Tag Archives: ABOR

Dec 23 2013
63 Comments
General

The legal liabilities of ASUPD’s FTO program

Many comments have been made regarding the status of ASUPD’s FTO program–how it has been used as a tool to weed people out of the department, how different FTOs have different standards for each respective trainee–but none have discussed how poorly running an FTO program can have significant legal ramifications for ASUPD, as well as ASU.

The following excerpts were cited from J. Parkinson’s “The Cost of Inadequate Training“:

Title 42, U.S. Code, Section 1983 Claims states that all allegations of civil rights violations against the police are brought in Federal Court (Daane, D.M. and J.E. Hendricks, 1991).Section 1983 provides a remedy for the violation of an individual’s federally protected rights.

In order to file a Section 1983 claim, the plaintiff must show that the defendant acted under the color of state law, their conduct deprived the plaintiff of their rights secured by the Constitution, the training the officer received (regarding the injury suffered by the plaintiff) was inadequate, the inadequate training led to the injury, and there was deliberate indifference on the part of the municipality.  The Court ruled in Monell (1978) that a municipality could be sued if the plaintiff could prove the defendant violated their rights because the municipality failed to adequately train the defendant.  The Court ruled that liability for failure to train has to follow the strict standard of deliberate indifference.  The requirements to prove deliberate indifference include:  plaintiff must prove the municipality knew the officer would have to deal with the situation, there was training available that would have made the outcome of the situation different, and the municipality chose to not provide the officer with such training (McNamara, 2006).

Supervisors are also able to be held liable for an officer’s actions under Section 1983.  There are three elements, the court identified in Shaw v. Stroud (4th Cir. 1994), that must be present.  They are:

(1) that a supervisor had actual or constructive knowledge that his subordinate was engaged in conduct that posed ‘a pervasive and unreasonable risk’ of constitutional injury to citizens like the plaintiff; (2) that the supervisor’s response to that knowledge was so inadequate as to show ‘deliberate indifference to or tacit authorization of the alleged offensive practices,’ and (3) that there was an ‘affirmative causal link’ between the supervisor’s inaction and the particular injury suffered by the plaintiff.”

            It is not good enough to say a police department is properly trained, there has to be clear documentation that includes when the training was held, which officers attended, who was the instructor, and what material was covered (Dahlinger, 2001).  Documentation must be organized in a clear, concise manner so if an officer becomes a defendant in a failure to train lawsuit, or any other type, the training records can be submitted as evidence of training. Basically, if it is not documented, then it didn’t happen.   McNamara (2006, p.3) stated:  “Taking this proactive step will help reduce department liability by showing an ongoing commitment to proper training.”

  • Therefore, ASU’s piecemeal FTO program could cause the department to be held legally liable under U.S.C 1983 if they can articulate the officer was NOT adequately trained. Considering the fact that the FTO program has previously allowed FTOs and an FTO Supervisor to train rookie officers when they THEMSELVES were not certified to be field training officers, we believe this to be grounds for a pretty significant civil lawsuit against the department.
  • Additionally, an FTO Sergeant (ie, the “Supervisor” of the FTO program) could also be held legally liable by allowing non-certified FTOs to train rookies, and failing to intervene when there were allegations of wrongdoings by an FTO (ie, “tacit authorization of the alleged offensive practices”), Therefore, a certain FTO Sergeant who allowed several of her FTOs to terrorize a slew of rookies could be held legally liable in civil court.
  • Finally, as stated in this article, training records can be submitted as evidence of training…so what happens when those training records are altered from their original state to “prove” that a rookier officer isn’t qualified to pass field training? Beyond the possibility of a civil suit on behalf of a potential victim and the rookie themselves, this is a blatantly criminal act which has occurred several times at ASUPD.

The most disturbing part about the legal liability incurred as a result of ASUPD’s FTO program? Several members of Command staff, including the Chief have known about the situation at hand. Granted, these people have been removed from the FTO program, but they have all received NO punishment, and their actions have created a legal liability for the department that may linger for a long time.

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Dec 19 2013
14 Comments
General

A Call to Arms

We’ve had a lot of folks contact us privately in regards to speaking out against ASUPD, even in an anonymous setting. We understand the apprehension in putting yourselves out there, even if it IS anonymously…but here is some food for thought:

Are you wondering if you should speak out, complain, or have you decided not to? As an officer you swore an oath before God to serve and protect the citizens of the State of Arizona, be them students, faculty, staff, the public, or your brothers/sisters in blue. How are you serving them by allowing the people responsible for their lack of safety a free pass by continuing in your silence despite what you know (what we ALL collectively discuss with our friends/coworkers)…namely things the public could never know about how dysfunctional the ASU Police department is?

If you are silent then you are part of the problem. You share the negligence, and you share in the responsibility if something bad happens through your inaction. You stood by, passing the buck, knowing of wrongs that led to a tragedy and did nothing. Do you want that on your conscience? By talking about these issues we are trying to change the department so that it can finally start fulfilling its mission instead of cutting all corners. You fight for truth and resolution or you quit and turn the cheek joining company with self-promoting deceivers; there’s no fence, none at all.

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Dec 18 2013
18 Comments
General

Chief’s Advisory Board Meeting Minutes

Recently, there’s been a lot of discussion about the Chief’s Advisory board; what issues are being addressed with the Chief, and what steps command staff has taken to pull back its department from the brink of disaster.

Attached are the Chief’s Advisory Board meeting minutes from 10/17/13. We’re posting this primarily so the public can see that ASUPD’s employees have made EVERY effort to address the department’s problems with the Chief directly, and even posed possible solutions to each problem individually. Pickens STILL has yet to take ANY action to wrangle the department’s problems (despite the fact this meeting was TWO MONTHS AGO), and he has now actually removed himself from his own advisory board!!

Nearly everything stated on the Chief’s behalf is a half-truth: the clicks DO run the department; you’re NOT being personally attacked by the blog, Chief (you are professionally though!); you have NOT fixed the requisition process; you do NOT have magical ideas that will benefit the department that are so secret none of us can know; and the idea that you’re unaware of the problem, Chief, and thus you can’t address the issues at hand.

EVERY issue discussed in the advisory board meeting has been also mentioned on The Integrity Report in one form or another, (with the primary difference being the person discussing the problems/solutions in the advisory board is much more articulate and concise than we are). We count ourselves among the masses of people that have attempted to make you aware of the problems in YOUR department, Chief, but you still deny there are massive problems in the PD.

Chief, in your own words: “the communication lines are open”…you actually have to pick up the phone, though.

Chief Advisory Board Minutes of Meeting

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Dec 12 2013
13 Comments
General

Are ASUPD’s problems morphing into a Penn State-sized scandal?

Before anyone asks, we are NOT asserting that Arizona State University has some sort of child sex abuse scandal in the making–ie, Pennsylvania State. We are just illustrating parallels between Penn State’s administrative nightmare (following the public revelation that the university admin KNEW what was going on, but did nothing), and Arizona State University’s current admin situation. This is an extremely long, but informative read.

In 2011, a HUGE child sex abuse scandal implicating (former) Penn State University assistant football coach Jerry Sandusky broke, and with it, there were several allegations the university had knowledge of the criminal acts in question and failed to act appropriately. For the purposes of this blog, we will be focusing specifically on the inappropriate or non-action on the part of Penn State University’s administration, and how these common denominators parallel the administrative problems currently transpiring at Arizona State University.

In 1998, an 11 year old victim told his mother he showered with Sandusky. The mother contacted Penn State University Police, and a subsequent investigation begins. Detectives in the case also discovered another victim in the case who has the same story as the initial victim. The case was closed after District Attorney Ray Gricar decided the case warranted no criminal charges. The investigating Detective tells the grand jury in this case that the head of PSUPD, told him to close the inquiry.

Prior to the Grand Jury investigation of the first victims’ allegations, in 2007, the then-vice president for student affairs, Vicky Triponey, resigned. She stated she had “philosophical differences with other leadership in student affairs and at the university in general“. Several weeks later, The Wall Street Journal reported that football coach Joe Paterno wanted to discipline his football players himself, effectively having his players not be subject to the student code of conduct. Paterno also threatened (former) Penn State University president Grahm Spanier that he wanted Triponey gone, and would stop fundraising for the school unless she was fired.

In 1999, Sandusky retires from PSU, but is still allowed access to campus facilities, including the locker room.

In 2002, an assistant coach, Mike McQueary, reported seeing Sandusky sexually assaulting a young boy to Paterno; Paterno subsequently reported the information to PSU athletic director, Tim Curley. 10 days later, McQueary, Curley, and Gary Schultz (PSU Vice-President of Finance, which oversees the management of PSUPD) meet to discuss the allegations. No reports are made to law enforcement, and Curley and Schultz instruct Sandusky not to bring any children from his charity to PSU’s football building. This decision was approved by PSU President Spanier.

In 2008, a Grand Jury investigation is initiated. In 2010, McQueary testifies that he reported what he believed to be sexual activity between Sandusky and a young boy, and the reactions of the university administration to the situation. Curley and Schutlz denied they were informed of a sexual assault, but stated they understood the situation as “horseplay”.

In 2011, Schutlz and Curley were found to not be credible by the Grand Jury.  Pennsylvania State Attorney General Kelly released a statement, saying, “…Those officials, to whom it was reported, did not report the incident to law enforcement or any child protective agency, and their inaction likely allowed a child predator to  continue to victimize children for many more years….If we are to enforce the law and protect our citizens, and in this case our children, we cannot condone under the law the actions of those who make false statements to a grand jury, regardless of the positions they hold, particularly when they involve serious matters of great importance.”

(In 2011, Spanier resigned as PSU President and later was formally charged with perjury, obstruction of justice and endangering the welfare of children; Both Schultz and Curley were later charged with perjury, child endangerment, obstruction of justice and conspiracy ).

After this scandal broke, in 2011 PSU was investigated by The Department of Education to assess the university’s compliance with crime reported as required by the Clery Act. If federal investigators determine PSU wasn’t following protocols, PSU could face severe financial sanctions. Although the initial results of the investigation were released to PSU, the findings have not yet become available to the public.

A subsequent investigation by former FBI Director Louis Freesh stated there were several points PSU officials could have stopped Sandusky’s abusive actions, and instead, did nothing. Freesh stated, “There were more red flags here than you could count over a long period of time”.

Parallels between PSU’s scandal and ASU’s plight

While not as horrific nor as publicized at the scandals at Penn State University, Arizona State University seems to have engaged in a similiar pattern of behavior that could send it down the same perverted path carved by PSU.

Alan Clark, ASUPD’s former Assistant Chief has had MULTIPLE sexual harassment complaints lodged against him by members of ASUPD, including an investigation conducted by DPS on Clark’s behavior. Instead of taking action to prevent Clark from further engaging in sexually harassing behavior, ASUPD Chief Pickens holds on to the results of the investigation for a year, then allows Clark to retire from his AC position for another position in the university. Clark STILL has access to the police department, much like Sandusky was allowed to have access to the very locker rooms at PSU where he perpetrated his crimes.

Multiple allegations of sexual harassment, sexual discrimination, records tampering, as well as hostile work environment claims committed by members of ASUPD (among others) were brought to the attention of either ASUPD command staff, and/or Chief Pickens, both in a formal and informal situation. It is so pervasive that these issues were addressed directly to Pickens at his employee Advisory Board. Even directly stating these specific issues to Pickens himself have resulted in NO ACTION; these allegations of wrongdoing have yet to be formally investigated by the department as of this writing.

In the situation at PSU, upper-level administrators were informed of the acts perpetrated by Sandusky, who elected to do nothing about the situation, as not to draw negative attention to the university. Similarly, several ASUPD employees and administrators have informed ASU’s Vice President of Finance, Morgan Olsen of the gravity of the situation that exists at ASUPD. Olsen’s eventual response (months after being informed) we postulate has little to do with caring about the concerns of his employees, and everything to do with the pressure Michael Crow, ASU’s President, has put on him to minimize negative attention to the university.

ASU’s Head of Human Resources Kevin Salcido was dispatched to investigate the merits of claims made against ASUPD by members of the department; however, it appears that Salcido has engaged in an “investigation” primarily to give the impression to those outside of the university that ASU is “taking care of the problem”. In reality, a full blown investigation would entail actually interviewing those who claim to be victims of systemic mistreatment at the hands of ASUPD. What this “investigation” has amounted to at this point is Salcido discussing some “issues” with upper-ranking members of ASUPD who have either no idea of the gravity of the situation, or know only one tiny iota of the problems the department is facing. Therefore, the seriousness with which Salcido’s office is handling this investigation has yet to be seen. Michael Crow has also been kept abreast of the situation at ASUPD by his people, but the degree to which he is informed is unknown.

Just like PSU, ASU’s upper-level administrators have been informed of the situation that is currently transpiring within ASUPD. However, here is where the stories of both Penn State and Arizona State are at a crossroads: will ASU go down the same path as PSU by letting the situation deteriorate further, only to feign ignorance when facing possible criminal charges? Or will ASU learn from the mistakes PSU made and decide to rectify the systemic failures of its police department, while there is still time?

We don’t know the answer to this question. The breadth of these problems go beyond what is happening at the PD level and are manifesting themselves into university wide problems; therefore, a significant and genuine undertaking by ASU’s administration must transpire, or else the issues discussed here will require the intervention of the state and federal government.

Sources:

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052970204443404577052073672561402

http://deadspin.com/5861716/former-psu-administrator-joe-paterno-wanted-his-own-code-of-justice-for-players-including-what-info-became-public

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/12/freeh-report-penn-state-coverup-joe-paterno-jerry-sandusky_n_1667727.html

http://news.psu.edu/story/281634/2013/07/15/administration/penn-state-receives-initial-clery-report

http://www.npr.org/2011/11/08/142111804/penn-state-abuse-scandal-a-guide-and-timeline

http://www.attorneygeneral.gov/press.aspx?id=6277

http://investigations.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/11/01/14852918-former-penn-state-president-graham-spanier-charged-in-child-sex-abuse-scandal

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Dec 11 2013
4 Comments
General

CPS avoided transparency, ignored reform for years

Here’s another article regarding the plight of another grossly mismanaged state agency, CPS. While reading this article, ask yourself…do the problems CPS is experiencing sound familiar?

From abc15.com:

PHOENIX – Maricopa County Attorney Bill Montgomery says he wants answers and hopes the completion of a Department of Public Safety investigation will lead to permanent reform and change for Child Protective Services.

“I want to go all the way down to the bottom of the cesspool that has been the source of CPS failure and find out what is going on,” said Montgomery.

Montgomery is hoping an administrative investigation will get to the source of what he calls a failing system at CPS.

“The focus needs to be what’s going on with CPS from an administrative, personnel, and policy standpoint. The organizational culture and the management structure at CPS needs to be looked at because that may be the source of the true fault of the child welfare system from the beginning,” said Montgomery.

He hopes focusing on a system wide change will make sure CPS is doing what it is intended to do.

“Set up a system were there really is protection of children first and not the protection of status quo, or the protection of failed system,” said Montgomery.

A system Montgomery says has managed to avoid transparency and ignore reform for years.

“How do you have a government agency, that despite legislation telling them how they do their job, continue doing what they’ve been doing all along and are impervious to efforts of reform?” asked Montgomery.

This sounds very similiar to the situation at ASUPD: waste taxpayer money, have droves of employees quit, have a department unable to engage in police work…but ignore any efforts to try and change the situation within the agency.

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Dec 09 2013
5 Comments
General

Catholic college police officer kills student after struggle.

Still think an on-campus shooting could never happen at ASU? At University of the Incarnate Word, a Catholic college in Alamo Heights, TX, an officer shot and killed a student after a struggle following a traffic stop. According to CNN:

The incident began when Cpl. Christopher Carter, a police officer with the University of the Incarnate Word in Alamo Heights, saw Robert Cameron Redus near campus “driving erratically at a high rate of speed” Friday, a university statement said.

“Carter was obligated to pull the suspect over to ensure the public’s safety,” the statement said.

Redus pulled into an apartment complex, and Carter followed, mistakenly reporting the wrong street location to police dispatchers, which prompted his call to be routed from the Alamo Heights Police Department to its San Antonio counterparts, the statement said. This caused a delay of several minutes in response time.

“During the wait for assistance, the officer tried to restrain the suspect who repeatedly resisted,” the statement said. “During the struggle, the officer attempted to subdue the suspect with his baton. … The baton was taken by the suspect who used it to hit the officer.

“The officer drew his firearm and was able to knock the baton from the suspect who continued to resist arrest. Shots were fired.”

We checked out the crime statistics for the university to see what sort of issues their department deals with; for 2012, the university had a total of 16 alcohol arrests, 3 drug arrests, 1 weapons violation, and 2 burglaries. THAT’S IT. If an officer-involved shooting can transpire at a university with relatively NO crime, it can definitely happen at a university with a significant amount of crime (ASU). The question ASUPD should be asking isn’t IF it will happen, but WHEN. Additionally, ASU needs to actually plan for some sort of major event, whether it is a shooting, or an active shooter scenario instead of focusing on stolen bicycles.

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Dec 07 2013
4 Comments
General

Michael Crow: We have issues but they’re not unmanagable!

In an recent editorial interview with The State Press, ASU President Michael Crow had some interesting words to say about the university’s crime problem.

After being asked about the negative image the student population is projecting of ASU as a whole (as a result of many violent attacks, rising crime stats almost across the board), Crow stated: “Look at our statistics…Yes, we have issues, but they are issues that are not unmanageable … (and) all students are held accountable.” REALLY!?

We looked at your crime statistics several months ago, and yes, they’re unmanageable. They became so when your PD became UNABLE to respond as the primary unit for the majority of its calls. Why are they unable to respond? They’re so short-staffed they can’t even work their own special events. Of course sir, you wouldn’t have the slightest notion of this assertion, because when someone from your office calls to report a “suspicious package” (ie, a BANANA!), Chief Pickens sends out the entire department to a NON-CRIME RELATED CALL.

As for holding your students accountable? We’re all for it. You should also hold your staff accountable, especially the ones that oversee the management of the police department. Hold those people accountable who have looked the other way when millions of dollars was thrown down the drain.

Ironically, the article winds down with Crow stating, “We have a number of behavioral issues in and around the University, and they’re complex things that we’re working on. We need as much help and ideas as possible to be able to create the safest environment that we can create.”

On this blog, we’ve laid out almost every issue that desperately needs attention at ASUPD, in hopes that someone would read it and secure a safer and better environments for students and staff alike. Having s0me of “your people” investigate the merits of our claims is a step in the right direction, however, the exigency of the situation is quickly overtaking your ability to control it.

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Dec 07 2013
5 Comments
General

According to the news media, Vista Del Sol ISN’T on ASU’S campus!

Odd.

Initial reports of the ecstasy lab found at Vista Del Sol were reported as occurring on ASU’s Tempe campus, now it is nearly impossible to find a link to the original story on ANY of the major media outlets. On abc15.com (where we pulled the original link from), the news story isn’t on the site AT ALL. The links are still live, and you can still search them from google, but when you are navigating news stories on the site, it is nowhere to be found. (You can read about Tempe news from a week or more earlier, but this story is missing).

Other media outlets that have since updated the story, such as CBS 5, have referred to the dorm where the drug lab was found (Vista Del Sol) as an “apartment in Tempe” near “Apache and Rural Roads”. The title itself even refers to the drug lab as being “near ASU’s campus”. Last time we checked, Vista is a privately managed dorm LOCATED ON ASU’S TEMPE CAMPUS, NOT NEAR IT OR ACROSS THE STREET FROM IT. If that were the case, why does ASUPD respond to Vista calls, NOT Tempe PD?

ASU’s spokeperson Julie Newberg makes it seem like the university cares by stating that violations to the Student Code of Conduct could result in punishment up to/including expulsion from ASU. She also throws in a tidbit about how “the apartment complex is housing for juniors and senior at ASU”, as if to assuage any parents reading the article.

This is a pretty obvious and blatant attempt to minimize the damage done to ASU and also the PD. In reality, ASU has NO concept of the crime problem directly under their noses because they’re too concerned about minimizing bad press so the university won’t lose any revenue generating students due to a poor reputation. If the parent populous KNEW how unsafe their children were at ASU,  they wouldn’t be spending the big out of state money to send them here. Disgusting and sad.

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Dec 05 2013
4 Comments
General

What causes woman-on-woman bullying in the workplace?

Came across this article from workplacebullying.org about woman-on-woman bullying in the workplace; we feel it is extremely relevant to our sisters in blue (past and present) who have suffered because of bullying from a female supervisor. It’s a long but good read.

Six explanations from us for why women bully other women at work.

Solidarity of the sisterhood is a myth and stereotype. It doesn’t mean it does not exist, it’s just that not all women are nurturant and supportive to one another. Neither is every man macho and hyper-aggressive. Stereotypes are generalizations about sex-role-typed behavior, common acts associated with only one gender and not the other. Many behaviors are gender-typed.

Workplace Bullying is not gender-typed. Workplace environment factors are better predictors than gender. For example, a culture that carries no accountability or negative consequences, regardless of how harmful the behavior exhibited paves the way for bullies. A place where kissing-up (ingratiation) is the norm is fertile territory, where bullying and favoritism (and its converse, ostracism) thrive.

When we discuss the WBI Healthy Workplace Bill, we speak of “status-blind” harassment. Bullying crosses the boundaries drawn by gender, race, ethnicity, age, and disability. Thus bullying is truly “gender-free.”

What attracts the media to woman-on-woman (WOW) bullying is the fact that women are targeted at a higher rate by female bullies (71%) than by male bullies (46%). Yes, women are crueler to women than they are to men, and that must be explained. But don’t forget that 60% of all bullies are men. 31% of all bullying is men-on-men, 29% is WOW. Why is there so little interest in the more frequent variety of same-gender bullying? Because it’s discounted as routine, expected, predictable. WOW sounds mysterious, counterintuitive, and, I think, somewhat prurient.

So here are some explanations for WOW bullying that rarely make it into TV segments on bullying, print stories and the gabfest which is the blogosphere. We offer this because some readers might get the impression that we are misogynists. We are not! 57% of all bullied targets are women, and the majority of callers seeking help from us are women. We are women’s advocates in the fight against workplace bullying.

The WBI  starter list of explanations

A. It’s the workplace, not the people in it. Employers create work environments where aggression is rewarded. women see this (as well if not better than men) and learn to abuse others to get ahead. It’s the way things are done around here.

In male-dominated organizations, where men hold all the executive positions, women tend to adopt male-sex-typed behavior to survive and succeed. Only in female-run organizations (or those run by males who adopt a female-sex-typed style that values quality of interpersonal relationships as much as power and status differences) can there be hope for a less aggressive, more dignified and respectful way to operate. See the Women and Bullying articles in our Research section for relevant studies about this particular angle.

B. A double standard about women is alive and well and practiced by both men and women. If women are “nice” they are too soft. If they are tough, they are “bitchy.” There are two social psychological explanations for this.

First, it is gender bias in the causal attribution process. Causal attribution is simply showing a preference for explaining things that happen. Old research found that if a person is described succeeding at a task, the explanation depends on whether the person described is male or female. Success for men is typically explained by a trait, inherent skill, intelligence, ability. With exactly the same information, when it’s a woman, success is the result of the task being so easy anyone could have done it or luck. And both men and women elect those different explanations.

Second, the first person to break any barrier and be the lone representative of a group (and therefore, be in the statistical minority) is called a “token.” Tokens are subjected to disproportionate pressure. Errors, however tiny, are magnified. Successes can also be blown out of proportion. In practice, token individuals often break from the pressure. Look at what Jackie Robinson had to endure when he broke the race barrier in the white baseball league. Same for the first woman CEO or the first woman to attain a high rank in any organization. Women are natural tokens in male-dominated domains, like business. Men are rarely the only male in any role, but when they are, they, too are tokens and heavily scrutinized.

C. Women targets are less likely to confront in response to being bullied. But targets, of both genders, rarely react with aggression. That’s what makes them targets. Bullies sense who will be an easier mark. Targets are sorted into those who take no action because of a higher moral calling. It could be their religion that tells them to turn the other cheek or to never lower oneself to the level of a tyrant. Other targets walk away in fear, stunned at the surprise attack. Getting away is the only reaction they have. Once away, they hope time will heal the wound or prevent it from happening again. Regardless of motive, targets do not defend themselves because either they are unable (it’s not their worldview and never acquired the skill of self-defense because it’s a fair world, no one will hurt you) or unwilling to do so. Targets are all “easy marks.” It’s not just women.

D. Most bullies are bosses (in the US, 72% of bullies are bosses). All bullies prefer to bully subordinates. It’s a permitted prerogative that makes being a boss attractive to many people. So, bullying flows downhill.

Women are bosses, too. But they are lower-ranking than men bosses (only 15% of executives are women, only 3% of CEOs). So they are more likely managing other women and not other men executives. They bully whoever they can. So, WOW may be nothing more than proximity at work. You bully those within reach.

E. Though I’m not a woman, I’ve had a great deal to do with them during my lifetime (and Ruth educates me constantly). (She says that) women are socialized to judge other girls while growing up. They pay attention to how others look and dress all the time. Self-identity can be almost entirely dependent on how others appear and how they are judged by others. Without comparisons to others, some would not know how to make decisions.

Two factors emerge. First, modeling one’s personal behavior on the actions of others gives a great deal of power to the other person. Clearly in WOW relationships where apparent friendship preceded bullying, the bully may have been respected by the future target. When she is betrayed, the target ruminates (for way too long) about the inexplicable turnaround, searching for a rational explanation. It doesn’t matter, it just happened because the bully wanted it to. Wanting to be like someone else gives away too much personal control over one’s own life and choices made.

Second, the skill of paying attention since childhood determines the adult woman’s perceptual field. Other women are salient in the social world. More information is gleaned from cultivating relationships with women. Abusive, exploitative relationships with one person dominating the other is simply a twisted, sick reliance upon getting information from another woman (to then be used against her). Targets fall into the trap easily.

F. Feminist writers claim that women grow up accustomed to having their personal boundaries invaded and thus learn to treat other women that same way. A girl’s opinions are treated as irrelevant by the father compared to her brother’s. A girl’s ambitions are tamped down, expectations made more “realistic,” dreams treated as impossible. This is denial of her very psychological integrity, a discounting of her humanity. If this is how she is raised, she grows accustomed to being treated rudely or denigrated as not deserving equal status with others. So, when bullied at work, the immediate reaction is rarely outrage and righteous indignation that a fool would dare lie so readily or be so unapologetically cruel. It is more likely a timid turing away, starting immediately to blame herself, buying into the lies (as if some “kernel of truth” is buried in all the manure), and spiraling into a psychologically compromised state.

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Dec 04 2013
15 Comments
General

How ASUPD is attempting to violate your 1st, 4th Amendment rights.

ASUPD has been in a tizzy regarding the posts on The Integrity Report, to the extent the department has been actively trying to find the persons responsible for creating this site. Obtaining our IP address would require a search warrant to do so, and no judge in their right mind would sign one, simply because ASUPD “doesn’t like what is being said about the department”. Remember, although we are law enforcement officers, we still have protections under the 1st Amendment which include your freedom of speech. In this post, we’ll assess how ASUPD’s policies and practices are infringing on YOUR 1st Amendment rights as a US Citizen. It’s important to note that the department CAN control what you say while you are working in the capacity of a police officer, because the speech you are making is viewed as connected to your employment.

ASUPD has created some broad, catch all policies to curtail negative things being said about them, including:

Employees of the Department shall not criticize or ridicule the Department, its policies, or other officers or employees by speech, writing, or other expression, when such speech, writing, or other expression:

1. is defamatory, obscene, or unlawful;

2. tends to interfere with or to undermine the effectiveness of the Department to

provide public services;

3. tends to interfere with the maintenance of proper discipline;

4. tends to adversely affect the confidence of the public in the integrity of the

Department and/or its officers and employees;

5. Improperly damages or impairs the reputation and efficiency of the

Department; or

6. is made with reckless disregard for truth.

Let’s evaluate this policy, shall we? Nothing that has been said here on The Integrity Report is obscene, untrue, would interfere with ASU’s ability to provide public services, interfere with discipline, or recklessly disregards the truth. All of those parts of the policy are fall in line with parts of the 1st Amendment that are NOT considered to be “protected speech”.

However, the parts of the policy which seek to limit speech based on the negative impact it would have on the public’s confidence and integrity of the department, as well as the potential damage the speech would have on the department are OVERLY BROAD.

Citing Pickering v. Board of Education, 391 U.S. 563 (1968), The US Supreme Court held that an employee’s interest as a citizen in making public comment needs to be balanced against the employer’s competing interest “in promoting the efficiency of the public services it performs through its employees.” This “balancing test” will weigh in favor of the employee when the speech is made as a citizen on a matter of public concern. In 2006 the Federal Circuit court ruled in Garcetti that an employee is protected only if the speech is unconnected to employment (in addition to the balancing test established in Pickering). (Please see this article at PoliceOne for an expanded view of the aforementioned court cases).

Additionally, on Oct. 1, 2012, U.S. District Judge William W. Caldwell ruled in Beyer v. Duncannon Borough that a former police officer’s anonymous online speech was a form of protected citizen speech because he was speaking matters of formal concern.

This blogs exists as an informal mouthpiece for ASUPD’s employees to highlight areas we feel are of GREAT public concern; additionally, the anonymity of this blog separates it from any formal connection to ASUPD.

The ASUPD policy that seeks to infringe upon the 1st, and 4th Amendment rights of its employees is annotated under “Public Relations, General”. The policy states:

·         When reasonable suspicion exists that the police department is being discredited by an employee through electronic media, the employee may be required to allow access to personal accounts or hardware/equipment for inspection.

The “reasonable suspicion” standard was established in O’Connor v. Ortega, which held that governmental employees are afforded 4th Amendment protections during investigations by supervisors for administrative investigations. However, this case dealt with a person’s office being searched, NOT a more intrusive search of a person’s social media accounts.

If we as police officers seize a person’s password-protected computer as evidence and the suspect refuses to consent to a search, we must obtain a search warrant to view the contents of the computer. How is requiring its officers to turn over their PASSWORD PROTECTED personal accounts any different? Especially since everything written here has been written and accessed OFF-DUTY.

As police officers, we are bound by the constraints of the Constitution in order to effectively impart justice. Our position does impose limitations on what we can/cannot say while discharging our duties as a law enforcement officer. However, we are also all private citizens who ALSO have Constitutional rights and protections, with free speech being one of those. The policies made by ASUPD that attempt to thwart free speech can NOT usurp our protections under the Constitution.

Chief, you need to have a long talk with ASU’s Legal Counsel to assess the legality of some of your policies.  

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
← Older posts
Newer posts →