the best of our ability, the opportunity for people to believe they can do it with

the same flair that occurred in Rampart" (“L.A.P.D. Blues,” 2001).

References

Barker, Thomas and David L. Carter, ed. 1986. Police Deviance. Cincinnati: Anderson.

Boyer, Peter J. 2001. “Bad Cops.” The New Yorker. Available:

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?010521fa_FACT

Cannon, Lou. 1997. Official Negligence: How Rodney King and the Riots Changed Los

Angeles and the LAPD. New York: Random House.

Carney, Thomas. 2001. "Live from Death Row." Los Angeles Magazine. Available:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/lapd/race/deathrow.html

Delattre, Edwin J. 1994. Character and Cops: Ethics in Policing. Washington, D.C.: AEI

Press.

Domanick, Joe. 1994. To Protect and To Serve: The LAPD's Century of War in the City

of Dreams. New York: Pocket Books.

Kratcoski, Peter C. and Duane Dukes, ed. 1995. Issues in Community Policing.

Cincinnati: Anderson.

"L.A.P.D. Blues: The Story of Los Angeles' gangsta cops & the corruption scandal that

has shaken the once great L.A.P.D." 2001. Frontline. Available:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/lapd/bare.html

Manning, Peter K. and John Van Maanen, ed. 1978. Policing: A View From the Street.

Santa Monica: Goodyear.

Sherman, Lawrence W. 1978. Scandal and Reform: Controlling Police Corruption. Los

SHAKEDOWN

Fri, 12 May 2006 15:11:38 GMT

Proposal for Condra:

4/28/06

Executive Summary

SHAKEDOWN is a daring new one-hour prime-time drama. Its subject is hard-hitting: the thin line between those who enforce the law and those who break it. The treatment is frank and unsparing: each of us has a vice, flaws in our character that could lead to our undoing – the same is true of the police.

Striking a balance between character drama and action-thriller, the program also features an ethnically diverse cast of the most popular names in television and film. A show unlike any other in look and feel and intent.

Synopsis

Seven detectives. Thousands of crimes. A city full of corruption. Will any of them manage to stay clean?

Title

SHAKEDOWN. A word that stresses crime, retribution, action.

“Elevator Speeches”

:20

What makes a good cop go bad? Where is the line that separates those who break the law and those who enforce it? These are the questions posed by SHAKEDOWN, a new hour-long DRAMA.

We follow the lives of eight detectives on the Chicago Major Crimes Unit. We see the way they work, but also peer into their personal lives, to uncover the people they are when they’re off duty and why they do what they do. We will see them struggle to uphold the law in an overwhelmingly corrupt city.

Who will stay clean? Who will become dirty? Who will fall in the line of duty? These questions will all be answered as we witness their stories, and gain a deeper understanding of the relationship between cops and criminals.

:90

What makes a good cop go bad? Where is the line that separates those who break the law and those who enforce it? These are the questions posed by SHAKEDOWN, a new hour-long drama.

The series goes inside the MAJOR CRIMES UNIT of the Chicago Police Department, a specialized unit of eight detectives investigating homicide, robbery, assault, missing persons cases, harassment, and organized crime. They are charged with locating and apprehending fugitives and conducting surveillance operations.

We see the methods employed in profiling suspects and the special tactics used to hunt down and capture criminals. We meet the detectives in the unit, learn the way they work and what makes them tick.

But we also peer into their personal lives, to uncover the people they are at home and find out why they do what they do. We learn the personal story of each cop and each criminal. We meet the people they care about and we see how their lifestyle choices have affected their sons and daughters, brothers and sisters, husbands and wives.

We follow them through their intersecting lives, gaining sympathy and respect for characters on both sides of the battlefield. We are with them during times of crisis and joy. We see them grow, adapt, reform, become corrupt, fall in the line of fire, and, through it all, gain an understanding of the relationship between cops and criminals.

Setting

Chicago, historically infamous as a city consumed with greed, controlled by graft, is the perfect setting for a story of good people struggling with the temptation to go bad. Its nickname, “The Windy City” was originally not coined for the weather, but for the ease with which the city’s politicians' stance on issues could be bought.

Cast

Detective EDDIE WILCOX, a reformed gambling addict with two kids, struggling to make ends meet. BRUCE WILLIS, the star of blockbuster films such as Die Hard, Armageddon, and The Sixth Sense makes his triumphant return to television. Willis’ big screen star power and popularity will be a definite asset to SHAKEDOWN.

Detective TYRA GRIER, newly appointed to the Major Crimes Unit, struggling to cope with the racially tense atmosphere in the police department. Played by MICHAEL MICHELE, whose appearances in New Jack City, Law & Order, and Ali have proven her considerable acting talent, will offer a great attraction for men of all demographics.

Captain TED BILLINGS, a veteran, hard-nosed cop, honest to a fault, determined to weed out dirty cops WITHOUT the intervention of Internal Affairs. Played by TOM SELLECK, best know for his roles in Magnum P.I., Her Alibi, and In & Out. Tom has long been an audience favorite, and his presence on the show is sure to draw his loyal fans.

Detective CONSTANCE MEDINA, a tough-as-nails go-getter trying to make up for her family’s past crime history. Played by EVA MENDES, who gained notoriety for her parts in Training Day, 2Fast2Furious, and Hitch. Eva adds to the wonderful diversity of the ensemble.

Detective MARTIN RANDLE, a fast-talking interrogator, determined to keep his suspects, as well as his coworkers, off-balance and confused. Played by DULÉ HILL of New York Undercover, Men of Honor, and The West Wing. His popularity is sure to bring devotees of The West Wing to this program.

Detective ALEX MORENO, a former gang member currently fighting a drug habit in secret. Played by VALENTE RODRIGUEZ, veteran of E.R., The X-Files, and George Lopez. Valente is a familiar face and has proven himself a gifted actor of both comedy and drama.

Detective RACHEL CHEN, a newlywed struggling to balance her dedication to her job with her dedication to her marriage. Played by MING NA, as seen in The Joy Luck Club, Law & Order: Special Victim’s Unit, and E.R. Ming infuses all of her roles with a sense of class and intelligence.

Detective BRENT TULEE, a Native American trying to overcome the negative stereotypes of his people and bring honor to his family name. Played by BENJAMIN BRATT, renowned for his roles in Homicide: Life on the Street, Law & Order, and Traffic. Benjamin brings a level of dignity and appeal to his characters.

Storyline

The first season begins with the murder of a Detective. The remaining seven Detectives of the Major Crimes Unit will be tasked with tracking down the killer. The murder was gang related. The motive: a drug deal gone bad. Confronted with the truth about their friend and colleague, the rest of the unit is forced to face their own flaws and shortcomings. Each one of them is susceptible to corruption, and the dramatic push of the show will be their individual battles against their own inequities. The cliffhanger will be whether or not Detective Moreno has been corrupted.

The second season will showcase the growing temptation for each character to abandon their ethical convictions. Their dedication to the cases they investigate will be challenged by the intervention of their own personal problems. The season finale will leave us wondering if Detective Wilcox is all that he seems.

The third season will deal with Moreno’s hiding the fact that he has been taking bribes. Captain Billings will launch his investigation as a response to increasingly adamant queries by the Internal Affairs office. The finale will leave the results of Billing’s investigation in question.

The fourth season will see the complete breakdown of Moreno, leading to the murder and frame-up of an innocent suspect. The cliffhanger will be that character’s arrest and arraignment.

The fifth season will deal with Moreno’s trial and its affect on his former coworkers. When Moreno is acquitted, a citywide outrage ensues, with rioting and buildings being burned. Billings will see his department being torn apart, leading to the breakdown of other characters’ integrities.

How the Show is Different

A gritty, action-packed drama with special emphasis on character relationships and personal dilemmas. It features an ethnically diverse cast, with each character shown as highly-educated and successful, despite their ethnicity. Features some of the biggest and most popular names in television and film.

Audience Appeal

The diverse and attractive cast will be a draw to both men and women ages 18-49. The popularity of each cast member will attract a wide range of audience members in the target demographic and the complex, character-driven storylines will keep them tuning in each week.

Production Techniques

SHAKEDOWN will be a single camera production, reproducing a cinematic atmosphere. With the exception of interiors (the police station, characters’ homes, etc.) the production will utilize real locations, both in Chicago and Los Angeles, to foster a sense of verisimilitude.

Scheduling Strategy

SHAKEDOWN, scheduled at 10:00 on Wednesdays, will attract Audience Flow from the competing networks. It will counter program FOX and TBS, who have been doubling the comedies, and will offer something fresh for HBO, USA, FX, and LIFETIME audiences who may have already seen the heavily rerun programming shown on those networks.

It will have retention from the crime-themed lead-in, Criminal Minds, flowing through to 10:00. Dial switching will be fostered from NBC and ABC, flowing across from the other prime-time action dramas Alias and Lost, while blunting Law & Order. Dial switching will be due to the superior production value, writing, and cast of SHAKEDOWN. It will offer great attraction to new tune-in viewers.

Target Demographics Projection

The target demographic will be men and women 18-49. The popular and attractive cast, consisting of members of this demographic, as well as the riveting storylines and superior production value, will draw this demographic to SHAKEDOWN.

Advertiser Analysis

Advertisers targeting the men and women 18-49 demographic include McDonald’s, Revlon, Target, and Verizon. Contests and promotions could include Sony’s PSP wherein the winners would receive free UMD copies of the show. Similar DVD contests could be held. Also, the classic Universal Studios tie-in could be utilized.

Production Costs

Quality star talent will be costly, but more than worth it in the show’s appeal. Much location shooting to foster a sense of realism and believability. Plenty of action scenes. The subject matter is universal and will be relevant for years to come, making SHAKEDOWN a natural for syndication.

Copyright © 2006 Sean P. Culkin

And Lo There Shall Come and Ending...

Thu, 20 Apr 2006 23:38:46 GMT

Pierre Goubert tells us that in Beauvaisis under Louis XIV out of every four children born one died before reaching the age of one year, and another died between one and twenty-one. Thus infant and juvenile mortality combined amounted to 50 per cent. (221)

Several people might died [sic] almost simultaneuously in the same family, especially in the early 1300s. But epidemics are never referred to as such. Perhaps it was not until after the wave of plagues after 1348 that the rural consciousness was gripped by the dread of contagion. The classification of illness was very elementary and based merely on the symptoms which affected different parts of the body - and, even then, usually the external parts (221).

Skin diseases were rife and included the itch, ringworm, scabies, leprosy, St [sic] Anthony's Fire and St [sic] Martial's Fire, which could be treated at the sulphur baths at Ax-les-Thermes. (222)

if anyone disappeared suddenly from the uplands, local rumor had three possible explanations for his flight: either he was in debt, or he was a heretic or he was a leper. In the latter case, he had to go down to Pamiers or Saverdun and enter one of the leper colonies there. (222)

Death in Montaillou was, of course, attended by certain prescribed social activities. These mainly concerned the women, and were organized in terms of the domus system. They entailed ritual laments on the part of daughters and daughters-in-law when their mother or mother-in-law was dead or dying or merely in danger. (223)

Sometimes the women's wailing, which might of course be sincere, accompanied the mere prospect of death. (224)

The laments of daughters and daughter-in-law continued after the death and followed their mother to the graveyard. Mourning might be purely ritual, without tears, or genuine, with tears. In either case, the mourning was expressed in socialized forms. (224)

As elsewhere, women watched over the dying. They played a major role in preparing the dead for burial, and in preserving locks of hair and nail-parings from the corpse. After the burial, which took place soon after death and was attended by a large crowd, they would comment and gossip on the matter. The funeral itself was an illustration of the contrast between men and women in upper Ariege (accent on the first "e"). The toll for the dead was different according to whether the deceased was a man or a woman. Local Catharism, which was very anti-feminist, tried to make death into a masculine affair. We have already seen how the people who attended the consolamentum, apart from the sick person and the parfait, were often men, pious local Cathar militants, such as the Belot, Clergue and Benet brothers. But one day a good Catholic rounded on the son of a Cathar doctor and told him that women too had the right to resurrection after death. (224)

Death also offered an opportunity to remind people of rank. Mengarde Clergue, who was 'rich,' was buried in the church, under the altar of the Virgin of Montaillou. But the vulgar herd were buried in the graveyard outside the walls, which was occasionally allowed to lie fallow to prepare space for further batches of dead. (224-225)

Over and above the social structures surrounding death, there was the primordial anguish which haunted the dying person and his nearest and dearest. This dread was not so much concerned with death in itself as with salvation in the after-life. (225)

For good Catholics (and there were such, even in Montaillou, though the Fournier Register is not concerned with them), to make a good end was to throw oneself on the will of God. (225)

The Cathars of Montaillou were not very different from the Catholics when it came to preoccupation with salvation. They differed about means rather than ends; about earthly intercessors rather than about the heavenly object to be obtained. According to Pierre Maury, the mendicant friars could not save souls. All they were fit for, after having given a man the last sacraments, was to sit down at table and guzzle. Pierre Maury concluded: 'Let us resort to the parfaits! They at least can save souls.' The same belief is repeated on every page of the Fournier Register, whenever it is a question of consolamentum or endura. And the parfaits were always there to supply the demand whatever the weather, except in heavy rain. (225)

So the peasants of Montaillou were able to prepare themselves consciously for imminent death, on condition that illness left them a minimum of awareness. They accepted in a spirit of responsibility the risks inherent in the consolamentum, in other words, the prospect of a painful endura which added to the natural suffering of illness the pangs of hunger [sic] and, for those who were toughest and held out longest, of thirst. (225)

Sometimes, when the demands of heresy were too rigorous, a Catholic death seemed to offer a solution. (230)

To return to Montaillou itself, all the cases of heretication known to us among countrymen and countrywomen, young and old, show the same attitude towards death. The main problem is that of salvation; the dread of annihilation, as such, does not seem to arise. Sometimes the concern with the soul's salvation is socialized, as in the case of Guillame Guilhabert, who was hereticated in the midst of his friends and relations. In the case of Na Roqua, the struggle for salvation was apparently carried on in solitude. This attitude to death was cultural in origin, emanating from the group of domus, and under the virtually collective pressure of the villagers, Prades Tavernier was even forced to break the Cathar rule and give the consolamentum to people no longer in possession of their faculties and even to infants. (230)

But while this concern with salvation was both cultural and collective, it was also Christian, and even Catholic in the traditional sense of the term. And this despite the difference in the choice of mediators. These country folk were no Huguenots to speak direct to God for themselves. They needed a mediator, a priest for those who remained orthodox Catholics, a goodman for those who no longer had confidence in the rectors and Minorite friars they considered to be corrupt. If possible, everyone, Cathar and Catholic alike, died surrounded by the members of his domus and of his family. The great thing was not to die alone - and to be saved. (230)

Bibliography:

Le Roy Ladurie, Emmanuel. Montaillou: The Promised Land of Error. Translated by Barbara Bray. New

York: Vintage, 1979.

Citation in footnotes:

Emmanuel Le Roy Ladurie, Montaillou: The Promised Land of Error, trans. Barbara Bray

HAHAHAHAHA!!!

Mon, 17 Apr 2006 16:52:10 GMT

http://www.toonzone.net/anbat/galleries/_batman/x-ptd-x1.html

WHOAH

Sun, 09 Apr 2006 02:26:47 GMT

Jethro Tull v. Led Zeppelin