Los Angeles Times Interview : Joseph Wambaugh : What LAPD Needs Is Women to Combat Testosterone Level

Joseph Wambaugh knows cops. He was one of them, retiring in 1971, as a sergeant, after 14 years in the Los Angeles Police Department. He has also made a great living writing bestsellers, both fiction and nonfiction, about cops and their cases, beginning with “The New Centurions”--written while Wambaugh was still working the burglary detail. His 12th and latest book “The Golden Orange,” published last year, is about an alcoholic, ex-Newport Beach cop’s encounters with the decadence of Orange County. In between, there was “The Blue Knight,” “The Onion Field” and “The Blooding.”

His literary output has been rated positively by critics as a realistic--as opposed to sensationalist--view of what police do; Wambaugh prides himself on sticking close to the source. He still hangs out at cop bars and rides patrols while doing his research--recently averaging several years per book.

Now 54, and wealthy enough to have lived for the past decade close to the watering holes of the super rich in Newport and, more recently, northern San Diego, Wambaugh still proudly identifies himself as “proletarian” in outlook as well as origin. His father was a cop and a steelworker back in Pittsburgh. Young Wambaugh came out to California to attend a family funeral and stayed on to attend high school in Ontario. After graduating, he spent three years in the Marines, another three as a steelworker and then the LAPD. During that time, he earned a BA and Masters in English at Cal State L.A. After 34 years, he is still married to his high-school sweetheart, Dee, and--thanks to a daily stint on the exercycle--still trim.

Wambaugh always thinks blue--as a sergeant-badge paperweight on his desk attests. Even in this opulent setting, where homes are landscaped with fruit orchards and a Range Rover is considered a Jeep, Wambaugh remains very much the street cop. He is defensive about “the men” who patrol the streets every night, suspicious of the brass, doubting of the credentials of the Christopher Commission--which presumed, in a matter of months, to grasp the reality of a world he clearly does not want to leave behind.

Yet Wambaugh the writer is thoughtful and serious--close at hand was a marked-up copy of the commission’s report and copious notes on a yellow pad, intended to guide his remarks. Clearly he is torn between disgust with what he perceives to be a small minority of out-of-line officers and concern for the potential “demoralization” of what he described several times as “the most effective crime-fighting machine on Earth.” But, he realizes profound change is coming and just when it sounded like he was going to launch into an archetype “Dirty Harry” monologue, Wambaugh came up with a socko suggestion. Don’t peek because, being a good writer, he builds nicely to the end.

Question: The Christopher Commission report is largely about the culture of cops. You are as familiar with that culture as anyone. Did the commission get it right?

Answer: The report has some good stuff in the recommendations, but it’s inherently trivial because they missed the psychology in all this. For example, the report does not deal with the fear factor nor with the gallows humor--which is one of the cop’s most valuable tools as a self-defense in tragic situations. The gallows humor is used to maintain denial mechanisms, dehumanize the adversary. “He’s not like me: He’s an animal. He’s scum. He’s inhuman.”

Q: Is that how you view the racist MDT transcripts that have been released?

A: Let me start off by saying that no transmissions like that should ever be indulged in. That computer in cars is not meant for “little-boy” humor. But, my God, there were transmissions about “slapping around an 85-year-old lady whom we had to take in for medical treatment,” a “14-year-old covered with salad oil chained to my workout machine.” That’s obviously little-boy humor--the macho humor of cops.

We have in police work, not just in Los Angeles, but everywhere, we have super-aggressive 22-year-olds, full of testosterone, full of energy, absolutely immortal and unable to admit fear, unable to verbalize fear--even to themselves. Hence they get caught up in all this damn silly defense-mechanism business, this dehumanizing, this gallows humor, and all of that--and don’t even understand that they are doing it most of the time. I’m not talking about female cops. I’m talking about young male cops, basically, who stay little boys until they are in middle age, or beyond . . . .

Q: Is part of the answer more female officers?

A: Oh God, yes--50% women or more. I’ve always been a strong believer in that. (Former LAPD Sgt. Fanchon) Blake did a great service when she sued the city, in 1981, and got that consent decree. I do not believe you need a strong back to be a cop. You need a strong back to be a firefighter. I think female cops can go a long way toward helping to mitigate the super-aggressive, paramilitary macho myth of the gung-ho cop and introducing the sobering element of maturity in police work.

Q: What about the argument that women are not tough enough physically for the violence encountered in police work?

A: Police work is not about physical altercations, it’s not about shooting people--it’s not any of that. It’s about talking to people. Women are awfully good at talking to people. They’re awfully good at revealing their own emotions. They’re awfully good at eliciting the other side to reveal their emotions. They’re awfully good at problem-solving and that’s all police work is. The very best cops are the ones who can get people to talk to them. That’s what detective work is. It’s not about all sorts of scientific breakthroughs--it’s about getting people to talk. Women are eminently better qualified at that.

For the critics who ask how they handle a raging violent psycho, well, sometimes they just have to back off. Unheard of in my time at the LAPD. They just have to back off and wait for help. If the person gets away, then we’ll try to get them tomorrow. Maybe that would be better than getting a $15-million lawsuit when the young macho cop says, “I don’t back down, you and me are going all the way, buddy.” Maybe we wouldn’t lose much by occasionally backing down, maybe we’d gain.

Q: Isn’t that why the commission recommended a program to raise their consciousness about racism, violence and sexism.

A: The training that this commission report recommends is external. “Train the cops to be polite to people.” Of course. We need a commission to tell us this? “Train them not to use excessive force.” Absolutely! We don’t have to have a bunch of goddamn commissioners telling us that. We know that! It doesn’t say, “Get inside the cops’ heads. Frequently, get in there and keep the pressure on the cop to examine himself.” He can’t be afraid to verbalize fear.

Female cops have no problems along those lines. They can verbalize fear. Fear doesn’t become an issue with them. They’re afraid, and they’ll say, “I’m afraid. That scared the crap out of me. It made me mad.” They realize they’re a human being. They don’t have to whip on somebody because he scared them. They can admit it. They have to persuade these aspiring Schwarzeneggers that it’s OK to verbalize fear. Maybe Arnold doesn’t do it, but you can do it because you are afraid and not just afraid once--unlike a movie. Fear doesn’t go away, you’re afraid every time. It’s all right. It doesn’t make anyone less of a man.

Q: Do you think the cop movies add to the problem by celebrating this cynicism?

A: These kids grew up with all that crap that we’ve been seeing in the last 20 years in films. I didn’t grow up with “Dirty Harry” or “Bullet” or “Lethal Weapon” and “Terminator.” I didn’t grow up with those people. Nobody taught me everyday, in television and movies, that I was supposed to behave that way. Sure it had an influence.

Q: What’s the message a young cop should be hearing?

A: What the academy teaches is a great deal of self-preservation in a physical sense. Ignoring the truth of the matter, which is that police work is not that dangerous a job physically--despite what we see and hear on television. It’s not as dangerous as working in a mine or working on a building as an ironworker. But, emotionally, it’s the most dangerous job on Earth. The main killer of cops is premature cynicism--that producer of alcoholism and cop suicides and divorces and excessive force. That killer has not been properly addressed by any police department.

Q: But what about the report ‘ s demonstration of a pattern of racism?

A: This report lumps Latinos and African-Americans. It even attempts, in a couple of occasions, to drag in Asians by their ears, to make them part of what these bad cops degrade and brutalize.

Q: Discounting for 22-year-olds’ talk, were you shocked by all this? The Times printed a long list of these statements people make, like “slapping monkeys around.”

A: Was any of it egregious? Yes, of course. But I ask you this: How many of those statements were directed by a white cop on his computer to a black cop on another computer? Think of that. The report didn’t think of it. You’re a black cop and I sit here and talk about, “Well, I’d like to get on the street and barbecue all your brothers on the Slauson.” That’s the way cops talk to each other all the time. The ragging that goes on in police work is relentless, and it is brutal, and it does not take into consideration the other cops’ ethnic background, religion, physical imperfections . . . . (This) goes on all the time, and you’re supposed to give as well as you get.

Q: You are a white male and part of the dominant group.

A: It’s easier for me to say. Is there a point when this stuff that I read in here on those computers--remember, I don’t think any of this bull should be on computers, wasting time doing this kind of crap--is some of this stuff not funny? Is it racist and not funny and vicious and does it go beyond the ethnic interpersonal banter? Yes. Can I define when it goes beyond that--what the dominant group does in joking ethnically with his fellow officers? No. But I know it when I see it. Some of this definitely goes beyond the pale . . . . It should not be tolerated . . . .

Q: The commission report describes a cop culture that condones racism and excessive violence and basically describes the police force as an occupying army, trying to keep the lid on an alienated community.

A: You are dealing with a police department that has a reputation for being extraordinarily aggressive, probably the most aggressive police department, the most GI, paramilitary, the most effective--in terms of arrests, catching crooks and controlling crime--police force in the country. Yes, they’re super-aggressive, these guys.

Q: And they’re saying there’s a negative side to this.

A: Of course there is! You can’t have it both ways. When all is said and done here, you’re going to have a much kinder, gentler, less-efficient police force.

Q: Well, the commission also says it’s counterproductive to be so alienated from the community. They refer to a lot of specific things--constant use of the prone position and so forth. People feel the police are not there to protect but rather to hurt.

A: I agree totally. We didn’t use prone-outs when I was in the Watts riot--we didn’t prone anybody out. We didn’t beat people with batons. But we did have a weapon in those days that was taken from them 10 years ago: the chokehold. I can see all that stuff about police force being too paramilitary. This is not Gen. MacArthur waging war. This is not war.

For a long time I thought the LAPD had made a mistake. They tried to equate being a cop with being a Marine. I was an LAPD officer for 14 years, I was a Marine for three years--I know the difference. The mission is different. The mission of a Marine is absolutely different from the mission of a cop. The Marine Corps trained me to be a good follower. “Don’t think, follow. Do what you’re told and take Hill 242.”

The mission of a cop should be to make him a leader. I don’t believe you need to be a good follower to be a good leader. Those cops are out there alone. They’re not following anybody most of the time. I would de-emphasize the paramilitary stuff. The report was right about the hours of training in the academy that go to PT--physical training, shooting, marching. How many of those hours should be devoted to interpersonal training? Tons of it.

Q: Don’t you think Chief Gates has pushed the military approach?

A: Well, the whole police department has been an aggressive force and that seems to have been what the city wanted--going back to Chief (William) Parker’s day. Parker made it aggressive. Parker took an inefficient, undisciplined force and made it the most efficient police force in the world, probably, for a big city. That’s how 8,300 people kept the lid on crime in Los Angeles.

Q: You say you want to train policemen to be better leaders. Why would that automatically make them less efficient? Why don’t you just double the size, pay for it? If that’s the goal--there’s a way to be efficient without beating people.

A: Absolutely, I agree with you 100%. I’m just predicting what’s going to happen. First of all, they’re not going to spend more money. They’re never going to increase the department to the proportional size it deserves--like Chicago, New York, any big city. You’re never going to have a police force of the size that patrols those cities. Why? Since Parker, the city hatched this bargain, this small force of 8,300 hard chargers. They like that. It was economically good for them.

Q: What you’re saying is that if you want both an efficient and kinder police force, you ought to pay for it?

A: Absolutely. LAPD could use 5,000 more people, easily, to be in sync with other big cities like Chicago and New York. LAPD is spread out over 450 square miles. It’s bigger than any of those cities.

Q: If this is a major problem, you just get the money and do it.

A: You would think so, wouldn’t you? Let’s see that happen. I predict, when all is said and done, they’ll just say, “Continue doing the job with 8,300 people.”

Q: What would you like to see happen with the LAPD?

A: . . . . Wouldn’t it be brave and innovative if the selectors of the next chief understood that there are three essential qualities to look for in any cop: common sense, a sense of humor and compassion. Upper-level management skills and political acumen are far less important. Wouldn’t it be a great day for the city of Los Angeles if that chief also possessed the courage and wisdom of Sgt. Fanchon Blake--whose lawsuit brought about the consent decree that took women past the “Dirty Harriet” and “Jane Wayne” locker-room jokes, but not nearly far enough? Wouldn’t it be utterly fantastic if our next chief was a woman? Think of it, the leader of the world’s most macho, paramilitary, big-city police force, a woman? . . . .