I think everybody knows what the city of Los Angeles lived during the 1980s, the crack epidemic era. I also imagine people who played GTA San Andreas (me included), no matter where anyone is from, realized that the cops beating someone in the garage and the riots in the final missions are based off the police brutality and the LA riots in 1992.

However, I found out that some people who lived that era, especially former LAPD officers, said that CRASH was a very effective gang unit and their reputation was ruined by some cops who previously were criminals themselves. In particular, a youtuber named LMSTactical uploaded some videos shot back in the days, that show the CRASH operations by their perspective.

My point is: CRASH have always been portrayed as a brutal police unit, but was CRASH actually that bad?

Of course I don’t know how things actually went on. But I’m sure there’s someone who lived those days or has relatives who did.

Edited March 15, 20188 yr by badass22

This is a good article: http://www.nytimes.com/2000/10/01/magazine/one-bad-cop.html

Depends on the meaning of efficiency. If their activities led to a major riot, corruption cases, public distrust and didn't solve gang problem, I'd dare to say they were not that efficient. 

 

 

1 hour ago, Hastings said:

Depends on the meaning of efficiency. If their activities led to a major riot, corruption cases, public distrust and didn't solve gang problem, I'd dare to say they were not that efficient. 

 

 

However, when CRASH was disbanded and replaced with smaller anti-gang units, according to statistics data, the crime rate went up again like it did in the late 1970s.

11 hours ago, badass22 said:

However, when CRASH was disbanded and replaced with smaller anti-gang units, according to statistics data, the crime rate went up again like it did in the late 1970s.

 

Have you read the link Sam posted? From what is said in there, it's clear this was not a good anti-gang unit. Yeah, maybe crime rate decreased, but at what cost? The end doesn't justify the means.

5 minutes ago, Hystery said:

 

Have you read the link Sam posted? From what is said in there, it's clear this was not a good anti-gang unit. Yeah, maybe crime rate decreased, but at what cost? The end doesn't justify the means.

Not saying that CRASH was a good example of anti-gang unit. Just stating facts.

In GTASA Officer Tenpenny is based off of real life former Officer Rafael Perez who was a crooked cop in the LAPD in the late 90's.  Look up Rampart Scandal. 

23 hours ago, badass22 said:

Not saying that CRASH was a good example of anti-gang unit. Just stating facts.

 

Yeah, I know, but your original question was "was crash actually a bad anti-gang unit", to which the answer is yes, yes they were a bad anti-gang units. As I said, the end doesn't justify the means. A decrease in criminality shouldn't come with the price of a corrupted law enforcement force terrorizing the population.

1 minute ago, Hystery said:

 

Yeah, I know, but your original question was "was crash actually a bad anti-gang unit", to which the answer is yes, yes they were a bad anti-gang units. As I said, the end doesn't justify the means. A decrease in criminality shouldn't come with the price of a corrupted law enforcement force terrorizing the population.

My verdict is: the LAPD CRASH programme was a double edged weapon. I think the price LA paid was the excessive force they used against the gangbangers. Maybe a better alternative would have been putting the busted criminals into a programme that makes them do social activities like playing basketball, football, or even boxing, with the purpose to reintegrate them in the society (basing off the programme prisons adopted in Norway), and so they would have struggled to get an actual job, instead of selling drugs off the streets.