NYPD Sergeant Says 'Guilty Until Proven Innocent' Is Just The Price We Pay For A 'Free Society'
from the nothing's-more-'secure'-than-a-jail-cell dept
We've been dealing with the New York police department lately, thanks to the mayor and the police chief using the recent Boston bombing as an excuse to increase surveillance efforts and enact other policies to further encroach on New Yorkers' civil liberties. Whenever something terrorist-related occurs, it seems as though the NYPD's reps can't keep their opinions to themselves, even as the department itself drifts further and further away from being a sterling example of How Things Should Be Done.
In a recent Christian Science Monitor article dealing with "teenagers, terrorism and social media" (focusing on the recent Cameron D'Ambrosio arrest for making "terrorist threats" via some improvised rap lyrics posted to Facebook), Sgt. Ed Mullins of the NYPD shows up to make some very disturbing statements about your rights and responsibilities as a (mere) citizen. It starts with the worst kind of "policy" and goes downhill fast.
Using a zero tolerance approach to track domestic terrorists online is the only reasonable way to analyze online threats these days, especially after the Boston Marathon bombing and news that the suspects had subsequently planned to target Times Square in Manhattan, Mullins says. The way law enforcement agencies approach online activity that appears sinister is this: “If you’re not a terrorist, if you’re not a threat, prove it,” he says."Zero tolerance" is never "reasonable." It never has been and it never will be. In fact, it's the polar opposite. Zero tolerance policies simply absolve the enforcers of any responsibility for the outcome and grant them the privilege of ignoring mitigating factors. It allows them to bypass applying any sort of critical thinking skills (the "reason" part of "reasonable") and view every infractions as nothing more than a binary IF THEN equation.
Mullins goes even further than this, though, asserting that the burden of proof lies with the person charged, not the person bringing the charges. This flips our judicial system on its head (along with the judicial systems in many other countries) and, if applied the way Mullins views it, puts accused citizens in the impossible position of trying to prove a negative. This is just completely wrong, and it's a dangerously stupid thing for someone in his position to believe, much less state out loud. (Mullins also heads the Sergeants Benevolent Association, the second-largest police union in New York City.)
Believe it or not, Mullins is not done talking. What he says next doubles up on the "dangerous" and "stupid."
“This is the price you pay to live in free society right now. It’s just the way it is,” Mullins adds.No. It isn't.
This is the price Mullins is charging to live in the NYPD's severely stunted version of a "free" society. The NYPD has been harassing young minorities at the rate of 500,000 impromptu stop-and-frisks per year for the better part of the last decade. For the past 10 years, the NYPD has been regularly trampling citizens' civil liberties simply because they attend a mosque. The NYPD and Mayor Bloomberg have worked ceaselessly to make New York the most-surveilled city in the U.S.
That's the price New Yorkers are paying. It has nothing to do with living in a free society. The NYPD takes liberties away and high-ranking cops like Mullins have the gall to suggest there's some sort of equitable exchange occurring. Mullins doesn't seem to understand (or just doesn't care) that if you take away freedom you no longer have a free society.
It has been said that eternal vigilance is the price of liberty, but "eternal vigilance" isn't shorthand for oppressive surveillance and zero tolerance policies that make freedom less "free." "Eternal vigilance" isn't treating the Constitution like a relic too worn and tattered to serve any purpose in these "dangerous" times. And being an officer of the law isn't an excuse to shut your intellect off and allow your brain stem and broad policies to "work" in concert in order to treat loudmouth teens on Facebook like a guy with a trailer home full of explosives.
This "vigilance" is supposed to be put to use by citizens in order to prevent authorities like Mullins from encroaching on our liberties. It's not solely limited to a united military effort against foreign powers. There are plenty of people apparently willing to attack our freedom from the comfort of the home front.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: civil liberties, due process, freedom, guilty until proven innocent, nypd
Reader Comments
The First Word
“Once you pay that price. You no longer live in a free society. That is just the way it is.
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Okay Mullins. What happens if a New York citizen calls the police and accuses YOU of being a terrorist? How can you prove you're not? Given your attitude, you're a threat to the citizenry, so I guess that means an automatic jail sentence for you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
What he wants is for everyone else to be set up to fail so he/his dept. can only be shown as succeeding.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
His reply
* moreover, any citizen who would accuse an officer of being a terrorist is likely to be a terrorist. I suggest you start getting your proof in order.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: His reply
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: His reply
Assuming, of course that the label of "terrorism" actually has any relevant meaning beyond the buzzword it has become these days.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: His reply
I can see the conversation now.
"Hello NYPD? I would like to report a blasphemous individual pushing terrorist propaganda across the networks, actively working to degrade the freedoms and liberties of this fine nation and seeking to strangle the last vestiges of honor this fine country holds so dear!"
I would love to see him convince people that all this repeated grandstanding isn't leading down some twisted plot. His persistance alone in systematically destroying the very foundations upon which the country was built should, by definition, be justifiably terrorism.
.....
I'll be right back. I have a few phonecalls to make to various law enforcement agencies. Lets see if we can get them fighting each other!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: His reply - Oh Really?
That's probably what the Geistopo said in 1937.
Have you even read the United States Constitution?
If not, I suggest you do. You cannot uphold something that you don't understand.
And don't get me wrong, the police and vigilance against terrorism are absolutely necessary.
However, If our Freedoms are taken in the process then there really is nothing for you to defend is there?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
When Does Tom Cruise Step into the Picture
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Response to: Anonymous Coward on May 8th, 2013 @ 10:09am
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
New York is now officially being served and protected controlled by fucking lunatics.
Give me liberty or give me death.
There is no rule of law when the rules are your own. The revolution progresses. Defend your country.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Amen
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Now, this is no small undertaking. To actually be carried out "peacefully" we will need many to sacrifice in order to get our demands met. Through video and social media (while we still have it) we will capture and show the world what we stand for. How many Americans will they kill before the outrage is too much?
I am not sure how many people it would take to do this. In terms of Utah, if large groups of people continued to advance on the facility, unarmed, save a lighter. They could arrest many, but not all. Would they bring out the guns then, probably not yet? You'd deal with gas, rubber bullets, clubs, boots and fists. But... at some point, out would come the gun. At some point, more people would wake up. They would realize that this isn't a game.
Would they use drones? I wonder how the media would cover it. The People would need to show the truth... so it requires many to stream/record, provide logistical support and walk towards the building. How many People of These United States do you think this "government" will kill in front of the world before we are allowed to burn this symbol to the ground, or the People are allowed to take "emergency control" of this country's affairs (all of them).
It is time to take a stand. They will likely "get" many more of us if we wait and let them do it on their terms.
I am not going to get into 2; it is much harder to do but would require a similar strategy.
p.s. this should not be taken as a plan of any kind, merely a quick, back of the envelope, example of the level of cognitive dissonance it might take to bring some type of law and order / accountability back to this country at this point.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
They will be glad to serve you. Note that they do not dispense liberty.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Eternal Vigilance
It is. Just not in the way Mullins is suggesting.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
In my opinion, people like Sgt. Mullins should be banished.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Already done
We have black people incarcerated in greater amounts and use them for slave wages in helping people get rich.
Immigration is screwed up so that we can use Mexicans for cheap labor while we can't have higher skilled workers from other countries.
Women are not pushed into STEM sciences which stops them from taking advantage of various fields that require math and sciences in large amounts.
We don't even pay for the next generation and load them up with debt from getting college degrees.
McCarthyism is hidden right here in the US as neo-liberalism which wants the rich to succeed while everyone else fails. And instead of a functioning government that provides for the nation, we have a ruling elite that works to keep themselves making money while the rest of the nation suffers. It's ridiculous.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Already done
This guy is a statist just like Hugo and all the rest, bow down and serve peasant.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Already done
Nope. I may have a more democratic view than you, but I'm not a Stalinist nor a communist. Good job on finding a new angle of attack instead of focusing on actual arguments though.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
we can thank the USA entertainment industries for this! it was them that started this, making those accused of 'piracy' 'guilty on accusation' and having to prove innocence, if they could afford a lawyer! had there have been more (some?) backlash, maybe the NYPD and others would not be doing the same thing! guilty until proven innocent has put society back centuries and all over freakin' movies and because those that make them cant do anything honestly themselves!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
*Correction*
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: *Correction*
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: *Correction*
Placing the burden of proof on the accused means the accuser don't have to work as hard proving his claims. No hard work finding evidence, no hard work filing reports, no hard work interviewing witnesses, no hard work piecing together all the facts. Just point a finger at someone and then there is plenty of time left on the shift for surfing the internet and shoving donuts into your mouth.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: *Correction*
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What dangerous imaginary threats will zero tolerance protect us from next?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
They better not have any knives in the school cafeteria.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
What about:
1) suspension (without pay of course) for a reasonable amount of time -- one year?
2) satisfactory demonstration of remedial training in U.S. history including reading, reporting on, and passing tests on various key historical documents that formed the basis for the U.S. Constitution and core body of law and government
3) demonstration that he can recite the U.S. Constitution word-for-word from memory (and at any time thereafter be required to recite at least the Bill of Rights), and
4) a public, unqualified, apology for his statements including explanation of why they contradicted the most basic understanding of the tenets of liberty and law that are foundational to U.S. justice, regardless of (perceived) threats to the same.
All of the above would be required to be completed before being allowed reinstatement, even after the initial time for suspension expired. In my opinion, THAT would be fair.
If he doesn't think he deserves these corrective measures, he is of course welcome to live by his own standard and take his case to the courts at his own expense to try to prove his innocence. Because of his presumed guilt, suspension without pay will be extended until a verdict of "innocent" has been reached or any appeals to a "guilty" verdict have been exhausted. Since he was actually guilty until proved innocent, no remuneration of pay or benefits lost prior to an "innocent" judgment would be necessary, i.e. during the time when he was guilty.
(In all fairness, he should be forewarned that any attempted court defense will only highlight his unrepentant attitude and may weigh heavily against him, necessitating further disciplinary actions. Think about it. What innocent person would he actually want to be in court?)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Not like what we have today, wealthy law. Guilty until proven wealthy...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
We are all (potential) Terrorists now...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Training manual...
Just shows that way too many big city police departments are no longer to be trusted. I am more afraid of the cops in Boston than of muggers or addicts. You can get arrested for simply taking a photograph of a cop arresting someone in Boston/Cambridge. Great way to scare off tourists.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Training manual...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Can someone please arrest the guy ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Once you pay that price. You no longer live in a free society. That is just the way it is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Look on the bright side...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"We take every threat in our schools as a credible threat"
In other words, we can't be bothered to do any actual thinking and will waste resources on things that are not credible.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why do you all hate the police?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why do you all hate the police?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why do you all hate the police?
And doughnuts!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Amen! Preach it, brother! It is, in fact, the very abrogation of reason. Zero tolerance means never having to think. It is a scourge in our education system, and for the NYPD to even SUGGEST it is terrifying.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Police need to do this then...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What the Seargent fails to state
Which explains his stance on guilt or innocence. Wait until there is proper law enforcement, he'll be the guilty one. Every cop is guilty of breaking some law. I know from experience.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What the Seargent fails to state
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The price we pay...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Who watches the watchmen?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mullins and Bloomberg both!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Here everything's topsy-turvy; "guilty until proven innocent" is the price we pay so that they can live in a free society, and anyone who complains about it gets beaten up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It is not acceptable that anyone should not oppose murder, genocide, war crimes, crimes against peace and crimes against Humanity, even more importantly, when one is in a position of power, one must do all that is within their power to speak out and against such breaches in human rights and crimes against peace. All are responsible for their actions and must be held to account. Nuremberg Principle III states, “The fact that a person who committed an act which constitutes a crime under international law acted as Head of State or responsible government official does not relieve him from responsibility under international law.” http://untreaty.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/draft%20articles/7_1_1950.pdf
The crimes associated with waging aggressive war, laid down in the Nuremberg Principles and the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rome_Statute_of_the_International_Criminal_Court are clear.
“If any person, in furtherance of a state policy, orders the use of force to attack members of a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, that person and everyone who takes part in the attack is responsible for the consequences, breaks international law and, if it results in the deaths of innocent people, commits the universal crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, aggression or conduct ancillary to such crimes”.
Nuremberg principles http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/full/390 Nuremberg Principle IV states, “The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him.”
Nuremberg Principle III states, “The fact that a person who committed an act which constitutes a crime under international law acted as Head of State or responsible government official does not relieve him from responsibility under international law.”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aWEVNGcwInE
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Murder & war crimes
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4MeUyUR8rE0&feature=share&list=PLaUQIC_mEru1oNuUvEicvYl5xPV X2ZK-O
It is not acceptable that anyone should not oppose murder, genocide, war crimes, crimes against peace and crimes against Humanity, even more importantly, when one is in a position of power, one must do all that is within their power to speak out and against such breaches in human rights and crimes against peace. In truth the Queen is not in a gilded cage, she is responsible for her actions and must be held to account. Nuremberg Principle III states, “The fact that a person who committed an act which constitutes a crime under international law acted as Head of State or responsible government official does not relieve him from responsibility under international law.” http://untreaty.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/draft%20articles/7_1_1950.pdf
The crimes associated with waging aggressive war, laid down in the Nuremberg Principles and the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rome_Statute_of_the_International_Criminal_Court are clear.
“If any person, in furtherance of a state policy, orders the use of force to attack members of a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, that person and everyone who takes part in the attack is responsible for the consequences, breaks international law and, if it results in the deaths of innocent people, commits the universal crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, aggression or conduct ancillary to such crimes”.
Nuremberg principles http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/full/390 Nuremberg Principle IV states, “The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him.”
Nuremberg Principle III states, “The fact that a person who committed an act which constitutes a crime under international law acted as Head of State or responsible government official does not relieve him from responsibility under international law.”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aWEVNGcwInE
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is surprising?
The assume you're guilty of something, and then they make sure they will remember your face next time they see you on the street.
Don't take my word for it. Try it yourself. You'll be surprised how much legal harassment they can get away with under the law.
Or doesn't anyone remember Sean Bell, or perhaps Amadou Bailo Diallo? They were both victims of cop justice. They both died at the hands of cops-who in both cases were indicted, tried and acquitted. That's cop justice for you-not your usual kind of 'equal under the law' stuff.
Yes, they do uphold the law-theirs. So this shouldn't surprise anyone at all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Great Danger...
When you have to look at the dark underbelly of society for years on end it changes your brain.
Many police succumb to the outlook that everyone is guilty and they, the police, are the only just ones.
Others just give up and become thugs themselves.
Only a very few can hold themselves above it and remain neutral, in both actions and words.
What a terrible job. I hope and pray that those sworn to protect us never forget that. That they are sworn to protect us.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Deport this unamerican piece of feces to North Korea.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Police are the largest gangs in the nation
http://ogs-silentcrimes.blogspot.com/2013/04/us-charges-new-york-assemblyman-others.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
proving innocence.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
he's not very bright
What bothers me if the lack of intelligence here, if you can't even work the basic laws of logic, how can you be expected to work the basic 10 million or so laws. Platitudes of this nature are intended to show toughness, resolve, but in fact they just show ignorance beyond all belief.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Presumed Guilty.....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fascism on the March
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Guilty Until Proven Innocent
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Freedom
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is what happens
"We will rule with rods of iron"! Menachem Begin
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bring back the sanity
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
In reality, this approach will make looking for a needle in a haystack, more like looking at a pile of needles on top of what used to be a haystack.
It just creates more false leads, wastes more time, and reduces the possibility of actually stopping a terrorist attack.
You can't write a program to stop terror (yes, I've seen the TV show, it's not real). It takes actual work. It can't be handled by a simple policy, it's got to be handled by policing!
This is why we have "intelligence" services. They are supposed to put the pieces together, not wait for the pieces to assemble themselves into a nice, easy to read picture.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
To Police Cowards Everywhere
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I do try to stay calm... meditate, go for long walks, etc. etc. And, I try to stay clear of trouble. Actually, I am mostly concerned these days with Fukushima, which is far worse than any of the media are telling us.
I think what you say is really true, about the "old order" dying and all. I am just afraid that we will radiate ourselves (or rather, the nuclear mafia will radiate us) all to extinction before the old order collapses. ("Come gather round people, wherever you roam, and admit that the waters around you have grown..." etc. etc.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]