LAX Police Officer Killed; Cost of Investigations

The State ultimately depends on having a monopoly on violence to survive. Attacking a policeman is a greater threat to that monopoly than a normal murder. This is because it not only flouts the rule of law but also attacks the means of enforcing that law by reducing the number of those who are charged with committing violence in service of the system.

Such attacks are treated very seriously, and rightly so. There is an unspoken rule that has been impressed on the criminal mind. You do not kill policemen. As long as policemen are safe in their lives, criminals ultimately cannot take over the municipality. They are always playing defense. When that unspoken rule is no longer honored by all, things become very dangerous.

Ditto on TM's comments, here and on his blog.

Another item. We expect a policeman to knowingly walk into a tense situation that he or she might not come out of. One of there best protections/confidence builders is the knowledge that there will be retribution on some one who kills them. Since the criminals also know this they are much less likely to use violence against the police. The policeman is more likely to come home and also to get a more favroable resolution the situation.

If this confidence goes away the police will be less likely to walk into tense situations or at least wait a lot longer for larger backups. This will make it easier for criminals to prey on their victims.

TML: Sure, but as I indicated, they already caught the guy... so why were they still closing roads? I'm all for catching killers of any stripe, but the cost has to be weighed.

Would you close down all freeway traffic without warning in Los Angeles for 24 hours in order to catch a killer? A cop killer?

Michael Williams - Obviously there are prudent limits for all criminal investigations. That's why we have constitutional rights regarding search and seizure, for example. I don't know the particulars of this case (living in the midwest makes you pretty unaware of CA crime stories) so I'm a bit at a loss as to why things were cordoned off.

Police do field questions on this sort of thing all the time and if they make a habit of throwing their weight around unnecessarily, it becomes a political issue and new police chiefs tend to appear (either via direct election or via a change in mayor who campaigns on that issue). From what I can tell, I wouldn't worry about it too much. California seems to have police watchdogs that are very much alive and active.

TML: Yeah, but the watchdogs tend to push the police in the wrong directions out here. Sigh.

As a citizen you are right to question how gov't resources are used.Many of my fellow law enforcement officers were down right OUTRAGED to read your posted comments on the murder of Officer Tommy Scott, but I think you pointed toward a valid comment. In our modern western society, many people have been overly innundated with scenes of horrendous violence and depravity; as others have posted here there was once an unwritten rule about killing a police officer-with nearly 20 yrs of law enforcement experience , I can say that many ex-cons I've come across with Guns took the latter way-arrest in lieu of attempting an ambush and facing a capital murder charge.There was grudging respect. But with the theme of "no fear" and bullying bravado,with narcissism and self -centered greed fueling our cultural vision, the very representatives of our society are now the easiest to attack,humiliate, and destroy.If you thought that "one" death has a cost value, then you are looking at it in a cold,mechanical point of view. The investigation was done the same way it would be done if it had been a transient /a businessman/or a soccer mom. If you've been to a court of law, where the current norm now is to "question authority ", then you understand the extra lengths law enforcement must go through to prove their investigations and findings- it is the ultimate drive for justice that requires such effort.
Lest you also forget- we live in a society of law where the defendent in any criminal case is considered "innocent until proven guilty"-on that tenet of law, the MURDERER of Officer Tommy Scott deserves all information and documentation of the crime also,even if it were to allow him his freedom on a technicality.Too many cops,you say?Like ancient centurions ,there is a strong bond and unity that only Cops, lawyers,doctors, and soldiers understand.What affects one ,affects all-hence the strong response to the location of a death of a fellow officer.Sorry that you felt so inconvenienced by the traffic jams caused by a murderer, but at least for one day your ttax dollars were hard at work.............

Mike Gee: I'm sorry if my comments offended you or your fellow officers, who I have nothing but the utmost respect for. I know you guys have a hard, dangerous job, and I respect you for it.

I'd like it if every murderer could be caught, prosecuted, and executed. But at what price? What if a particular investigation cost $10 million? Or $100 million? Or $1 billion? At some point it becomes foolish to spend so much public money on punishing a single crime, because that money could be used instead to prosecute a hundred other crimes, or to build hospitals, or roads, or whatever. There isn't an unlimited supply of money, so we have to spend it wisely.

Punishing murderers is certainly worth spending a lot of money on, but not an infinite amount. There's some limit. I don't know what that limit is, but the blocked streets around LAX made me think about the issue. What do you and your fellow officers think? You're more familiar with the costs of investigation and prosecution than I am.

Michael Williams: I'll be quite honest. I was inconvenienced by the traffic last Friday that was a result of the investigation, but that's all it was, an inconvenience. I got to the train station an hour later than I should have, I apologized to my wife, inquired about her and my kids' days and we went home, had dinner and spent time together before bed. Scott Williams will not see his family again, he will never have the luxury of sitting in front of a computer and complaining because "one person's death" caused him to have to sit in traffic for an hour or even two hours. His parents will never see their child's face again. His fellow officers will be forever haunted by the memory of their friend and comrade lost in duty. An inconvenience, sir, is all that any of us experienced over the roads being closed. Yes, there were tax dollars at work to pay the police officers manning the blockades, but those were on-duty police officers that would have been paid whether they were assisting the investigation or not. Take a step back and be thankful that you aren't truly being affected by what happened on that day. I'm quite ashamed that our society has degraded to the point that we could so flippantly complain about the inconvenience that "one death" causes us.

LB: I think you're misunderstanding my position, but still, it's unreasonable to expect me to be as affected by the officer's death as were his friends and family. I'm sorry for it, certainly, but it would be incredibly presumptuous of me to act or imply that Officer Scott was as important to me as he was to his family. His death was tragic or despicable -- depending on if it was accidental or purposeful. I've been pretty clear about that, and it's not fair to imply that I've been acting hard-heartedly.

Michael Williams: I was in no way trying to imply that you should be affected as much as Officer Scott's family and close friends were, and that comment simply reinforces your callousness in my mind. My final statement was that you should be thankful that you are not as affected as they are. There is a huge difference between mourning a stranger's death as if it were the death of a family member or a close friend and criticizing activity surrounding that death simply because you were not directly affected by it. I don't believe I misunderstood your position in any way. You stated clearly that you felt the tax dollars, manpower, and blocked roads, resulting in quite a bit of traffic, without which you may not have even noticed what happened, were all excessive for "a single death". You claim to be a Christian, yet you quantify the value of a person's life and the worthiness of the investigation of the loss of that life based simply on the inconvenience it caused you and, perhaps more importantly, the level to which it affected you directly. The greatest law given by Christ was to love your neighbor. You have illustrated the way our society as a whole, not just the Christian sector or the secular sector, has moved away from a common compassion for others in lieu of a selfish viewpoint in which only that which affects us directly is worthy of our time or consideration. Granted, I wasn't out there trying to dig up clues or interview witnesses. I haven't called Officer Scott's family to apologize for what happened or try to console them; It's not my place to do so. I know that it is not your place either. You have, though, by establishing this blog, presented yourself as a representative of our society. More importantly, by taking such a strong Christian standpoint, you have presented yourself as a representative of the Christian community. Granted, the Christian community as a whole is lacking in many areas, as is our society as a whole. I just wish that people, such as yourself, who take such a stance, whether knowingly or unknowingly, would have more of a conscious realization of the power they have to influence thought and society as a whole. I'm not perfect. If I had a blog, I'm sure I'd put things in that would embarrass me upon later review. I don't believe you feel that you said or did anything wrong in your initial post. I guess that's what disappoints me. You, a self made representative of Christianity and society, have fallen into the selfish thought patterns that affect all of us in one way or another and validated these patterns through your ignorance of the very real loss of a very real life. You're not the first one, you won't be the last, and I do apologize for singling you out, but I believe that I would be in error if I didn't at least attempt to make you aware of my observations in this matter. I assure you that I write this with the utmost sincerity and concern for not just you or I, or those we love and care for, but for everyone who may be reading these posts or has been even marginally affected by the selfish thought patterns that I feel your original post served to propogate and that I feel it is our responsibility to lessen, if not squelch entirely.

LB: First off, I didn't "clearly" say that I thought the investigation was a waste, I was merely using this specific instance to raise the question about how much resources should be used to catch criminals. I don't know enough about the details of this case to say whether or not resources were used wisely. I generally trust the police to do their jobs well, but I generally distrust the politicians and bureaucrats who handle my money. I think it's more than reasonable to ask the question in general without crawing conclusions about this particular case.

As for selfishness, I think it's the opposite of selfish to want public resources to be used wisely. There isn't an infinite amount of money or time, and there's no way to know, for instance, how many people died because of the traffic jam near LAX. Ambulances had to be rerouted. People in those cars may have been heading to hospitals, or to visit sick relatives, or to their parent's deathbed. There were thosuands of people stuck for hours, so it's almost guaranteed that some or all of those hypothetical situations I just listed actually happened.

The death of Officer Scott is terrible and highly visible, but there were other, less visible people affected as well. If anything, you're the one being callous towards them. I was just going to lunch at the time, so my delay wasn't that important.

I don't even know where to begin with your comments.

It's appalling to me that you are talking about people being inconvenienced by the investigation of Officer Scott's death. If someone close to you died, you would expect a thorough investigation, I'm sure. Investigations take time, would you be complaining if this was a single death of an ordinary citizen? The law enforcement officers were doing their job. The police presence that day was heavy because it was a co-worker, a brother in blue that had fallen. These brave men and women walk out the door every day and put themselves into situations and directly into contact with people that the rest of society tries it's hardest to stay away from. Accepting a duty with such inherent dangers makes them heros from the minute they are pinned with that badge and if it inconveniences a few people when one of them falls, so be it.

Mr Williams, you are UNBELIEVABLE.
Mr Bryan, you have stated exactly what most police officers feel regarding Mr Williams' statements. Thank you very much,sir. When Mr Williams or someone he loves or simply cares about is a victim of a crime, ( and it will be a matter of when not if) lets see how he feels about the resources expended, roads being closed, and time spent in traffic in order to investigate the crime. Of course the police will be there to do their jobs, no matter the time, cost, or traffic congestion. Unfortunately, there are people who want to "bash" police at any opportunity....good or bad, while disguising the bashing as a "concern" for resources being spended during police officer's death investigation. SHAMEFUL

Proud Wife and ONE OF LAPD'S FINEST: I think my comments make it clear that I have a great deal of respect for police officers, and it's really not fair to characterize my comments in any other way. I didn't intend this to be an emotional issue. I think it's perfectly reasonable to discuss the costs of government, including expenses I'm in favor of. Please don't try to turn me into some sort of evil-doer just because I asked a question.

Based on the comments here and the reactions I've gotten from other readers, I've come to the conclusion that this post was out of line. I have nothing but respect for the police officers who risk their lives protecting me and mine, and I apologize for writing this post. I'm not going to take it down, because I don't like changing the record after the fact. I regret writing it, and I'm sorry.

It takes a big person to admit when they are wrong. It takes an even bigger person to allow others to see their mistakes and their regret. I appreciate your reflection and re-evaluation of your original comments.

Mr. Williams STOP COMPLAINING, at least you had lunch and will continue to do so, what about Officer Scott, I'm sure he'd much rather had been in your shoes at that particular moment. You act as if the expense of the investigation is coming out of your own pocket. There are other worthwhile arguements to be argued, please not this one.

We are all born ignorant, shallow and self centered, and life is a process of learning, but for most, when we step in the s**t, it's not posted on the internet for the entire world to see how ignorant, shallow and self centered we can be. You were clearly upset by your inconvenience. You thoughtlessly displayed your lack of maturity, defended it, then finally accepted the replied wisdom.

I like the saying, "If ten people tell you you're drunk, lie down." Thank you for sharing your process with us, and especially for your personal integrity in not removing your embarrassment. We can all learn from it. Do you ever ponder, what qualifies a blogger to blog. What are the qualities a blogger should have?

I miss Tommy Scott. A gem cast together with the rest of us rocks. Tommy was honest, dedicated to serving society, motivated to be the best person he could be, and willingly shared his enthusiasm with those he worked with. Society asks the police to handle the problems no one else will do. Tommy did it happily, actively and without complaint. It was always a pleasure to be in his company. There are too few people in the world like Tommy, and now there is one less. This was the man that was murdered that day is such a gruesome and violent manner.

Some inconveniences are worth it. Michael, do you have kids?

Your apology is accepted. "We often see things as we are and not as they are"

APCF: Spare me the self-righteousness. I said I was sorry, leave it at that.

ch and others: Thanks.

I think your article on the LAX Police Officer Killed; Cost of Investigations was uncalled for and very insensitive.

Mr. Williams, I knew when I read your post that 1) you were going to piss of a lot of people and that 2) you didn't mean to piss anyone off. I even told the guys that I work with that you were just some ignorant civilian and that you would probably see the light after enough people put you in check. They have and now you do. As I read your apology, I felt satisfied that the clouds had parted and that you were seeing this from another perspective. I also respect your decision to keep the original post online. After all, you cannot un-ring a bell. What you're going to have to do now, sir, is what we call "riding one's own beef." You're going to have to hear this one for a little while longer, mister. There are thousands of cops in this country (hundreds at this one airport alone, all of whom knew Tommy Scott)and the word on your post has just begun to spread. Stand by to stand by. Suck it up, wipe the dust off of yourself and learn from the experience. Good day, sir.

Karen: It was insensitive, which is why I apologized. One of the things I always forget about the internet is that people who are directly effected by tragedy can easily come across my commentary on it and take it personally.

LAX SWAT Cop: I certainly didn't mean anything that I wrote to be taken personally, or to be applied to Officer Scott. The circumstances of his death brought to mind a larger issue, but I shouldn't have linked my musings about the larger issue to the death of Officer Scott. That was insensitive and unnecessary, and so I've apologized.