"Suspect stated he and victim became involved in a physical altercation because, according to Suspect, 'Bitch done burnt the Butterball.'"

See, it's all about context. There's an alternate version of the suspect's statement that would almost make a reciprocal response understandable.

Working in U. City was always interesting because of the racial component.  I grew up in U. City, so I was fairly familiar with most of the slang that came out of people's mouths, but others weren't nearly as comfortable with it.

Another of my personal favorites was a disturbance call I was on with a white guy who had little interaction with black culture prior to working at the police department.  This time the victim was the boyfriend who had a golf ball sized lump on his head.  Mark (the other cop) is trying to figure out what happened and the conversation went something along the lines of:

Mark:  Sir, can you tell me what happened?

Victim:  Man, dat bitch hit me wit da smoove.

Mark: I'm sorry sir, can you repeat that.

Victim: Dat bitch hit me wit da smoove.

Mark: I'm sorry, I don't understand.

Me: (Doing everything possible to keep from laughing) Sir, it might help if you explained to Officer McDaniel what a smoove is.

Victim: C'mon man.  A smoove.  You know, dat thing you smoove yo clothes wif.


Mark left U. City shortly thereafter and went to work in Glendale, a small, very white community which suited his personality much better.

There are a lot of similarities.  There are still names and addresses I remember and I left the department in 1996.

APRTW wrote:

IDK how it was for you working in a larger populated area but pretty much what we do around here is deal with the same 50 people or so over and over.  Once you hear the name you know what the call is and damn near what happend before you ever get there.  You deal with it, deal with it and deal with it till someone crosses the line and you can haul them off.  Then they quit calling for awhile but sooner or later their name starts poping up again and you repeat the process.

Recidivism is everywhere, AP. I probably see the same dozen or so names a half-dozen times a year. A couple of weeks ago, I was in court for a pre-trail conference for four suspects who robbed a jewelry store and shot a cop during their unsuccessful attempt at flight. On the same docket that day was an arraignment for a well-known local scofflaw who was picked up for who-knows-this-time, probably lighting off fireworks in a school playground during recess or bashing his girlfriend's face with a smoove or something else similarly ridiculous.
The way it usually works in our court is the judge runs through the minor stuff on the docket, then arraigns the people who were arrested the night before and then saves the major stuff until just before lunch.
So I wander in around 11 a.m. and Mr. Minor Scofflaw is standing in the perp area, chatting with his court appointed attorney.
About 30 seconds later, defense counsel declares his client "is concerned about the presence of the media" and asks for a sidebar.
Without missing a beat, the judge says "Tell your client *the media* is here for someone else and to get over himself."
I kind of like that judge.

"It is retardism"

This guy is actually reasonably intelligent. He's just got a gene that makes him break the law.
We try to follow the disposition of the arrests we print (the district attorney's office just loves us for that), and this guy is pretty aware of our policy. A couple of years ago, he got pinched for firing a gun at a party. As you know, law enforcement tends to throw every appropriate charge they can find at someone like this, hoping at least one or two will stick once the case gets to court. So this guy gets charged with assault with intent to murder in addition to the usual laundry list of companion misdemeanors. He pleads out to simple assault or something to avoid jail time. Probably about 10 minutes later, he's on the phone to me explaining that his case was dropped and the paper owes him a full-blown retraction and the publisher should apologize to him personally for smearing his pristine reputation or he's going to sue, blah blah blah.
It's all part of the game for him, and the fun part is when you get to transfer one of his calls to a newly-hired reporter who starts to flop sweat when he utters the word "libel."

The weird part is when I was in college we spent about half a semester in one class being taught how to avoid libel, and two days into my first job I figured out you have to be a hack and an idiot to get sued. Not either. Both. Because the plaintiff has to prove malicious intent.
The paper I work for now got sued about 30 years ago over language in a political ad one mayoral candidate ran calling another candidate a criminal. I guess the paper's defense was "Hey, he submitted the ad, we just printed it ..." The plaintiff won, but the jury thought he was a scumbag, so he was awarded $1.

Last edited by artie_fufkin (11/29/2011 11:11 pm)

"They will often call criminals punks, pimps, dirtbags and so on.  I dont understand how they get away with that kind of name calling."

They shouldn't get away with it, and a real newspaper wouldn't use terms like punk and dirtbag. Now, if you provide the reader with enough information to come to that conclusion on his/her own, that's a different story. "Pimp" falls into another realm, since prostitution is an actual crime, but I don't think I'd ever resort to using that word in a story under my name.
My wife always tells me I ought to write a book about the police reports I read. If I write a book, it's going to be about coaching youth sports entitled "A Breeding Ground for Assholes."

"Would a real newspaper not use those terms because legally they cant or because it isnt a respectful way to write?"

I suppose a dirtbag could make a legal argument that the newspaper hasn't proven the person is an actual bag of dirt, but name-calling is just poor literary form. And it renders the writer's opinion.
BTW, public figures fall into a different realm than the rest of us. For instance, the P-D has a lot more leeway about how it refers to the mayor of St. Louis than it does about, say, C.B. Forsberg, Esq., humble local attorney. The standard about who and where public figures exist also has some fluidity. For instance, the high school football coach in my town may be a public figure in my town, but the high school football coach in my town certainly wouldn't be a public figure in your town.

Last edited by artie_fufkin (11/30/2011 12:40 pm)

APRTW wrote:

Their whole deal is that they will write anything.  I doubt they care the literary quality.  It basicly a small town national enquirer thats focus is on cops and criminals.  I am interested in what they write but cant bring myself to pay them money and support their cause.  Dont get me wrong, I laugh alot when I read it.  Some stuff I know to be 100% true but they make alot of comments they have no proof of and only do so because they dont like the person.

After 25 years in and out of the business, I've discovered people read local newspapers for three things - the police log, youth sports, and obituaries.
And people go batshit when something happens with the crossword puzzle. A couple of months ago we skipped a day and ran the wrong solution, and I had about 15 angry messages on my machine when I got to work the following morning.