When the Rodney King riots broke out in Los Angeles in April 1992, I spent three straight nights chasing looters around South Central Los Angeles. In those first few chaotic nights my 12-hour shift stretched to 15 or 16, so until the riot was suppressed I spent my nights working then raced home at nine or ten in the morning for a meal and a few hours’ rest before returning to work at six in the evening.
It wasn’t until calm returned to Los Angeles that I was able to watch some of the news coverage of what was going on during the day. I was shocked and embarrassed to see how some in the LAPD were conducting themselves while I slept. There had been several assaults on firefighters, including one shot in the face as his rig was racing to a fire on Western Avenue, so protecting them was placed at the top of the LAPD’s list of priorities.
All well and good, up to a point. But even today I recall well the news footage of a cordon of helmeted LAPD officers standing shoulder to shoulder around a fire engine as its crew fought a fire in a store that had been looted. But in the same camera shot were scores of looters merrily going about their business in a store directly across the street from the one that was on fire. Why, I wondered, didn’t they keep half those cops in place to protect the firefighters and have the other half cross the street to stop the looting? When the firemen left, so did the cops, leaving the looters to pick the shelves clean and then, inevitably, torch the place. It was a scene I was dismayed to learn was repeated over and over across the riot zone.
The message that was broadcast to the world was that you could run wild in the streets and help yourself to anything you could cart away because the cops wouldn’t bother you if you didn’t bother the firemen. The result was three days of rioting and destruction, most of which could have been averted had the LAPD taken a firmer line, most especially in the riot’s first crucial hours.
And so it appears in London, where the police in Tottenham seemed unprepared and/or unwilling to take decisive action at the first signs of trouble on Saturday. Now, with rioting spread across London and beyond, it will be all the harder to quell.
What is perhaps just as disturbing as the rioting is what will surely follow: the orgy of “outreach” and “understanding” and “communication” and all the other non-judgmental drivel that some will attempt to substitute for the public condemnation the rioters deserve. The lesson of the riots, whether in Los Angeles or London, is a simple one: When you tolerate bad behavior, you get more of it.
— Jack Dunphy is an officer in the Los Angeles Police Department. “Jack Dunphy” is the author’s nom de cyber.
Sheesh, Jack, get with the program.
The LAPD reaction to the riots is taught as the best way to handle riots in Crim Justice classes. They used, "peacekeeper" techniques and let the rage-fire burn itself out, instead of flaming the rage with peace-making techniques.
When will you police learn to defer your day to day and special circumstances tactics to the good folks in academia?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAmen, brother.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAs I recall, Darrell Gates, then Chief, order LAPD off the streets in South Central in order to protect them. Talk about surrender.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYou remember incorrectly. Chief Gates did NOT order officers off of the street. Lt. Moulin ordered the officers to withdraw from Florence and Normandie, the focal point of the riot.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIn 1979 we were living in Alabama when a hurricane came ashore. Did severe damage to a small, almost all black town near the coast. The Mayor went on TV and stated "the people in this town don't have much and now we have less. So to keep what little we have "Looters will be shot on sight". A few weeks later it was reported there had been NO looting in that town. That Mayor had the right idea. We need more folk like him running government.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseOne thing we don't see much of is groups of police spontaneously getting in the middle of disturbances that weren't predicted beforehand. While the image of LAPD looking on at looters sent a bad message, I'm guessing the brass was more worried about the risk of police officers being overrun by a group of looters because they didn't go in with overwhelming force and protective gear. If your odds of winning aren't near 100 percent, it may be better to forfeit than to risk an ugly ambush.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI think I remember a Brit named Sir John Falstaff saying the same thing.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAll too right, Mr. Dunphy. Police are usually outnumbered and these days they and their command structure are too afraid of appearing to use "unnecessary" force in front of the ever-present video cameras. Unfortunately, considering the usual success of legal action against police, it is an understandable fear.
So long as the press and the politicians insist on referring to rioters as "protestors," and so long as our reaction to riot is sympathy for the "underclass" and its so-called "grievances," the hoodlums will run rampant. And in the UK there is no right to self-defense or possession of the means of self-defense (firearms). We should not be surprised that criminals feel they can do whatever they want, especially in a mob.
BTW, I miss Mr. Dunphy's commentary--he used to post much more often. Come back, sir, come back. We need your streetwise insights.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseReach out and touch someone, with a 30-06.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIn close quarters, 12 gauge pump. Actually 2. Partner loading one while you use one. Having lived in England, gun ownership and use is severely restricted. Even the police are restricted in who can carry and use. Unanswered questions: if allowed, would enough citizens protect themselves by using them? Would enough use them to make a difference? With mobs, if they get enraged and there are enough of them, you'll end up dead, no matter how many weapons you have.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYou don't need enough firepower to take out the whole mob, only one of them.
The problem is, you're thinking in terms of warfare, when this is simply mob violence. Soldiers in a war are willing to risk death, because they have an emotional connection to the outcome, primarily the protection of their families and their nations. As such, they are willing to use attacks in force, even if there is a high chance of serious casualties.
Mobsters and rioters, on the other hand, are only in it for the loot, and when it comes down to it, are not willing to risk death. That's why they scatter like pigeons as soon as anyone putting up even a minimum of a defense shows up.
The notion, widely peddled by well-meaning community safety activists, that resisting criminal activity increases your chances of being killed turns out to be false, based on empirical evidence (the study I read was based on crimes against women, but the same principle would certainly apply to men). Your greatest chance of surviving a criminal attack is to fight back.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNext time a governor tries to cut state spending somewhere, and the Dems predictably start threatening that police services will be the first to go (aka holding the public hostage), I say let them get cut.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseLike I stated in another thread, the first job of cops is to protect the state. You, not so much.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWe see that in London now, the police are being permitted to engage as no doubt people are starting to think a new Prime Minister might be in order.
That, and citizens banding together to protect their property is a direct threat to the police monopoly. Who after this will depend on the police in these areas when a "community defense" group is organized by those who stood against the rioters when the police stood by.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe police are hamstrung by their PC leaders and are unable to really do their job. When they do intervene, they are inevitably demonized by the press and sued. Police are in even worse shape in Britain, where politically correct leaders have had more years to remove the tools they had to protect the public. They don't carry weapons, but the criminals do! Take note of where we are heading if we fail to learn the lessons of broken windows law enforcement techniques.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIn a welfare state, looting is not prohibited, it is the government's policy. If you think you are "underprivileged," then you are encouraged to loot.
Who is John Galt?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseRather then hold those responsible for their actions there will always be those who will say that those actions are caused by some third party agenda. No one is ever responsible anymore the THEIR own actions.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse