Copspeak (by 1971) is that strange way police spokesmen in the US have of speaking, repeated by the paid parrots of the press. It sounds objective and neutral, but it is anything but:
altercation – this sounds like a physical fight but it could just be an argument or shouting or, in the case of Walter Scott, nothing at all.
broken tail light – driving while Black, like Philando Castile or Assata Shakur. (Note that where I say “Black”, much the same likely applies to Latino and Native Americans too.)
discharged his weapon – the officer shot his gun. Used to distance police from their actions. For example, when police shot Jamar Clark, Minnesota Public Radio News reported it as “an officer discharged his weapon, striking the individual.” Like it was an accident or something.
feared for his safety – Black men are frightening, even when unarmed, like Michael Brown.
fit the description – all Black people look alike.
grand jury – the “jury” part makes it seem like it is fair and above board, but, unlike the trial juries you see on television, grand juries meet in secret and pretty much just hear the police side of the story unchallenged.
investigation – a cover-up if the police are investigating themselves.
juvenile / person of interest / suspect – because these words mainly appear in crime stories, they have the effect of criminalizing anyone the police apply them to, even those who are not, in fact, breaking the law. For example, students waiting for buses became “a group of juveniles in the area of Mondawmin Mall”, which helped to cause the Baltimore riot almost as a self-fulfilling prophecy. Or: when the police killed Freddie Gray, he was the “suspect”, not the police, even though he had not broken the law.
Let the process work – see investigation and grand jury.
officer-involved shooting – a police shooting. Notice that there are never any “civilian-involved shootings”. That is because civilians “shoot” and “kill”, while police officers are only “involved” in a shooting.
paid administrative leave – paid vacation.
person of interest – see juvenile.
source said – the police said. Used to make the police account seem like an objective, third-party account.
suspect – see juvenile.
use of passive voice – this allows the press to leave the police out of headlines. For example, when the police killed Michael Brown, one of the first headlines said: “Teenager Shot. Killed in Ferguson Apartment Complex.” A killing with no killer. See discharged his weapon.
Other words and phrases that show that the press is mindlessly repeating the police:
- declined to,
- exited,
- extracted,
- fled the scene,
- fled at a high rate of speed,
- fled on foot,
- handed up/down,
- identities,
- informed,
- involved in,
- locate,
- stationed,
- sustained (injuries),
- tag (for licence plate),
- transported.
Note that even with all of this slanted language, the police still straight-up lie and plant evidence, as shown in the Walter Scott case. In most cases the press repeats the police story without challenge.
Thanks to Afrofem for her help with this post. All mistakes are mine.
– Abagond, 2016.
Sources: FAIR (2016), Pacific Standard (2015), Common Sense Journalism (2006).
See also:
- Whitespeak
- Orwell: Politics and the English language
- nominalization – turning verbs into abstract nouns.
- The police
- driving while Black
- Jamar Clark
- Freddie Gray
- Michael Brown
- grand jury
558
FTP!!!!!
LikeLiked by 3 people
Great post.
LikeLike
The media is very clever at forcing the public to have the opinion they want us to have whilst making us believe they have come to them off their own backs. I became aware at a very young age that newscasters use very specific tones of voice when telling different types of news stories to make those listening feel very specific emotions and yet on the surface appear neutral. and yes different words as well, for example on/in in UK press a young person suspected or known to have committed a crime will be referred to as a youth or even man/woman if over 16 whereas if they are victims they are referred to as children even up to the age of 19 in some cases. A criminal child is NEVER called a child. They ALWAYS mention the colour or ethnicity of someone if they are not English white. Media manipulation is so clever and most people don’t even realise they are being emotionally dictated to.
LikeLiked by 3 people
“stop resisting!” – I’m going to beat the crap out of you so I’m covering my ass for the dashcam
Re grand juries: Many people don’t realize that they are so-called “ex parte” proceedings. They’re not usually like trials where both the prosecution and defense argue their case before the jury. No, they are conducted in the interest of the party seeking the indictment (the prosecution) only. That means that when a prosecutor fails to secure a “true bill” from the grand jury, indicating that there is sufficient evidence to proceed to trial, there is a good chance that he or she did not want one. Obviously that would be extremely bad faith on the prosecutor’s part because they could simply have declined to bring charges. However “throwing” the grand jury gives a stronger impression of propriety and allows the prosecutor to appear to be bound by the judgement of the grand jury which they freely manipulated. Basically, it’s all for show.
LikeLiked by 3 people
But if a prosecutor “throws” a grand jury, a different prosecutor or even the same prosecutor can at a later time if and when more evidence is discovered can still bring charge a suspect with the same crime (and in the case of murder or homicide, there is no statue of limitations) where if the prosecutor had charge the suspect and took it to trial and lost, that suspect can no longer be charged with that crime again, even if evidence comes out that proves guilt beyond doubt.
If the prosecutor truly acted in bad faith, they would bring charges and throw the case, not the grand jury.
LikeLike
@ Abagond
Thanks for the article!
You did all of the heavy lifting.
LikeLike
@Brian
Because, according to you, there is a more egregious way to act in bad faith then it is not bad faith to fail to diligently work to obtain an indictment in a grand jury that you convened?
Ok then.
By applying that relativistic reasoning elsewhere, Daniel Holtzclaw’s rapes weren’t truly an abuse of power because he could have killed the women and didn’t. Shoplifting isn’t truly a crime because the perpetrators didn’t carry out armed robbery when they could have.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@hunglikejesus
FTP? Translation?
LikeLike
FTP ..f*ckThePolice
LikeLike
@michaeljonbarker
Thanks!
LikeLike
In Psychology, Short-term memory may last 18 to 30 seconds on average. On the other hand, Long term memory may last indefinitely. Short term memory may shift to long term memory either through video or auditory rehearsal or repetition (insert corporate owned talk radio, Faux News or CNN here).
This may explain why the Amerikan judicial system has had some of the most awkward moments regarding the disposition of high profile cases involving law enforcement. In all likelihood, the general public and even those serving on juries have been so inundated with copspeak and misinformation via the media, to the point they are unable to accurately retrieve information as it originally happened, if any at all.
LikeLiked by 1 person
In the metro DC area, the common colloquial term for license plate is “tags”, eg,
“I just moved from MD to VA, but I haven’t switched the tags on my car.”
“A car with DC tags is in my reserved parking space.”
“Why do you have MD tags and a DC driver’s license?”
They don’t even use “license plate” in everyday speech. So, I never thought of this word as “copspeak”.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@Origin, it is more like somebody deciding not to fight a fight they don’t believe they can win. But it leaves the door WIDE open for somebody else who thinks they can win to try it later.
Throwing a grand jury does no real harm. Rape does harm, shoplifting does harm.
A grand jury not bringing charges does not prevent charges being brought. It may postpone justice being done but it does not prevent it from being done. Bringing a case to trial and losing it (a.k.a. George Zimmerman/Trayvon Martin or the Freddie Grey cases) does prevent charges from being brought again and could prevent justice from being done.
LikeLike
@ Jefe
That’s interesting. As far as I can remember, the colloquial use of “tags” in the Midwest refers specifically to the date stickers on the license plates:
“There’s a Ford out front with Iowa plates and expired tags.”
LikeLike
Awesome post. We must understand that this is a rigged system. Until we take power from the primary riggers, the Fraternal Order of Police, we will never see justice.
LikeLike
SPOT ON!
LikeLike
@Brian
Nope. Prosecutors have nigh unreviewable discretion to bring charges or not. Deciding not to fight would be deciding not to bring charges. Convening a grand jury then deliberately trying not to secure an indictment is more like “match fixing” due to having been paid off by gamblers. The fact that it is totally unecessary way to avoid trying a case only underscores how deceitful it is.
It seems as if you don’t have a clue what “bad faith” is. It has nothing to do with the “harm” caused by the conduct (though I would argue that prosecutorial deceit is not harmless).
Wikpedia:
If a prosecutor convenes a grand jury with the full intention of failing to secure an indictment that is deceptive behavior. S/he would be giving the impression that they’re diligently pursuing the case when they really have no intention of going to trial.
A grand jury is not an adversarial proceeding where the jury hears both sides and has to decide beyond a reasonable doubt. As said before it is “ex parte”; the prosecution presents its case and the standard of proof is usually “probable cause”. It is a very low burden, the same kind the police can use to decide to arrest you. Consequently, it’s very rare for a grand jury to fail to issue a “true bill” … unless the suspect is a police officer.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/ferguson-federal-grand-jury-indictment-statistics-history-134942645.html?ref=gs
Anyway, you weren’t making sense from the outset when you suggested that the worst way to act in bad faith is the *only* way to do so. I guess that is the dichotomous, either-or, thinking abagond was talking about here: https://abagond.wordpress.com/2011/10/19/dichotomous-thinking/ When I attempted to demonstrate how absurd the underlying reasoning is by pointing out that the worst ways to commit crime aren’t the only crimes you completely missed the point! I find it fascinating that you seem to genuinely believe that you’re making a cogent argument. I have to say plainly that you’re not.
LikeLike
Thanks for the info Origin. I am not wholly conversant with the American justice system in all its’ permutations. This grand jury procedure sounds like a way for a district attorney to weasel them out of a politized case whether for or against. Slick isn’t the word!
LikeLike
You could also add — “According to police reports …, ” which makes an accusation sound legit, when in fact it’s just the police side of the story.
LikeLike
@Herneith
I don’t know if anyone fully understands the American justice system (!) and there are many permutations. A grand jury can be compulsory in some jurisdictions if the prosecutor decides to bring certain serious charges (felonies) but they almost return an indictment thereby paving the way for a trial to determine guilt or innocence.
However, the prosecutor is never forced to bring charges so there is no valid reason to convene a grand jury if they’d rather not charge the suspect; just don’t. But just as you said, they can use the process to weasel out of a case they don’t want to prosecute when they don’t want to take direct responsibility for the decision. County prosecutors in the USA are elected so …
LikeLiked by 1 person
@ Brian
In practice grand juries are used to get cops off the hook while also keeping the dirt they do secret. It is part of the cover-up.
LikeLike
I might not be getting the point you are trying to make, but you are also missing the point that I am trying to make. A failure to bring an indictment via a grand jury does not mean that charges can not be brought against that person later. Double jeopardy has not been attached. Until Darren Wilson is actually charged and brought to trial and a decision is made there, he can still be charged over the death of Michael Brown. George Zimmerman on the other hand has been tried and cannot be tried again for the death of Trayvon Martin.
LikeLike
@Brian
Yes, Darren Wilson hasn’t been tried. I am aware. That has no bearing on whether it’s bad faith to pretend to want to charge a guy while looking for an out through the grand jury. Yet this was that you disputed:
Brian:
“If the prosecutor truly acted in bad faith, they would bring charges and throw the case, not the grand jury.”
Repeating that over and over will not make it correct. You claim that an act has to be maximally egregious for it to be done in bad faith. No. It only has to be done in a double-faced or duplicitous manner. Convening a grand jury and throwing it is almost the definition of duplicitousness especially since the prosecutor always had the option of simply declining to bring charges.
LikeLike
It’s daunting how a simple turn of phrase or exchange of verb or noun suddenly changes the implication. We’re so used to this tactic in “reporting” that most of us don’t notice or question it initially, especially if we have no personal stake in the event being recounted. Semantics make all the difference. Just a few letters can change the meaning dramatically.
“Fled,” for example:
“The man left the scene of the accident.”
vs.
“The man *fled* the scene of the accident.”
The first simply says the person left/walked away/drove away/by whatever method didn’t stay. It implies they may have been a witness, but had no substantive involvement in the accident; perhaps they were just passing by, or perhaps they stopped to check for injuries or call 911, etc., but left when they knew they weren’t needed.
The second implies the man *caused* the accident and/or did something else *wrong* or was assumed guilty of some manner of crime in conjunction with the accident, and therefore left the scene in an attempt to evade detection/avoid responsibility/implicate someone else.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@Jefe In New England we say “tags” for license plates in everyday vernacular, too. It seems the only time we hear “plates” is in reference to vanity plates, which are extremely common in New Hampshire because they are a very inexpensive upgrade and as a consequence generate a lot of extra income for the state as a form of voluntary tax (we have no sales tax and no state-level personal income tax).
Like you, it never occurred to me that “tags” was part of copspeak.
LikeLike
It can be bad faith to throw a grand jury. I was thinking primarily about the Darren Wilson case were at least in my mind, the prosecutor was being pressured to rush the case to trial and the prosecutor did not feel that there was a case to be won so he used the grand jury as test jury and let them see everything rather than just what would be the prosecution’s case and let them decide if there was enough to take to trial.
I can see where it can be seen as being done in bad faith, kind of like the FBI director not prosecuting Hilary Clinton when if it was anybody else, he would be prosecuting them.
LikeLike
@Brian
McCulloch used the grand jury to protect Darren Wilson from standing trial. He most certainly acted in bad faith, misleading the grand jury about applicable case law. He is in bed with the police big time and had a huge conflict of interest, as do most county prosecutors faced with police brutality cases.
Grand juries are used all the time to let police get away with murder.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Abagond,
In New Haven, they call the paid administrative leave a “sabbatical.” He earned this 3 week vacation after an altercation at a popular White neighborhood restaurant.
http://www.newhavenindependent.org/index.php/archives/entry/dean_esserman/
LikeLike
@Terence McTague
“Sabbatical”. That’s a good one. Thanks for sharing that article.
I wonder if he would be entitled to a “sabbatical” if he were Black or Latino?
LikeLiked by 1 person
I guess the ‘process has continued working’ for this guy Esserman.
LikeLike
@abagond:
Couldn’t you make a category “vocabulary” instead of “stuff”?
LikeLike
Saw a thin blue line flag saving today. They are definitely on “code” this year. Flags at half mast for cops and more american flags flying above houses than ever before.
LikeLike