It is about time Pittsburgh police procedures catch up with what other cities are doing. This article states that Police Chief Harper “is updating the bureau’s policies regarding officer-involved domestic disputes. One of the changes he plans is to authorize an ‘administrative investigation’ of all domestic violence incidents.” The article does not indicate whether or not a decision has been made to take away officers guns and/or place them on “desk duty” or “paid leave” pending the results of such an administrative investigation, all policies used by other cities. Does anyone know what measures are being agreed to other than the administrative investigation? Of course, none of these departmental policies does much in the long term to protect the women accusing the officers of abuse, which is the ultimate concern, but at least they would offer a measure of immediate protection and send a message that officers of the law are expected to maintain certain standards of conduct and display character that makes them worthy of the public’s trust.
The argument being made by the department is apparently that it might be unlawful (or subject the department to the possibility of a lawsuit from an officer) to take away an officer’s gun or place the officer on desk duty if not mandated by a court/protection-from-abuse order. This is the same argument Mayor Ravenstahl made publicly when defending the department’s decision not to place the officer accused of pulling a gun on a woman and her child during a routine traffic stop on desk duty. I remember shaking my head and thinking that was really weak reasoning. Wow, this is the kind of thing our Mayor could be taking leadership on – bringing the police force into a new era of accountability to the public. Why is our police department so different from other cities? In NYC it is all too common for officers to be put on desk duty or paid leave pending investigations by the department.
To those who might think this policy is too hard on officers because they sacrifice so much and deserve so much of the public’s respect, I don’t see this procedure as being too burdensome or demeaning for officers to go through. It is actually befitting their proper role, as individuals who have taken on the mantle of service to the public and committed to doing what it takes to keep people safe – the last thing they should want to do is make the public feel threatened by staying out in the field while questions about their trustworthiness are being resolved.
Loading ...
There is a wealth of information on best practices that other police departments have successfully adopted. Their successful adoption by other U.S. cities, both large and small, negates any objection the Pgh.PD/FOP have to implementing them here.
Something that’s rarely mentioned is that we do, infact, have rules on the books that address some of these issues. They’re just not being enforced by ‘leadership’.
You ask a very good question: “Does anyone know what measures are being agreed to other than the administrative investigation?” I am still asking whether Mr. Huss, newly appointed Safety Director, has been given copies of all of the information presented at the Post Agenda mtg. held in Council. To date I haven’t received any answers.
I played a minor role in planning & shepherding that Post Agenda and am as frustrated as many of you who I talk to about the way the meeting was hijacked from the original intent of its citizen-volunteer organizers. All we have is Chief Harper’s promise to announce what changes are being made.
As to this policy being too burdensome/demeaning for officers, well, yeah, it might be so for the 30+ that have protection from abuse orders served against them.
I doubt that the 800 other officers who perform their extraordinary jobs extraordinarily well AND are loving husbands & fathers at home would lose much sleep over them.