Harry Callahan is brought to justice

Date: December 23, 1983

San Francisco Police Department
Office of Internal Affairs
Hearing: Detective Harold Elias Callahan
Behavior and Suspension

Present: IAD Chief Lt. John Sawyer
Detective Harold Elias Callahan, currently on suspension
James Grayson, Esq., of Hart, Stiller and Meara Law Firm

Sawyer: Detective Callahan, we are here regarding an incident of December 11, 1983 at the Acorn Cafe, Downtown San Francisco. Detective, are you prepared to testify in regard to this event?

Callahan: Yes sir, and I have on hand my attorney, Jim Grayson.

Sawyer: OK, Here’s the report I received from officers on the scene, witnesses, and investigators. You entered the premises of said Acorn Cafe, and while reading a newspaper the waitress on duty added sugar, a large amount of sugar, to your coffee. On exiting, you tasted the coffee and turned around to go back to the cafe and get a refill when you noticed certain patrons, who I am told were all negroes, putting up CLOSED signs and locking the doors. Realizing a robbery was in progress, you went around the corner and entered the Cafe by a back entrance. You confronted the assailants, and proceeded to shoot three of them, forcing the last to drop his weapon even as he held a hostage. Said assailant said you claimed that killing him would “make your day.”

Grayson: Lieutenant, we are prepared to stipulate certain facts, one that there was a robbery in progress, and that it was a hostage situation. Quick action was in order.

Lt. Sawyer: Pursuant to the events of that morning, you were on your way to work when you were hailed by a patrol car, pulled over, told to surrender your weapon, and to come downtown for questioning.

Callahan: Yeah, fer Chrissakes, why was I being questioned? I didn’t rob anyone. I didn’t take a hostage. I just intervened in a crime.

Grayson:  What my client is saying is that there was a situation where protocol had to be set aside, as lives were at stake. Quick, decisive action was called for.

Lt. Sawyer: Yes, I understand that, Counselor. We are the Internal Affairs Division, and are charged with the obligation to investigate all violent encounters between the public and police officers. This particular incident has drawn wide alarm and criticism, with words like “Vigilante” and “Excessive Violence” and “Racism” attached to the detective’s activity that morning.

Grayson: I am aware of the feelings expressed in the media and the wild accusations surrounding this event. I hope this is an impartial hearing, removed from the microscope of emotions and news.

Lt. Sawyer: Indeed, only the outcome of this hearing will be reported. News media is not allowed in this hearing, and any leaks will be investigated and punished. Detective Callahan, why did you not call for backup?

Callahan: In my view, there was no time. I feared that the assailants might open fire on their hostages. It was, after all, a hostage situation.

Lt. Sawyer: Were there hostages when you entered the back entrance?

Callahan: Well, no. But as soon as they saw me and saw me draw my gun, yes, it became a hostage situation.

Lt. Sawyer: In other words, you provoked the taking of hostages?

Callahan: No, no … Jim, don’t just sit there. Say something fer chrissakes.

Grayson: Uh, well, yes. Detective Callahan has many years on the force, and has a nose for this sort of trouble. He didn’t make them take hostages. That was a voluntary provocation on the part of the assailants.

Lt. Sawyer: Did you stop to consider, Detective, that this was a small cafe with just a few patrons, so that it was highly unlikely that four armed assailants would even enter the place, much less try to profit from robbing what were ordinary patrons, and not wealthy people? That is out of proportion! They might make a few bucks! Patrons of a cafe like this do not wear Rolexes or real pearls. Why did they choose that cafe?

Callahan: Well, you know, after the fact, yeah, I looked at the situation and wondered why they would bring such firepower to a corner cafe, especially one I’ve been patronizing for ten years. I mean, didn’t they know I come here every morning?

Lt. Sawyer: Ten years, you say. Do you wonder, Detective, if your reputation as a shoot-first then ask questions cop preceded you? Might these assailants have picked this little cafe knowing you frequented it? Do you suppose they might have come there knowing you would show up? That would explain why they were so heavily armed for a mundane robbery. Otherwise, it makes no sense.

Callahan: Criminals don’t always make sense, do they.

Lt. Sawyer: After the fact, you say. Now, I want you to perform a little mental exercise here along with me. Let’s change the behavior on your part. You taste the coffee, turn around, see the signs going up and doors being locked. You call it in. You wait for other officers to arrive on the scene. You brief them. Protocol would be, in this situation, that officers and patrol units arrive in silence, to avoid the taking of hostages. They let the scene play out, and yes, people are robbed of watches and jewelry and any cash. In the meantime, police cover all of the exits. We wait until they exit the scene, and once they are free of the cafe, surround them make them drop their weapons, and arrest them. Officers would have cleared the area to avoid any crossfire.

Callahan: Yeah, right, in your perfect world. Then some pissant judge is going to let them go for some technicality. My way is better. I confronted them, shot and killed three, got the last one to stand down.

Grayson: What my client means is that, on occasion, due to some impropriety committed by a police officer, judges have vacated charges and let criminal suspects go free.

Lt. Sawyer: OK, the subject is broached. Counselor Grayson, are you prepared to supply statistics on the number of times such an event has taken place, where suspect were let go due to a “technicality”, as you say?

Grayson: I recall the affair, widely publicized, of a certain bank robber, Jacob Smoltz, right here in San Francisco, being let go after it was discovered that police had illegally wiretapped his home.

Lt. Sawyer: You are aware, of course, that you are bringing anecdotal evidence to this hearing, correct? You know better. Counselor, I’d like some statistics. How many events like this are on record?

Grayson: Well, I can’t supply that information. But Lieutenant, you surely understand that even if it happens once, its a travesty!

Callahan: We can’t let punks walk away from their crimes. They have to pay, and I’m the one who made them pay that day. It’s my job.

Lt. Sawyer: I see. Detective, are you aware of the word “Restraint”?”

Callahan: Yeah, I know about it. But you gotta see that I don’t have time to sit back and evaluate an emergency situation. I have to act!

Lt. Sawyer: I see. Detective, is the fact that the four assailants were negroes affect your judgment?

Callahan: Oh hell no! I don’t care about skin color. I don’t care if they are lily white or Indians or Chinamen. I fix the situation.

Lt. Sawyer: OK, I’ve got the lay of the land here. Detective Callahan, pending further review, you are to continue on paid leave. But I advise you and your counsel that this body, the Internal Affairs Division, regards your activity on that day as reckless, and that you used excessive violence to control a situation otherwise manageable by a more restrained response. Furthermore, our Office will seek your permanent removal from the San Francisco Police Department. Frankly sir, you’re a loose cannon. What are the people of our city to think when you kill three blacks in a small robbery that could have been handled with a more prudent police response?

Callahan: Prudent my ass! They were punks! They needed to be taught a lesson!

Lt. Sawyer: You mean they were negro punks?

Callahan: Yeah, they were negroes, but I didn’t have time to think about that, to not shoot because they are somehow special and protected.

Grayson: Lieutenant, my client means to say that he does not discriminate based on race, and that no race is exempt from justice.

Lt. Sawyer: OK, this hearing is at an end. Detective, you are to turn in your badge and weapon, and further are advised not to leave the city. We will be investigating possible criminal charges.

Callahan: (Rising in anger) Yeah, right. I’m the goddamned criminal now! This is pissant justice!

Lt. Sawyer: Counselor restrain your client. Guards, escort Detective Callahan from the room.

Gavel falls.

20 thoughts on “Harry Callahan is brought to justice

  1. What prompted this Mark? I can remember going to see this movie when it came out with my best friend and his father, who was a real rough WW2 veteran type, and all of us standing up and cheering while Harry blew away the bad guys, the gun loving little fascist that I was.

    Like

    1. I have to confess I was an odd kid growing up, my heroes were Hitler, Mussolini, and Franco. In Spanish class in high school I took the name Francisco in honor of Franco. Later on I figured out they were all actors, and I went through a liberal/socialist phase. Now I’m just a plain anarchist, but Miles has a good point that anarchism may be a psyop, and that constitutional Republics are the most reasonable compromise.

      Like

  2. Harry was feeding visceral anger in the population. But the idea that he could just blow away three black guys was Hollywood magic. The idea that four black guys were doing the tobbery was just the way we thought back then. Blacks were usually bad dudes.

    The only other cop I’ve seen just randomly shoot people and get away with it was Detective Frank Dreben in Naked Gun, who shot five people who were sword fighting in a park. Turned out they were Shakespearean actors.

    Like

    1. I mentioned the fascism angle because the film critic Pauline Kael gave Dirty Harry a terrible review when it cane out and called it fascist. But of course great entertainment. Also Sinatra was supposedly offered the part before Eastwood – which would not have been a great fit.

      Like

            1. Like the star wars storm troopers, inferior training. My great grandfather once told a story about him and his mate getting lost (WW1) and accidentally coming across a large number of Germans. Supposedly they simply redirected them back to their lines. Not even disarming them.

              At the time (long ago when I was a child) it made me wonder how many soldiers when shooting from the trenches wanted to hit any targets at all. I know I wouldn’t, until my life was actually in danger.

              Now I wonder how many were aware of the nature of wars. Perhaps that is why conscription was scaled back

              Like

  3. When we were kids we went to the movies.

    We all thought then, it was just a ferkin’ movie.

    Nothing more, nothing less. Just something to do on a Satdy Arvo.

    Nobody ever thought that someday someone would ever think any more about it other than, it’s just a ferkin’ movie!

    Like

    1. Gotcha. But movies are much more effective that just entertainment, used to promote a fake assassination (JFK), shut down the nuclear power industry (China Syndrome), just to name two highly effective propaganda vehicles.

      Like

      1. Very true Mark. Ya got me there!

        And, actually I find it really enlightening watching movies and TV series which they use as their means of disclosure by stealth.

        Many of the Nordic Noir series over the past few years go into great detail of how things are really done. Very interesting.

        My wife is always critical of me exposing these things as she feels it ruins the story for her. She knows all that but it is she says, just a story for entertainment. If only, huh?

        Propaganda is so blatant now, particularly on the box, that I pretty much avoid it by not watching anything heavily promoted.

        I used to be a really big supporter of the Aussie movie industry many years ago but it became so biased and full of blatant leftist oriented propaganda that I now cannot stand it.

        Luv ya work!

        Like

        1. Thank you! I find TV these days to be a “vast wasteland”, said a guy named Newton Minnow way back when. We often sit in our respective chairs not in front, but off to the side of the TV on the wall, and read. This is a recent development for me, not for my wife. She’s long been free of TV.

          Recently we watched the newest incarnation of Little House in the Prairie. Since I never read the books or watched the original, there’s not much to say about its faithfulness to the history of the title. And as things go, it deals with tough subjects, as white inhabiting lands belonging to the Osage, treatment of Negroes, equality of women, but not in a “presentism” way. And while few of the main characters enjoy happy endings, it does treat them well enough to know they’ll survive as they abandon their homes and move to new lives. I’ve seen worse.

          Like

        2. “Many of the Nordic Noir series over the past few years go into great detail of how things are really done.”

          Do you mean they talk about faked events in the news or something?

          Like

  4. I should be clear tv and movies are a lot more common now and overall probably have more effect. And the effects are slightly different. And I’m talking admitted fiction, novels, not text books, or religious texts or history books. These obviously also have a big effect. I’m listening to unbekoming plugging his books as I write this.

    The 3 fictional novels/series that had the biggest effect on me were Animal farm which we read as a class novel when I was 9 years old in 5th grade. Isaac Asimov’s foundation series which I read myself (just picked a book from the school library with a cool cover from the A section, started with the second book in the series). I read these all in year 8 as a 12 year old. And 1984 which we did as a class novel in either year 10 or 11, same teacher I can’t remember. We watched the movie in class too,which some people didn’t like.

    Like

    1. Books are valorized as a kind of sacred medium, heavily promoted as sacrosanct, so parents don’t really vet them the way they might other media. Moreover, readers develop a more intense bond with their favorite books, due to the imaginative co-creation reading requires. They also invest more hours, typically, than one does in even a series show or movie, when reading a long novel or series fiction. Readers speak about their favorite books in am idealized way that goes beyond the fondness for other media – it is really a formative experience for young readers. Hence an ideal medium for propaganda. Credit to Miri Finch for these points, I’m cribbing from her substack essays-

      Like

      1. 100 percent agree in everything above, which is rare.

        My wife once bought my youngest daughter some go awful book (not a single thought about it), my older girls were horrified and would not let her read it.

        Like

  5. This being a sort of movie thread – I think it’s interesting they’re doing yet ANOTHER Cape Fear version – a series show. I saw the black and white Mitchum one long ago, impressive, okay. The Deniro/ Scorcese was odd.. IIRC the color looked cheap, like some tacky TV movie.. certainly didn’t impress like Good Fellas or Casino. Maybe I should rewatch, make sure it sucks… But anyway, what is the important propaganda message in that, that it has to be constantly remade? Is there some perennial class metaphor or something there, that keeps on being relevant, in the eyes of the producers?

    Like

    1. Tim. I would simply say yes. I think that is exactly it. It also hits the other usual fear subjects and no one wants to have to write a new movie.

      Like

Leave a comment