%s1 / %s2

We're working on a new version of PRX. Want a sneak peek?

Playlist: POLICING

Compiled By: Erika McGinty

 Credit:
No text

POLICING

65: Serve and Protect? A History of the Police, 9/20/2014

From BackStory with the American History Guys | Part of the BackStory with the American History Guys Weekly Episodes series | 54:00

For many Americans, the storyline that played out on August 9th in Ferguson, Mo. — when an unarmed black teenager was fatally shot by a white police officer — is not a new one. But the sustained protests that followed, in which Ferguson police used military equipment to suppress peaceful protests, have generated a new round of questioning about local police’s role in their communities.

On this episode, BackStory looks at the history of policing in America, and how the police forces we’re familiar with today begin to take shape - and we'll consider what happens when the police don’t protect those they serve.

Police-blurb-photo-300x239_small For many Americans, the storyline that played out on August 9th in Ferguson, Mo. — when an unarmed black teenager was fatally shot by a white police officer — is not a new one. But the sustained protests that followed, in which Ferguson police used military equipment to suppress peaceful protests, have generated a new round of questioning about local police’s role in their communities. On this episode, BackStory looks at the history of policing in America, and how the police forces we’re familiar with today begin to take shape - and we'll consider what happens when the police don’t protect those they serve.

Stories from the NYPD

From jrudolph group | 59:45

An audio history of the New York Police Department

180pxnewyorkcitypolicedepartmentemblem Archival recordings and recent interviews are woven together in this hour-long documentary that tells the story of the New York Police Department from the 1940s to the attack on the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001. From Mayor Fiorello LaGuardia's famous, "sock 'em in the jaw," speech to new police officers in 1942, to first-hand accounts of a 1964 Harlem riot in which the police fired thousands of rounds of live ammunition, to the gripping story of police officers running for their lives after the collapse of the World Trade Center towers, this program opens a window into the NYPD's fascinating history and the complex relationship between the police and the citizens of New York . With a score that includes music from cop shows like "Car 54 Where Are You" and clips from films including "Shaft" and "Serpico,? this program is a compelling examination of the one of the world's leading leading law enforcement organizations before and after 9/11. Among the topics covered - corruption scandals, struggles by police officers to win union representation, and conflicts between the police and New York's African-American and immigrant communities. You'll hear the voices of cops over the decades - emotional, colorful and controversial - along with their critics, their supporters, and scholars who have studied the NYPD. "Stories from the NYPD" is the latest in a series of historical radio documentaries about New York City by award-winning independent producer John Rudolph. Earlier programs (produced with WNYC, New York Public Radio) focused on New York City's waterfront; the career of the late Daniel Patrick Moynihan; and the '60s civil rights movement in New York.

Return of the Neighborhood Beat Cop

From Ben Markus | 05:09

The story of how beat cops cleaned up one of the most notorious housing projects in the nation

3472_small In response to rising crime rates, police departments nationwide are going back to basics, combining traditional patrol methods with an earlier "beat cop" approach. In Sacramento's Phoenix Park housing project the police faced quite a challenge. Even though the neighborhood was mired by gangs and drugs, they made an immediate, and lasting, impact on the shockingly violent project.

How Homelessness Became a Crime

From Making Contact | 29:00

So-called ‘quality of life’ policing may temporarily decrease crime, but it has harsh consequences for innocent people caught up in the frenzy of arrests. If it’s illegal to be on a city’s sidewalks, parks and plazas, where else can people go?

180408934_67cd7f29f9_small

Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani made so-called ‘quality of life’ policing a worldwide trend. And while it may have temporarily decreased crime, there are harsh consequences for the thousands of innocent people caught up in the frenzy of arrests.  On this edition, the criminalization of homelessness.  If it’s illegal to be on a city’s sidewalks, parks and plazas, where else can people go?

 

Featuring:

Neil Smith, Center for Graduate Studies at the City University of New York Geography and Urbanism professor; Carlton Berkeley, Former NYPD Detective and author of ‘What to do if Stopped by the Police’; Genghis Kallid Muhammad, Gene Rice, Elise Lowe, Picture the Homeless members; Protestors opposing New York’s disorderly conduct law;  Melvin Williams, Coalition for the Homeless volunteer; Rob Robinson, National Campaign to Restore housing Rights organizer; Barbara Daughtery, homeless New Yorker; Mark Schuylen, former urban planner; Samuel Warber, street musician; Andy Blue, ‘Sidewalks are for People” campaign organizer; George Gascon, San Francisco Police Chief; John Avalos, San Francisco Supervisor; Jen Vandergriff, San Francisco resident; Jason Lean, homeless San Franciscan; Paul Boden, Western Regional Advocacy Project organizer

Producer/Host: Andrew Stelzer

Producer: Kyung Jin Lee

Producer/Online Editor: Pauline Bartolone

Contributing Producer: Sam Lewis

Executive Director: Lisa Rudman

Associate Director: Khanh Pham

Community Engagement and Volunteer Coordinator: Karl Jagbandhansingh

Station Relations: Daphne Young

Life of the Law (Series)

Produced by Life of the Law

Most recent piece in this series:

Life of the Law Episode #62: No Lawyers Allowed

From Life of the Law | Part of the Life of the Law series | 21:22

20150130_082229_1__small

On the afternoon of June 30, 2003, Derrick Hamilton was escorted downstairs to face his fate, at a disciplinary hearing at Attica Correctional Facility in upstate New York.

The hearing officer was Jim Kennedy, a man Hamilton remembers like this: “kind of stocky guy, with salt and pepper hair. A round face. Kinda tall. No mustache that I recall….”

Although the hearing would have serious implications for Hamilton’s future, it bore few of the hallmarks of a regular courtroom. There was no defendants table, no judge’s bench, no jury box.

And, unlike in a regular criminal proceeding, Hamilton was left to fend for himself. No lawyers are allowed.

Prison disciplinary hearings are what happen when you get in trouble in prison. The corrections equivalent of being sent to the principal’s office. The difference is that where a visit to the principal might earn you detention, or a call to your mom, prison disciplinary hearings have serious, potentially long-term consequences. Consequences like solitary confinement, which, while bad enough on its own, can also mean lack of access to classes and other programs that might get you out sooner. And time in solitary can be a reason for parole boards to deny parole.

It all starts when a corrections officer writes you a ticket for a violation. It could be for an actual criminal offense, like murder. But more often, it’s something much less significant, like getting in a fight or possessing contraband.

Hamilton was facing two accusations. One for urinating in a soda can; the other for refusing to take a drug test.  At the time, he was in solitary confinement. His wife came to visit, and when you get a visitor in solitary, you sit inside a cage, your visitor sits outside of it. And you can’t leave the cage without a corrections officer or two to accompany you.

“At this particular point in time,” Hamilton said, “I was definitely seeing a urologist for a prostate problem that I had and I was getting medication that was causing me to urinate frequently. So I asked to go to the bathroom, and I waited about an hour. I was either going to urinate on myself or urinate in a soda can. I chose the soda can.”

The officer who was watching the visit on the monitor said he saw Hamilton put his hands in his pants. So he ended the visit and wrote Hamilton two tickets.

From the perspective of the outside world, the whole thing sounds a little ridiculous. But Karen Murtagh, Director of Prisoners’ Legal Services New York, a nonprofit that provides legal support to prisoners in the state, says these hearings are dead serious.

“It’s not just for the year or the two or the three years,” Murtagh says, “that you’re put in solitary you don’t have packages, you can’t call home, no commissary and lose good time. Which depending on your sentence requires that you spend longer in prison.”

And it gets even worse.

“The other piece of that is,” Murtagh continues, “it goes on your permanent record, so when you go before the parole board to be considered for parole, they look at this decision and they most often deny you parole based upon your disciplinary record.”

And you’re having to defend yourself against all these consequences without the help of an attorney.

“Not having a lawyer, you’re your own advocate,” said Hamilton. “You do the best you can possibly do, but you’re going to run into bias, you’re going to run into some prejudices, because there’s no presumption of innocence in prison disciplinary hearings. You’re presumed guilty there.”

Tad Levac, a lieutenant in New York State Corrections, says he’s overseen between 500 and 1000 hearings since 2008 and he says the system is designed to keep everybody—inmates, corrections people, and civilians safe. But that doesn’t mean the hearing system isn’t fair, he said.

“It’s important that I keep an open mind,” Levac says of the hearings. “And I’m fair to both staff and inmate, because if you’re not, to me the system will implode. The position is supposed to be fair and balanced.”

But it is easy to see it from Hamilton’s perspective. For starters, he was sitting, handcuffed, in a cage, while the hearing officer, Jim Kennedy, sat at a desk outside the cage. And although the hearing officer is forbidden from having any direct involvement in the case, officers often know each other. And Hamilton and others told me the officers often stick up for each other.

There is also, of course, an inherent power dynamic between the inmate and the officer. And many times, the officer has more education. But in any case, the burden of proof for the state is also quite low.

“The way that’s been interpreted by the court,” says Karen Murtagh, the prisoners rights lawyer, “is that if a corrections officer writes a report and says you did this—you disobeyed a direct order, that is substantial evidence.”

That’s it. The officer doesn’t even have to come testify.

“If a lawyer was in the room,” Murtagh says, “they would call the officer, they would ask for log books, they might call other witnesses that were on the tier. And our clients don’t necessarily know how to do that.”

What they need to do is create a record, because otherwise, they can’t appeal the case to the state corrections department, or, if that fails, to the state court.

In fact, much of Derrick Hamilton’s hearing is him making objections of what to have on the record, objections about an employee assistant who didn’t get him documents he needed, objections about a doctor who didn’t testify, and on and on. The rest of the hearing, which lasted about 90 minutes over the course of several days, is an odd mix of the bureaucratic—seemingly endless minutes, recorded on hissy audio tape—of the hearing officer reading forms for the record and lots of personal details about Hamilton’s medical conditions.

The hearings are closed to the public, and lots of inmates don’t bother to fight them for a lot of reasons.

Murtagh says a quick look at the numbers suggests they’re unfairly skewed against the inmates.

In 2014, inmates appealed just 15 percent  of all disciplinary hearings results. Less than a quarter of those appeals succeeded.

Murtagh says, her office can take on only a small number of the appeals prisoners send them. In 2013 and 2014, she and her colleagues reviewed just under 500 cases. They won two-thirds of those they appealed.

California couldn’t provide numbers on disciplinary hearings and appeals, but a 2010 investigation by The Sacramento Bee found the process skewed heavily in favor of prison officials there, too: “Not only are nearly all prisoners charged with rule violations ultimately found guilty, they usually lose their appeals,” the article in the Bee stated.

Margo Schlanger, who teaches prison law at the University of Michigan, says it starts with the problem of not having an attorney to represent you. “You know, they say about attorneys that a lawyer who represents himself has a fool for a client,” Schlanger says. “And that’s if you’re already a lawyer. So I think you’re always better off having someone else represent you in some kind of contentious hearing type situation.”

But Schlanger points out that there are all kinds of situations—whether a disciplinary hearing at a university or in child custody cases—where people don’t have a right to an attorney.

There’s also the cost. Most prisoners can’t afford an attorney. So would the state pay for one? Or would only prisoners who could pay, get them?

“I think there’s no question it’s stacked against the prisoner,” Schlanger says. “The question is how heavily. And that’s a very hard one to answer.”

As for Derrick Hamilton, the hearing officer eventually dropped the charges for urinating in the soda can, since the rule was against urinating on the floor or throwing urine, and nobody had even accused him of that. But he was convicted of refusing to take a drug test.

The punishment: a year in solitary confinement. A year of no package privileges, a year without phone privileges, a year without commissary privileges.

Hamilton says he appealed it and got a rehearing where most of the charges were overturned. But by that point, he’d already served most of the time.

POSTSCRIPT:
Derrick Hamilton spent 20 years in New York State Prison, about half of that in solitary confinement. He was released in 2011 and in early 2014, he was exonerated.

He now lives in New Jersey with his wife and daughter. He works in a law office in New York, helping others who have been wrongfully convicted.

divider

Part Two:  SCOTUS – But I Didn’t Mean To

By Lawrence Lanahan

The U.S. Supreme Court had a huge summer with verdicts legalizing same sex marriage and upholding the the Affordable Care Act. But, in a less-publicized decision, the court debated the idea of disparate impact. Disparate impact sounds wonky — but it’s basically the concept that a state or federal policy can still be discriminatory, even if government agencies and officials say they didn’t mean it to be discriminatory.

The civil rights gains of the 1960s outlawed discrimination by race — discrimination that often had government approval or even participation. Yet, in 2015, housing in cities like Baltimore is still segregated, and opportunities in poor black neighborhoods remain severely limited.

Columbia University law professor Olati Johnson says governments still contribute to racial inequality–just in a more innocuous way. Take, for example, New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina.

“…a lot of the people who were displaced were African-Americans who had lived in New Orleans, and people were looking for replacement housing,” said Johnson.

After Katrina, some parishes outside New Orleans adopted new zoning ordinances, like bans on multifamily housing. “So you couldn’t build apartment buildings,” said Johnson.

The ordinances didn’t tell any particular group of people, “You can’t live here.”

“But,” said Johnson, “they have an effect of limiting housing to the people who already lived in these predominantly white parishes and excluding African-Americans.”

Local officials often say these policies have nothing to do with race.

“They might justify them on arguments such as congestion, or to preserve a certain kind of neighborhood character…and sometimes, those may be the reasons,” Johnson continued.

It’s the big question when it comes to twenty-first century racial inequality: Is there a way to hold decision makers accountable when their policies have the effect of harming racial minorities, even if you can’t prove discriminatory intent? In other words, if a government official says, “But…I didn’t mean to!”, what can you do besides walk away muttering, “Yeah, but you did”?

The law had never been perfectly clear on that question. Until, that is, a Supreme Court decision last month. A nonprofit in Texas argued that the state’s housing agency was rejecting too many tax credits for low-income housing in Dallas’s white suburbs, and instead crowding low-income developments into black and Latino neighborhoods.

The case wasn’t about whether Texas meant to discriminate. The plaintiffs just said the agency’s way of doing things had an unjustified effect on blacks and Latinos.

The Fair Housing Act of 1968 outlawed discrimination by race in the sale and rental of housing. But could you use it in court based only on the effect that seemingly neutral policies had on African-Americans? Appeals courts had said yes, but the language was a little vague. Texas said the Fair Housing Act only covered discriminatory intent.

The Supreme Court disagreed with Texas. In June, they ruled that effects are covered—under certain conditions. One: prove the disparity and show how the policy caused it. Two: give the defendant a chance to justify the policy.

“The third step of the analysis…is that … the plaintiff can still prevail by showing that there is an alternative mechanism to further the same goals but that doesn’t have a discriminatory impact,” said Johnson.

For instance, if some local zoning board claims that new apartment buildings will cause traffic congestion, a plaintiff can suggest new traffic policies or fewer units per building.

Olati Johnson says that left on its own, the federal government will never provide full enforcement. What’s key, she says, is that citizens pay attention.

“A lot of the ways in which we’ve gotten progress on race, gender, and other kinds of inclusion issues is by having lawyers, people on the ground, people in states and localities who actually say, ‘I want this to be done in a different way.’”

So what about housing? Will it be done in a different way now? In his majority opinion, Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote that the Fair Housing Act of 1968 has, “a role in moving the Nation toward a more integrated society.” Pessimists may point out that this legal approach has been available for decades with little to show, and that all the Supreme Court did was not take it away. But for others, the Supreme Court decision could signal a changing tide and embolden people on the ground fighting for more inclusive housing policies. The question of further integration remains, but the path forward just may be a little clearer.


PRODUCTION NOTES:
No Lawyers Allowed was reported by Alisa Roth and edited by Ben Adair, with funding from the Fund for Investigative Journalism and The Proteus Fund.  Life of the Law’s Senior Producer, Kaitlin Prest, produced the sound design.  Ashley Cleek is our Managing Editor. Simone Seiver and Kirsten Jusewicz-Haidle handled post-production. Part Two was reported by Lawrence Lanahan and edited by Kirsten Jusewicz-Haidle.

Our scholar advisor on this story was Heather Ann Thompson. Dr. Thompson’s new book, Blood in the Water: The Attica Uprising of 1971 and its Legacy will soon be published by Pantheon Books.

SUGGESTED READING:

http://www.sacbee.com/news/investigations/article2573000.html#ixzz0vUiNmiQu

http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1973/1973_73_679

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/515/472/case.html

© Copyright 2015 Life of the Law. All rights reserved.

Breaking Through the Blue Wall of Silence

From Making Contact | Part of the Making Contact series | 28:56

Who gets to decide when an officer has done something wrong—the police chief or the people? Cities across the country are creating civilian oversight agencies which try to make local police and sheriffs accountable to the people.

Episode_pic_for__32-09_small Who polices the police? Do you or your neighbors have any say in the way your town’s cops and sheriffs do business? For more than 35 years, cities around the country have been creating civilian oversight agencies - trying to make local police and sheriffs accountable to the communities they serve. On this edition, producer Andrew Stelzer takes a look at the ongoing battle between the people and the police - and the debate over who gets to decide when an officer has done something wrong.

Featuring:
Barbara Attard, civilian oversight consultant, former San Francisco Office of Citizen Complaints investigator and former Berkeley Police Review Commission Director; Marcel Diallo, artist and victim of police harassment; Rashidah Grinage, PUEBLO Executive Director; Jason Wechter, San Francisco Office of Citizen Complaints investigator; Reginald Lyles, BART consultant and former Berkeley Police Officer; Gary Gee, BART Police Chief; Jesse Sekhon, BART Police Officers Association President; Quintin Mecke, California State Assemblyman Tom Ammiano’s Communications Director; Greg Kaufory, attorney; Omar Osirus, Jan, and Bo, protestors; Daniel Buford, Allen Temple Baptist Church Reverend; Joyce Hicks, San Francisco Office of Citizen Complaints Director and former Oakland’s Citizens Police Review Board Director; Patrick Cacares, Oakland Citizens Police Review Board acting director; Paulette Hogan, tasered Oakland resident who filed complaint with Internal Affairs; Chris Shannon, Oakland Police Lieutenant; Cephus Johnson, Oscar Grant’s uncle; Mark Kroeker, Portland Police Chief.


Program #32-09 - Begin date: 08/12/09. End date: 02/12/09.

Please call us if you carry us - 510-251-1332 and we will list your station on our website. If you excerpt, please credit early and often.

Oscar Grant and Police Accountability

From Making Contact | Part of the Making Contact series | 29:00

We take a look at the Police killing of Oscar Grant in Oakland, and the debate over who gets to decide when an officer has done something wrong.

I_am_oscar_grant_small Who polices the police? Do you or your neighbors have any say in the way your town’s cops and sheriffs do business? For more than 35 years, cities around the country have been creating civilian oversight agencies - trying to make local police and sheriffs accountable to the communities they serve.

On this edition we take a look at the Police killing of Oscar Grant in Oakland, and the debate over who gets to decide when an officer has done something wrong.

Featuring:
Barbara Attard, civilian oversight consultant, former San Francisco Office of Citizen Complaints investigator and former Berkeley Police Review Commission Director; Marcel Diallo, artist and victim of police harassment; Rashidah Grinage, PUEBLO Executive Director; Jason Wechter, National Association for Civilian Oversight of Law Enforcement Board Member; Reginald Lyles, BART consultant and former Berkeley Police Officer; Gary Gee, BART Police Chief; Jesse Sekhon, BART Police Officers Association President; Quintin Mecke, California State Assemblyman Tom Ammiano’s Communications Director; Greg Kaufory, attorney; Omar Osirus, Jan, and Bo, protestors; Daniel Buford, Allen Temple Baptist Church Reverend; Joyce Hicks, San Francisco Office of Citizen Complaints Director and former Oakland’s Citizens Police Review Board Director; Patrick Cacares, Oakland Citizens Police Review Board acting director; Paulette Hogan, tasered Oakland resident who filed complaint with Internal Affairs; Chris Shannon, Oakland Police Lieutenant; Cephus Johnson, Oscar Grant’s uncle; Mark Kroeker, Portland Police Chief;

The 1992 LA Rebellion: Twenty Years Later

From Dred-Scott Keyes | 01:00:13

The Cutting Edge looks at the causes and aftermath of the 1992 L.A. rebellion.

La-riot2_small The Cutting Edge looks at the  causes and aftermath of the 1992 L.A. rebellion through a sound collage of interviews and news reports.

Interrogators Without Pliers

From Matt Thompson | 27:31

Why torture doesn't work. How to trick the enemy into revealing secrets. Lessons from the Master Interrogator of the Luftwaffe. The British Police use of empathy as a weapon. With Ali Soufan, ex FBI special agent and interrogator.

Hanns_scharff_small

 The Chinese strategist and philospher Sun Tzu wrote in 'The Art of War' that 'If you know others and know yourself you will win a hundred battles.'  Which is obviously good advice but finding out about the 'other' is not straightforward.  What if they don't want to talk and share their secrets with you? 

Much of the debate about the interrogation of suspects in America's War on Terror has been about whether the methods used, such as waterboarding, could be described as torture.  In this programme Julian Putkowski sets aside all moral questions and instead thinks about efficiency.  What is the most effective way to extract high quality information out of the enemy, the other.

If we are civil to our captives might we get them to cooperate?  What if we could get as much – or even more – information in exchange for a lot less pain?

Julian's unlikey role model is the Master Interrogator of the Luftwaffe Hanns Scharff. He gently extracted information from downed US fighter pilots by being friendly and never appearing to show interest when a new piece of the mosaic fell into place. Scharff summed it up as  'a display of information and persuasion appealing to common sense'.

We do not know for sure where the Scharff technique came from originally.   But it may have been from a colourful German fighter ace, Franz von Werra.  He had been downed and captured by the British and interrogated by the RAF. He had been expecting rough handling but found his captors were rather genial chaps and harsh treatment was the exception to the rule. He later escaped and made it back to Germany. One of his first trips was to Dulag Luft where he sat in on interrogations.  He was horrified at how superficial, even farcical the interrogations were. He said: 'I would rather be interrogated by half a dozen German inquisitors than 1 RAF expert.'  His recommendations were personally approved by Hermann Goering.

Julian interviews: Dr Gavin Oxburgh, at the University of Teeside, UK who is  an international expert on police questioning.

Ali Soufan, an FBI special agent and author of 'The Black Banners.'

Claudius Scharff, Hanns son, who tells us about trips to the zoo and shows us a fascinating 'visitor's book' Hanns got the POW's to sign.

 

 

 

 

Measured by Mistakes: The Reality and Representation of Policing

From WFHB | Part of the Interchange series | 57:53

Tonight’s program seeks to shine a light first on what’s been called the “militarization” of police across the country due to something like a federal “give away” program where state and local forces are made the beneficiaries of excess military production (the "1033 Program"). We’ll also try to detach that reality from the “on the ground” aspects of being a police officer in a community. And finally, I’ll ask our guests to answer one question: Which should we want, officers of the law or officers of the peace?

Badge-wo-tagline_small Tonight’s program seeks to shine a light first on what’s been called the “militarization” of police across the country due to something like a federal “give away” program where state and local forces are made the beneficiaries of excess military production (the "1033 Program"). We’ll also try to detach that reality from the “on the ground” aspects of being a police officer in a community. And finally, I’ll ask our guests to answer one question: Which should we want, officers of the law or officers of the peace?

Joining us tonight are Monroe County Sheriff James Kennedy who has held that elected office since 2007, and Assistant Professor of Sociology at the University of Wisconsin-Whitewater Greg Jeffers whose research focuses on police-citizen interactions and resident’s perceptions of the police.

Reveal for May 2015

From Reveal | 58:59

Program audio arrives May 7 for air window open May 9-June 12, 2015.

Reveal-square-logo-black_prx_medium_small



In this episode, 
Reveal continues its in-depth look at law and disorder:

  • we expose some of the tensions between police and the communities they serve, and how video cameras are dramatically changing the public's relationship with law enforcement. 
  • In Washington, D.C., we examine why there’s been a huge increase in the number of people charged with assaulting a police officer. We team up with WAMU and American University to examine three years of court cases, and find that the people being charged are the ones who normally end up in the hospital. 
  • We also explore what happens when police and communities keep an eye on each other. Officers patrol the streets watching for crime, but now citizens are using video cameras to monitor police. We tag along with cop watchers in Texas.
  • And citizens aren’t the only ones getting into the game, we investigate the consequences of private companies storing evidence captured by cop body cams.
  • Finally, we look back and talk to the man who some say pioneered citizen journalism when he recorded the Los Angeles police beating of Rodney King in 1991.

 

NEW: Reveal Host Promos

 script promos for station hosts to read ( :20 of copy)

 

LEAD STORY >>

Coming up on REVEAL…In Washington D.C., being charged with “Assaulting a Police Officer” can mean something else entirely. A joint investigation with WAMU and American University examined three years of court cases to find out what happens in D.C. when someone is charged with 'assaulting a police officer.' The result is often more than an arrest: the suspect frequently lands in the hospital.That story and much more coming up on REVEAL from The Center for Investigative Reporting and PRX, here on ___________.

COP WATCH (B1) >>

Coming up on REVEAL…What happens when police and communities keep an eye on each other? Officers patrol the streets watching for crime, but now citizens are using video cameras to monitor police. The Reveal team tags along with cop watchers in Texas.That story and much more coming up on REVEAL, from The Center for Investigative Reporting and PRX, here on ___________.

---

GEORGE HOLLIDAY (C2) >>

Coming up on REVEAL…24 years ago, one man found himself recording a disturbing event that would play over and over on newscasts across the country. Reveal talks to the man who some say pioneered citizen journalism when he caught the Los Angeles police beating of Rodney King in 1991. That story and much more coming up on REVEAL, from The Center for Investigative Reporting and PRX, here on ___________.

The Reason in the Riot

From BackStory with the American History Guys | Part of the BackStory with the American History Guys: Favorites series | 10:24

Brian Balogh speaks with former Senator Fred Harris about the commission convened by President Lyndon Johnson in the dark days of the 1967 Detroit riots, and their surprising conclusions about police and protesters

Police-blurb-photo-300x239_small Brian Balogh speaks with former Senator Fred Harris about the commission convened by President Lyndon Johnson in the dark days of the 1967 Detroit riots, and their surprising conclusions about police and protesters

Bodily Safety: Ta-Nehisi Coates on Police Shootings

From Making Contact | Part of the Making Contact series | 29:00

Ta-Nehisi Coates' friend from Howard University was shot and killed by police in Virginia back in 2000. Written in the form of a letter to his own teenage son, Coates’ book "Between the World and Me" puts police shootings in a wider context. Ta-Nehisi Coates spoke as part of the Lannan Foundation's Pursuit of Cultural Freedom Series.

Photo_for_show_small

When journalist Ta-Nehisi Coates set out to write about police killings he went to visit Mable Jones. Back in 2000, Jones’ son, a friend of Coates from their time at Howard University, was shot and killed by police in Virginia. He was twenty five years old. Written in the form of a letter to his own teenage son, Coates’ book "Between the World and Me" puts police shootings in a wider context.

Ta-Nehisi Coates spoke as part of the Lannan Foundation's Pursuit of Cultural Freedom Series.