Talk:Community Resources Against Street Hoodlums

Untitled

This article seems to have an anti-LAPD slant to it. FunkyChicken! 04:53, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

This article doesn't tell half the truth about the corruption at the LAPD going on at that time.(Anon user IP 24.205.74.184)

I'm not the anon IP who wrote the above but I'm not sure I agree this article is anti-LAPD, except insofar as reality is anti-LAPD. The Rampart Scandal was beyond the pale, and Bernard Parks' attempts to brush it under the rug as head of IA was unconscionable; his later attempts as Chief to do something about it amounted to damage limitation from a PR perspective and resistance to any real reform. We used to have thousands of pages of Raphael Perez's testimony online; it was filled with stuff that seemed like it was out of a gang movie. If only 1% of it was true, there were abuses that were way out of line -- cops planting drugs on suspects, cops dealing drugs, planting guns at shooting scenes, etc. Numerous convictions (is "thousands" really correct?) of gang members were overturned as a result, but nobody served time other than Perez. I can't find the interview transcripts online anymore and unfortunately I did not download them at the time; we should find them and put a link here.

However -- Rampart probably deserves its own page. It was huge news in Los Angeles, and the word "Rampart" is still synonymous with police corruption for many. There are other CRASH units, and this article probably should have more to say about them, and link to a separate page on the Rampart scandal.--csloat 01:38, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

How?

How can this be non-NPOV? It doesn't provide enough information to even get close to having an opinon. It's a stub.

Agreed. It should be removed. We also shouldn't have the sentence in there about information to be added "shortly" (it's been there for at least a year now I think).--csloat 01:51, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I put a NPOV flAG ON THIS ARTICLE BECAUSR OF THE RACIAL DISCIMINATION CLAIM MADE ABOUT OPPERATION HAMMER. ONLY WARRANT SUSPECTS WERE ARRESTED, THEREFORE RACIAL PROFILING COULD NOT HAVE OCCURED. ONLY PEOPLE WITH OPEN WARRANTS WERE ARRESTED.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.171.193.168 (talk • contribs) 13:04, November 6, 2006 (UTC)

The section you're referring to was a shortened form of the main article which had that sentence about it being racist. I added a line about the other side of the argument to give it some neutrality. Slof 22:18, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Reorganizing this page

I grew up in Los Angeles, and my comments concerning the LAPD are, well, let us say that I am able to contain my enthusiasm concerning their operations. Nonetheless, the gamg problem in Los Angeles is well out of control, and as a response to that problem putting in a CRASH was not out of line. How about we do this: We break this article into two pieces. The first piece concerns the CRASH units themselves, purpose, authority to operate, objectives, etc. In this piece we simply mention that there have been problems in execution. The second piece concerns the Rampart scandal itself. Here, we can discuss Parks and his attempts to quash investigation of the scandal, we can discuss Perez, we can discuss the planting of evidence, etc., etc., etc. Comments? (10:16, 25 September 2005 IP 24.64.112.236)

I definitely agree; I even think Rampart CRASH should have its own page with just a mention here. They must have some sort of PR brochure that could be helpful as a starting point - a basic description of what they do would be nice. Then a separate Rampart CRASH or something would do the trick for covering the scandal.--csloat 01:58, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

No information here...

This article is bare bones. I don't know what you NPOV guys are complaining about... there's nothing here to even criticize. More of this article needs to be written before anybody can posit an opinion.

With that said, reading this article tells me pretty much nothing, which is why I bothered to leave a comment in the first place. So one corrupt cop was arrested for stealing coccaine? This constitutes an entire scandal involving 70 officers? Details, please. Lantoka 05:18, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Removing NPOV notice. --DCrazy talk/contrib 17:26, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

confusing

That third paragraph in the introduction is rather confusing - might need to be reworded a bit. -William 10/29/06 15:09 CST

I can see what you're talking about; I was trying to add information about its internal aftermath, but information about it was scare or nondescript. I'll work on the paragraph so it does not look so confusing. I tried to fix the paragraph so that it is not so jumbled. Slof 22:18, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Rampart Scandal Should be its own Article

Both CRASH and LAPD Rampart Division have a section on the Rampart Scandal. This is redundant. The Rampart Scandal is notable enough to have its own article, linking to CRASH and LAPD Rampart Division. I'll create it. Jonathan Stokes 06:35, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I started Rampart Scandal, Rafael Pérez (police officer) and David Mack (police officer). I may get to Nino Durden eventually. Other notable figures involved already have articles, such as Notorious B.I.G. and Police Chief Bernard Parks; these articles may need tweaking as well. Jonathan Stokes 07:10, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

So neutral it is inaccurate in common sense terms

Just my input, another eye if you care for it. And this was my impression, even, before reading this talk page thread. When I got here, I was utterly surprised that the disagreement was over the article being slanted against the police. I walked away with the opposite reaction. For example,

this graf:

On February 26, 1998, two CRASH officers from Rampart were stripped of their jobs when allegations arose of a cover-up of the beating and asphyxiation of an 18th Street gang member. Officer Brian Hewitt was accused of choking the gang member in an interview room when the latter refused to provide evidence of gang activities. Hewitt, along with officers Ethan Cohan and Daniel Lujan, did not report this incident. When the gang member reported his beating at a hospital, evidence, including blood in the interview room, implicated the three officers. Before a Board of Rights council, only Lujan was acquitted of his role.

struck me immediately as bending over backward to avoid saying what a reader must almost work to infer—that Cohan and Hewitt were guilty of attempted murder (assuming that was the charge). That two of these men so "implicated" were convicted. Mostly, in all of its passive phrasing and positioning, it manages to squirm away from the taint that this incident implies. Being a bit tongue-in-cheek, I'd say that the hyper-careful sentence structure essentially reads as if the police were editing the article to deflect culpability!

Ultimately, while the wording toes the bridge between How to best use language to maintain a neutral tone and Arranging language to give an impression other than the facts, this editor's opinion (which, admittedly, has its roots in the printed world, and is green in the Wiki-sphere) is that at least this graf arrives squarely at Not untrue, yet rings false in its apparent effort to avoid straightforward language.

—An observer passing through, Huicholo 19:27, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I can discern what you are trying to state. I had written the original paragraph and, after reading it again, agree that its structure is peculiar. There was trouble trying to retain neutrality while being as descriptive as possible when writing it, so I had to revamp practically every sentence repetitively in the process. Anyways, I can not say that I had a slant in writing the paragraph; I still do not have too ardent an opinion on the matter. The article has just had too profound a history of neutrality issues despite its fairly light amount of edits.

It should also be noted that Hewitt was apparently the only officer that hit the gang member. I'll work on fixing this and other problems in the future.

My sources for the paragraph is the "Report of the Rampart Independent Review Panel" and the "Rampart Reconsidered" documents. Slof 14:25, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Where Does Scholarly Work Come In ?

In some areas of Wikipedia, there seems to be an attempt to produce information with truth and objectivity as the basis. When it comes to social issues all bets are off for truth, accuracy, and objectivity. In reality, this is just a symptom of today's "reality" mentality. Having said this, let me give a few observations from one who lived the subject and from one who long ago left to view objectivity on a historical international level.

If this is an article about CRASH, then it should speak to CRASH. If this is an articele about the CRASH of the Los Angeles Police Department then it should speak to that.

Maybe a good place to start is the beginning of CRASH and not the beginning of aberrant CRASH.

Historical

In 1973, in 77th Street Division of the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD), street gangs were quickly becoming a problem. Deputy Chief Lou Sporrer, commanding officer of South Bureau,responsible for 77th Street Division operations,and ultimately responsible to Chief of Police Edward M. Davis, created a unit of uniformed officers and a plain clothes intelligence section, combined to be identified as 77th Street Division TRASH.

TRASH was an acronym for Total Resources Against Street Hoodlums; with the idea that LAPD didn't want to glamorize gangs. Out-of-town activists began efforts to abolish the TRASH unit stating the name itself hurt the image of these youth. Sporrer agreed to a name change and the "T" became a "C" and TRASH became CRASH. This was not a city-wide entity and Daryl Gates did not create it.

Also, in 1979 there were not 18 Area CRASH units...

Wikipedia has a page for LAPD Police Chief Edward M. Davis. Davis was Chief from 1969 to 1978. Paragraph four on the Davis page states Davis created CRASH and it was sequentially in the early '70s. This page is blatantly anti-LAPD with allegations either uncited, or quoted support from a German sex site...that's great support for Wikipedia assertion. Not a peep appears to oppose the several ridiculous assertions of police misconduct.

If this is truly a reporting on the Los Angeles Police Department Community Resources Against Street Hoodlums program, then the "motto" of intimidating is not an LAPD motto and should be removed, as it is added by some poster DodgerBlue777 who aparently picked it up from the likes of PBS and some officers. They allegedly heard it was coined by some felon LAPD officers, whose hiring circumstances have never been told.

I could go on, but it appears truth and quality take a back seat to video game garbage listed by the likes of DodgerBlue 777. If anyone is seriously considering accuracy, Wikipedia has my email for supervisor use, as I doubt I will get back this way for a while.

I left the motto joke for someone else to deal with. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asvrc100 (talk • contribs) 20:07, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Dates discrepancy?

The article states that CRASH was founded by Chief Daryl Gates in 1977. However, on Daryl Gates' Wikipedia article, it states he became the LAPD chief in 1978. Illegitimate Barrister (talk) 13:14, 12 October 2012 (UTC)