In Praise of "Rogue" Cops

“His death was gang-involved, the way I see it,” lamentedformer Orange County Sheriff’s Detective Ron Thomas after viewing the mangledbody of his 37-year-old son, Kelly. “A gang of rogue officers … brutallybeat my son to death.” 

The description of the crime is appropriate: Kelly Thomaswas murdered by a thugscrum of at least six police officers on a sidewalk inFullerton. Kelly, who had a criminal record, was a homeless adult who had been diagnosed with schizophrenia. On the evening of July 5, police were called to astreet near the Fullerton bus depot by a report that someone was burglarizingparked cars. 

Kelly was identified as a suspect, and was uncooperativewith the police. He was tasered at least five times and beaten until brain-deadwhile pleading with the officers and crying out for his father. Multipleeyewitness accounts have disclosed that the beating continued – punctuated bythe familiar demand that the victim “stop resisting!” -- long after Kelly wason his back, motionless and defenseless.

That this was a gang-involved murder is indisputable. Withall proper respect to Ron Thomas, however, the grieving father is desperatelywrong about one detail: The murderers were not “rogue officers.” Once the gangassault on Kelly began, practically the only thing that could have saved his life would have been the timely intervention of a rogue officer.

As an institution, the police do not exist to defend life,liberty, and property. That would be the role played by peace officers -- a population that is, for all intents and purposes, extinct. Policeare given the task of “enforcement” – the imposition of rules devised by, andon behalf of, the wealth-devouring class. That role includes dispensing summarypunishment against people who display anything other than instant, unqualifiedsubmission to them and to the political order they embody. Any material goodthat is done by a police officer is a renegade act, given the nature andpurposes of the institution that employs him.

In any situation blighted by the presence of a policeofficer, that armed functionary’s first priority is not to “serve” or to“protect” anybody. Sociologist James Q. Wilson, whose writings became somethingakin to canonical texts for Rudolph Giuliani and other politicians and policymakers of an authoritarian bent, explains that a police officer’s first priority is to “impose authority on people who are unpredictable, apprehensive,and often hostile.” 

That apprehension is an understandable reaction to thepresence of an armed stranger of dubious character who demands unqualifiedsubmission. The hostility is predictable, entirely defensible, and generallycommendable. Members of the Costumed Enforcer Class refer to it as “Contempt of Cop,” and regard it as an offense subject to summary punishment through the application of state-licensed violence, frequently of a lethal nature. 

Ron Thomas – who, once again, is a retired law enforcementofficer himself who teaches “arrest and control” techniques – explains that theofficers who murdered his son weren’t attempting to arrest him as a criminalsuspect, but rather “bullying” him “under color of authority” as punishment for“contempt of cop.”

Incidents of this kind display a standard morphology:

A cop confronts a citizen and encounters brief, trivial, andoften justified resistance. He summons “backup,” and a thugscrum – which is a phenomenonsimilar to a criminal “flash mob,” but generally more lethal – quickly coalesces and deals out hideous violence while terrified citizens look on inhorror and apparent helplessness. 

Any officer who doesn’t play a hands-on rolein beating the “suspect” will devote his attention to “crowd control” – thatis, preventing intervention on behalf of the victim, and often confiscating anyrecording devices that might be used to gather incriminating video of theepisode. 

Officially sanctioned gang violencedepends on a chain reaction of conformity, and often a single rogue elementwould be sufficient to prevent it from reaching critical mass. A “rogue cop” –that is, a peace officer devoted to protecting life, liberty, and property, ratherthan a dutiful law enforcer determined to uphold “authority” – would interposeon behalf of the victim.

It’s difficult to know how often this happens, but we couldround off that estimate to “never.” This is because “rogue” cops who commit suchrenegade acts of lawfulness are never treated with the union-organizedsolicitude displayed toward “good” cops who commit acts of criminal violenceagainst Mundanes. 

Witness the case of former Austin Police Department OfficerRamon Perez, who joined the force as a 41-year-old rookie cop because of asincere desire to protect people from crime. During a January 2005 domesticviolence incident, Perez refused an order by a superior officer, RobertParanich, to use his Taser on an elderly man who was not a threat to himself oranybody else. 

Owing to the fact that the subject was a frail man ofadvanced years, Perez was understandably concerned that the portableelectro-shock torture device would kill him. Furthermore, using the Taser inthat situation would have violated the explicit provisions of the Austin PD’sTaser Policy. Perez was able to resolve the situation through de-escalation,rather than by using potentially lethal force to “impose authority.”

Two days later, Perez was given what could only beconsidered a punitive transfer to the night shift. Two months later, followinga second incident in which Perez chose de-escalation over armed compulsion, hewas invited to what he was told would be a “counseling” session with the APD’sstaff psychologist, Carol Logan. The purpose of that meeting, Perez was told,was to help him develop better “communication skills” with his fellow officers.In fact, it was a disguised “fit-for-duty review” convened to find a pretext topurge the probationary officer from the force before the “rogue cop” couldinfect others with his respect for individual rights.

 As the AustinChronicle reported, Ms.Logan’s four-page report focused “entirely on Perez's moral and religiousbeliefs, which Logan concludes are so strong they are an `impairment' to hisability to be a police officer.” 

Perez, a self-described non-denominationalfundamentalist Christian, an ordained minister, and home-schooling parent, wasnot as morally ductile as the typical police recruit. He saw protection ofcivil liberties as the paramount duty of a police officer, an obligation heviewed as a literal religious vocation. For this reason Perez was seen asunsuitable for a ministry in the State’s punitive priesthood. 

Perez was given an ultimatum by his superiors: He couldresign and retain his peace officer’s license, or be terminated and lose it.This was done, once again, as punishment for Perez’s “rogue” conduct – whichconsisted of his refusal to break the law and violate department policy. 

If a “rogue” cop had intervened on behalf of BarronBowling on July 10, 2003, the one-time cement worker from Kansas City,Kansas wouldn’t be a functional invalid at the age of 37. It was Bowling’slife-changing misfortune that day to be involvedin a minor non-injury crash with an automobile carrying three undercover DEAagents.  In a fit of juvenileimpatience, the driver, DEA agent Timothy McCue, attempted to pass Bowling’scar illegally on the right side of a single lane.

After the vehicles pulled over, agent McCue came boiling outof his car with a drawn gun. With help from one of his fellow heroes, McCue forcedBowling lie face-down on the pavement, despite the fact that the 98 degree heathad turned it into a frying pan. When Bowling attempted to push himself up,McCue began to punch and pistol-whip him while taunting his victim forsupposedly being an “inbred hillbilly” and “system-dodging white trash.” Onewitness to the crime reported that McCue threatened to murder Bowling. With thehelp of his comrades, McCue handcuffed the victim and continued to beat andkick him after he was shackled and completely helpless.

In keeping with standard procedure, the assailants accusedthe victim of assaulting them, which would explain why the unarmed andoutnumbered “aggressor” was left with severe brain damage, persistent tinnitus,incapacitating migraines, chronic dizziness, nausea, and lingering emotionaltrauma that led to at least one suicide attempt. 

While in police custody, Bowling wastold by Officer Robert Lane that the facts of the case didn’t matter; hewas the one going to prison because federal agents “do pretty much what they want.”Bowling’s only hope to avoid prison was Detective Max Seifert, who was assignedto investigate the case – which, in practice, meant to fill out whateverpaperwork was necessary to ratify McCune’s perjury. 

For reasons that mystified his colleagues, Seifert actuallyconducted an investigation. His first question was: What happened to thewitness reports collected at the scene? Officer Lane told him that thosedocuments had been “lost,” because they served only to make the DEA agents “lookbad.” 

 Seifert’s persistence led Deputy Chief Steven Culp chief totake him aside and order the detective to drop the matter. At the time, Seifert– who had been respected by both his fellow cops and the public at large – was lessthan a year from being “fully vested,” meaning that he could retire with hisfull pension. The leverage provided by that fact provided the tacit butunmistakable “or else” that hovered above the conversation between Seifert and Culp.

To his considerable credit, Seifert continued with his investigation.After Seifert filed his report, the district attorney announced that he wasdropping the charges against Bowling. Deputy Chief Culp, however, pressured theprosecutor into reinstating the case. Seifert went on the testify on behalf ofthe defense in Bowling’s criminal trial – which resulted in an acquittal on thespurious assault-related charges – and on behalf of the victim in his federalcivil rights lawsuit. 

For his insistence on telling the truth, Seifert wassubjected to a campaign of ridicule and abuse from his colleagues on the policeforce. As U.S. District Judge Julie A. Robinson pointed out in a ruling thatawarded Bowling more than $833,000 in damages, "Seifert was shunned,subjected to gossip and defamation by his police colleagues, and treated as apariah.” More importantly, he was punished for insubordination by being forcedinto early retirement, thereby losing his pension. 

None of the law enforcement officers involved in the assaulton Bowling and subsequent cover-up was disciplined in any way. Theonly one who was punished was the “rogue” officer who had acted in defenseof the truth, and of the victim's individual rights. Steven Culp, the official who ordered Seifert toparticipate in the cover-up and then purged him when he refused to do so, isnow the Executive Director ofthe Kansas Commission on Peace Officers’ Standards and Training. Without somuch as a faint whisper of irony, Culp claims that his new job is “to providethe citizens with qualified, trained, ethical, and professional peace officers”who act “in a manner consistent with the law while being considerate of thecitizens….”

Residents of the Sunflower State can be confident thatSteven Culp -- like those in charge of recruiting and indoctrinating police officers elsewhere in the Soyuz -- will do his formidable best to protect them from “rogue cops” like MaxSeifert.

 Your donations help keep Pro Libertate on-line. Thanks, and God bless!

 Dum spiro, pugno!