Law Enforcement Calls the Cops on Domestic Violence

How “special” do we want our cops to be?

Should we insist that they be cut from better cloth than you and I, or should we indulge them their imperfections because, after all, they come from the same gene pool as the rest of us?

Yes, they’re only human. But, no, we can’t afford to indulge their imperfections. If they’re not better than the rest of us, they shouldn’t be cops.

I’m not talking about the cop who drives faster than 55 or tries to sneak 11 items through the express counter at Ralphs. That we can forgive.

I’m talking about cops who, behind closed doors, rough up their spouses.

All of a sudden, because of a federal crime bill amendment that passed last year, police are subject to losing their jobs if convicted of even a misdemeanor charge of spousal abuse. The amendment prohibits violators from carrying a gun. Police, who thought they’d be exempted, now find themselves at some peril if it’s discovered that the sworn officers who carry guns have any domestic-abuse convictions in their background.

Some police are crying foul because of the potential for stripping a cop of his livelihood. They argue correctly that an accountant or bricklayer or teacher wouldn’t lose his job for the same misdemeanor conviction.

The issue is somewhat dicey for the nation’s law enforcement officials, in that they can’t appear to be apologizing for domestic violence and, indeed, have been criticized over the years for looking askance at domestic-abuse problems, both in the community and within their own ranks.

“It puts us in an awkward position,” concedes Garden Grove police spokesman Dave Abrecht, who notes that police aren’t subject to losing their jobs for other misdemeanor convictions.

“If somebody shoots his wife . . . obviously, he’s going to lose his job,” Abrecht says. “But in a situation where you have, at best, a misdemeanor assault, where there was maybe a shove, should a guy lose his ability to work because of something like that? That’s the real question that I think law enforcement is asking.”

Garden Grove officials have asked all sworn personnel (those who carry guns) to report any such convictions in their background. “We’ll follow the law and make sure we do what’s appropriate,” Abrecht says, “but I think generally officers think this is unfair double jeopardy.”

Orange County Sheriff’s Department spokesman Ron Wilkerson said all sworn personnel have been asked the same question about their backgrounds. None came forward with damning information, and Wilkerson said he’s reasonably confident that few, if any, officers are in jeopardy. The department is running checks on the personnel, he says, “so there would be no reason for someone to withhold the information.”

I’d be more sympathetic to police if domestic abuse weren’t mostly about exerting power and controlling anger. Cops who don’t have a handle on those two counts are potentially dangerous to all of us.

“I don’t think the issue is complicated,” says Penny Harrington. She’s a former police chief in Portland and now an advocate for improving the lot of women on police departments. “The reason I don’t think it is is that any police chief or administrator or city council member should not want a police officer who cannot control his temper and who reacts to anger and frustration with physical violence. Because if he does it at home, he will do it on the street.”

I asked what proof she had of that, and she referred to “some preliminary studies on that,” while conceding, “a lot more work needs to be done on that subject.”

Still, I accept her premise that when it comes to anger management, police must be above reproach. Harrington says she still considers herself “a police officer” and adds, “These people have been entrusted with the authority to take a person’s life, if in their judgment that’s what has to happen. What kind of judgment is that that you beat your wife? To me, that person is nothing more than a walking liability.”

The director of the National Center for Woman and Policing, Harrington said one other thing that interested me.

“Some people are attracted to policing because they do get to use force,” says Harrington, a policewoman for 23 years and Portland’s chief in the mid-1980s. “They do get to have a weapon, they’re drawn to that power and control. That’s what family violence is about, is control.”

I understand why some cops would squawk about the new rules. One mistake might cost an otherwise solid cop his job. But if they love their job that much, maybe the worst punishment of all--losing that job--is what it takes to stop the violence at home.

Dana Parsons’ column appears Wednesday, Friday and Sunday. Readers may reach Parsons by writing to him at the Times Orange County Edition, 1375 Sunflower Ave., Costa Mesa, CA 92626, or calling (714) 966-7821.