Blue vs. Black

Rating:
Summary: Slanted Inaccuracy
Review: As an Oakland Police Officer at the time of the events depicted in this book, I am disappointed with the slanted, embellished depictions contained therein. My greatest concern is that there may be some young people out there who may believe it.

Perhaps the saddest commentary of the text is the solutions offered by Mr. Burris, as they sorely miss the mark.

Rating:
Summary: Blue VS Black by John L. Burris, et al
Review: I applaud John Burris' book, Blue VS Black. The book did not shock me, probably because I had the advantage of being an insider when much of what Mr. Burris describes was going on. What does amaze me, however, is the attitude of denial expressed by the former Oakland officers reviewing the book.

I am the author of Blackjack and Jive-Five, a book that chronicles many of the internal barriers faced by black police officers as they struggled to become part of the Oakland Police Department in the early 1970s. White officers did not want them and were in no mood to accept more than just a token few-so you can imagine the furor that affirmative action unveiled. I was a white sergeant in that department, one who helped to recruit and train these fine, young black men, and one who also tried to help them assimilate into an overwhelmingly white-majority police culture. It was a brutal time for those black officers. So, this question comes to mind for those persons who criticize John Burris' book as being fictional, slanted, and self-serving:

If so many white Oakland officers could not even be civil to the black persons within their own ranks, how can the abuse of black citizens be denied??

There indeed was abuse toward blacks-both internally and externally-and it was widespread. Moreover, if I shock some by stating this, consider the fact that abuse would have been much worse had it not been for a very tough police chief during the late 60s and early 70s who would not tolerate open racism and did everything within his power to control that which was clandestine. Mine is a sad commentary, but true. It amazes me that other former Oakland officers reviewing this book can have lapses of memory about the racial issues brought forward by Mr. Burris.

I read a borrowed copy of the book, but have since purchased a copy for my personal library. I am sure I will consult it many times during my future writings.

Rating:
Summary: No credibility
Review: I lived some of the incidents described in this book. Since that time I have become a lawyer and am familiar with the breed. Burris lacks credibility and continues to strengthen that reputation with this book. Most of us legal types eventually find a niche to make income. Burris' niche is dishonorable and relies on damaging the reputation of honest men and women doing their best to uphold the law. The phrase "Thin Blue Line" represents the facts of urban life, especially during a time of the Black Panthers, Symbionese Liberation Army, and Hell's Angels (all Oakland products). Burris' half-truths and self-serving writing may please the left leaning liberal, but they do not represent the feelings of the defenseless who need a professional, no nonsense police department.

Rating:
Summary: Something to think about
Review: I was shocked when I came across this item, but not in the manner that the author intended. Burris' lopsided and self-serving campaign against law enforcemnt is so transparent, I actually had trouble staying with the narrative. To be frank, I could not finish the book, it was that bad.

In a society where it is hip to portray the police as evil, Burris is nothing more than a legal carpetbagger who wants to be viewed as a crusader for minority rights. I feel sorry for the good men and women in uniform who have to suffer the egregious slanders of the likes of Burris and other unethical lawyers who are making fortunes by perpetuating racial strife and unrest in today's culture.

Stand tall and ask yourself who are the REAL villains here. I'd love to see someone write a book about alleged abuses and misdeeds committed by the infamous cadre of legal eagles (more like vultures) that have become media darlings simply because of the controversy that they represent.

Rating:
Summary: Don't bother with it
Review: If you want a completely bias book with little to no fact then this is the book for you. If you already believe the police are evil and prejudiced against all people of color then this book is for you. If you can see that this is an attorney who is making money with a book because he's probably not a great attorney then do what I did and don't bother with this book. Borrow it or go to the library if you want to read it yourself.

Rating:
Summary: Well Written View of a Problem.
Review: Let me start off by saying, the book is well written and a quick breakdown of a problem. (We had a police shooting, in June that is being investiagted, so this is relevant). I grew up in New York City, so I have SOME idea of how "mean" the streets can be. Still, there are ways this book could have been improved. More input from the side of the police would have been very helpful. Otherwise, this can easily be pictured as a small group of rogue cops making it bad for the majority of good ones. I found Mr. Burris' argument in the beginning about the cost to cities persuasive. As a taxpayer, I would get tired of my tax money eaten up by settlements with citizens abused by police. It is an important book for all Americans to read. I would, though make some changes to it.

Rating:
Summary: Reviewing Burris' reviews
Review: The reviews are very biased, on both sides, but mostly on the police-conservative-law and order side. My first thought after reading the reactions of the law and order people is that if Burris gets them this upset he must be doing something right.

Here is an objective bit: Read Martindale-Hubbell (they have a web site) and see what Burris's rating is. M-H rates lawyers. This is done by sending out evaluation forms to lawyers and judges who know the person being evaluated in some professional capacity. These ratings are highly prized and hard to get. The highest rating is "A-V", which means A for highest legal ability, and V for highest ethical conduct. Burris is rated "A-V".

The complaints by the right wingers about the cost to the city of settling these police misconduct suits conveniently avoids mentioning that it is a jury of city citizens who levy the verdict on the city.

The city is well defended and in fact has a lot of advantages in the legal contest. So when they still lose and lose big, that simply means the misconduct was real, and the plaintiff's damages real.

Rating:
Summary: A Good Middle of the Road Book
Review: Why do I say this? Well because this book is very well intentioned and is not anti-law enforcement. What it is however is eye opening and factual. It is also an easy read and keeps the reader interested. I think this is a very good book for someone who is interested in knowing more about police brutality but has never read anything about it before. In other words a good starting point. It is very mainstream however. I still liked it but had one friend who felt it was a little to warm and fuzzy "let's all just get along" sounding and skirted some of the meatier issues and colder facts. But like I said it's a good starting point for someone just developing interest in the topic.

Rating:
Summary: A Good Middle of the Road Book
Review: Why do I say this? Well because this book is very well intentioned and is not anti-law enforcement. What it is however is eye opening and factual. It is also an easy read and keeps the reader interested. I think this is a very good book for someone who is interested in knowing more about police brutality but has never read anything about it before. In other words a good starting point. It is very mainstream however. I still liked it but had one friend who felt it was a little to warm and fuzzy "let's all just get along" sounding and skirted some of the meatier issues and colder facts. But like I said it's a good starting point for someone just developing interest in the topic.