Customer Reviews

Blue vs. Black

5 star:		(6)
4 star:		(2)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(7)

 

 

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.

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.

I have read some of the negative reviews about Blue Vs. Black, and I completley disagree with these reviewers. I found the book to be full of insight about the things that CAN happen to citizens at the hands of those paid to protect us. The book offers material that gives the reader some serious issues to consider. I believe the author's reform solutions weren't intended to be the last word in criminal justice, but were simply meant as a starting point and spring board for others thoughts on reform. It is so easy to criticize...I read everything from, "his facts were off on the dollar amounts won by plaintiffs" to "he wrote this book to make money because he's not a good lawyer". Instead of being critical, I suggest we use this book as a starting point to focus on police/community conflicts.

This book is fairly well written, doubtlessly because it was written by Catherine Whitney. I've enjoyed Whitney's books before; here, she was able to make a fair fictional project from Burris' exaggerations. As a former Oakland police officer, I know firsthand many of the officers and incidents cited in this book. I also know Burris' reputation and his zeal for suing police officers, mostly from large police departments with deep pockets. I don't have a problem with Burris turning his experiences into a work of fiction, but when he uses actual names and purports the stories as factual he is cheating his readers. In many of the incidents cited in this book, Burris wrongly places the blame for huge payouts in police brutality suits with the officers, when in fact, it's the exploitative efforts of lawyers bent on big bucks and fame that costs the tax payer so much. Needless to say, I returned this bok for a refund.

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.

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.

Civil Rights Lawyer John Burris'Blue Vs. Black rails against injustice, and provides ways and means of changing a system that permits sometimes shameful behavior by a culture that too often condones and justifies it. Blue Vs. Black offers many examples of police brutality, yet maintains the ability to see beyond the obvious, and offers excellent suggestions by police experts on ways to change a system that allows such behavior to take place. This is a beautifully written, compelling piece of work. It offers a powerful and balanced look at an incendiary issue. But lawyer Burris isn't a firebrand. His integrity and honesty snatches this book out of the hands of extremists and haters, and places it instead in the hands of those who wish to promote positive change and better relations between minority communities and the police. Poignant, touching, and insightful.

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.

Abner Louima, Amadou Diallo, Rodney King, the list of names who have been victims of police misconduct goes on and on. A beautifully written, heart-breakingly honest look at one of the most sensitive issues our country--no, the entire world--has to look at and deal with. Racism, hatred, and bullying have all got to end. There are young children walking around who have already felt hatred. They feel it, and they express it, too. It's a vicious cycle. Kids grow up knowing there is hatred, division, and prejudice surrounding them. There are people that will wish to do them harm because they are of a different color. Isn't that amazing? Blue Versus Black makes it clear that it's not simply a matter of it being the police officers' fault. The police are put out on the streets under the worst of circumstances, and are expected to always make the right decision. They are in a no-win situation. As it's made clear in the book, we should applaud the efforts of the police. We need the police. We need to help the police make their jobs easier and safer. The community can help. Everybody should read this book. It was beautifully written, a compelling, honest, and moving book. I recommend it highly.

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.