Police credibility -- top official ousted, youth shot
Baltimore police moved to restore some credibility to its disciplinary process by getting rid of its head of the equal employment opportunity commission. We learned earlier this year that Kim Y. Johnson had been moonlighting as a defense attorney for suspects arrested by cops in her own department, all while collecting a $94,000 city salary.
Now, she's either resigned or been forced out.
The move comes just weeks after the department clarified the kinds of cases she could work on during her own time. She was allowed to represent people in cases such as bankruptcy, but not those accused of crimes. Then a website InvestigativeVoice.com invoked her name in a dispute over a falsified discrimination complaint.
My question is when does Johnson find time to be a private attorney when she's got so much work to do in the Police Department? We've seen over and over investigations into misconduct gone awry -- many charges were thrown out because simple filing dealines were not met.
The city deserves a competent and open process to ensure its police force is above-board and working to resolve one of the most vexing problems Baltimore faces, and the cops deserve a system that treats them fairly.
While we're talking about credibility, a city police officer shot and critically wounded a 14-year-old boy Wednesday night on West Lexington St. Police say the boy had been armed with a BB pistol and had just robbed somebody. When the officer pulled up, the victim, a third-year medical student at the University of Maryland, yelled, "He's got a gun," police said.
A department spokesman said the youth ignored the officer's warnings to drop the weapon and turned toward him. The officer fired two shots, hitting the youth at least once in the stomach.
Police have routinely declined to release the names of officers who shoot people, and now are even finding ways to get around identifying them in initial court documents filed along with criminal charges. They haven't yet released the name of the wounded boy, and might not, and will most certainly regard the medical student as a witness to a crime and deem his name unreleasable as well.
All of this will eventually come out in court, if the youth survives, and if charges are filed, but it's impossible for the citizens to ascertain anything more about the incident other than what police have put forward without information that in years past was made public as a matter of routine. The policy of withholding names of officers in such circumstances has been under review for roughly 10 months now and the City Council hasn't followed up prior hearings on the issue.
Police who legitimately fire their weapons to protect themselves or others should have nothing to fear and open process. And the citizens deserve to have information to satisfy themselves that their police force is beyond reproach.
Categories: Police shootings, Top brass
Comments
He has nothing to fear but you at his door asking questions and possible retaliation from the family of the criminal he STOPPED. There are enough reasons for people not to want to be cops, why give someone who DID HIS job a recent to stop.
Posted by: Anonymous | October 22, 2009 1:27 PM
WTF?? anyone points a gun at me im not going to try to make sure its a BB gun before i fire.. time doesnt afford a cop that luxury in many cases. he told the boy to drop it.. he did not.. he got dropped..
beyond reproach?? again.. WTF?? why do you need to know the cop name? why is it so important? if there is a justified shoot.. then let it be investigated. I mean we have days to look at something the cop has a few seconds to make a judgement.
HE'S GOT A GUN..
that would be enough for me to draw a weapon..
DROP THE GUN!!
he dont..
BLAAAAM!!!
'nuff said...
Posted by: ravensfan21218 | October 22, 2009 2:10 PM
2 comments from people who are fine with the police withholding information.
we walk a very slippery slope when we allow our government the leway to tell us only what they want us to know.
i believe in an article either by peter or by david simon for city paper, the statistics of relatiation against cops involved in shootings were included. the number of retaliation cases was virtually non-existant if my memory serves me...and i certainly could be recalling incorrectly but i'm pretty sure i'm right on this.
using retaliation as the foundation of your support of this policy is not a good start.
further more, have you ever heard the saying, give an inch and they take a mile?
the media and freedom of information is what keeps us from becoming a military or police run state. go live in iran or china and see what you think (not saying that those are military states but they do have similar policies).
just my two cents.
Posted by: Anonymous | October 22, 2009 5:04 PM
2 comments from people who are fine with the police withholding information.
we walk a very slippery slope when we allow our government the leway to tell us only what they want us to know.
i believe in an article either by peter or by david simon for city paper, the statistics of retaliation against cops involved in shootings were included. the number of retaliation cases was virtually non-existent if my memory serves me...and i certainly could be recalling incorrectly but i'm pretty sure i'm right on this.
using retaliation as the foundation of your support of this policy is not a good start.
further more, have you ever heard the saying, give an inch and they take a mile?
the media and freedom of information is what keeps us from becoming a military or police run state. go live in iran or china and see what you think (not saying that those are military states but they do have similar policies).
just my two cents.
Posted by: Anonymous | October 22, 2009 5:04 PM
which is more important.. stopping crime, or knowing a police officer's name on every frickin' thing that happens? if the cop is convicted, then say so. even if someone is arrested and suspected, yet it goes no further, their name and pic should not be used in the papers. but to know just for the sake of knowing.. no dice.
If all of these issues were dealt with when they started, then we wouldn't need a police state!! if the crips and bloods were stopped in CALIFORNIA, then we wouldn't be having issues with them here. If the crack epidemic was stopped in the 80's as well as heroin, instead of creating a massive underground economy that is lining the pockets of people in power, while systematically destroying families and neighborhoods..
yada yada.. blab blab.. its all on deaf ears anyway.. time to go purchase some more assault weapons.. and move to a state that permits to carry.. too late for MD.. sad..
Posted by: ravensfan21218 | October 23, 2009 1:05 PM
Incredible! Every police shooting gets investigated. To post a cops name in a city famous for intimdating and killing witnesses, is pure stupidity. There will be public information in due time. To shoot ANYONE who robs people at gunpoint and defies an officers order to drop the weapon, is pleading to be shot. 14 years old? I will bet it was not his first time robbing someone but you can rest assured it will be his last. When they caught my robbers, 2 were 14 years old, in court they were scolded and placed back on probation. I like this cops solution better. Expect no mercy thugs. NONE!
Posted by: Jimster1956 | October 24, 2009 8:30 PM