Trump's 'Safe Policing' Executive Order Does Nothing To Address The Root Causes Of Police Misconduct

from the admin-staff-apparently-paid-by-the-word dept

President Donald Trump has signed an executive order in response to protests around the nation triggered by the cold-blooded killing of a black man by a white police officer in Minneapolis, Minnesota.

To be fair, it's much more restrained than the law enforcement-focused directive Trump released shortly after being elected. That one -- sent out under the misleading title "Law and Justice" -- basically told America disliking cops was wrong and possibly per se Unamerican. Here's a direct quote from the administration's opening shitpost, which has since been disappeared from the White House's site:

President Trump will honor our men and women in uniform and will support their mission of protecting the public. The dangerous anti-police atmosphere in America is wrong. The Trump Administration will end it.

True to his word, President Trump has continued to honor America's cops, even when America's cops have shown they don't deserve the public's undying (or dying as it were...) support, much less the Leader of the Free World's. But the administration must know the public isn't buying what Trump is pushing on the cop front. It has buried this page and hit the archived version with a transitional popup directing users away from the Internet Archive's saved versions. Nasty stuff indeed and something that shows the administration will back the blue the most when the blue isn't embarrassing itself (and the administration) publicly.

Forced into doing something else than donning a Blue Lives Matter cheerleader outfit, Trump and his team have released a new executive order -- one promising to reform police departments from the outside using [checks Order] some paperwork cops will probably never fill out completely.

First, the order says cops are mostly good:

Law enforcement officers provide the essential protection that all Americans require to raise their families and lead productive lives. The relationship between our fellow citizens and law enforcement officers is an important element in their ability to provide that protection. By working directly with their communities, law enforcement officers can help foster a safe environment where we all can prosper.

Then it says some (but not very many!) are bad:

Unfortunately, there have been instances in which some officers have misused their authority, challenging the trust of the American people, with tragic consequences for individual victims, their communities, and our Nation. All Americans are entitled to live with the confidence that the law enforcement officers and agencies in their communities will live up to our Nation’s founding ideals and will protect the rights of all persons. Particularly in African-American communities, we must redouble our efforts as a Nation to swiftly address instances of misconduct.

So, how does the administration plan to address these instances of misconduct? Through reporting, mostly. There's nothing in here that's even remotely daring -- not like the Democrats likely-doomed plan to end qualified immunity and increase the likelihood of success when prosecuting bad cops.

The order says cops must have more credentials. Specifically named are de-escalation procedures and and use-of-force techniques. This doesn't include a chokehold ban, but that's likely because this sort of ban would have to be implemented at state level. However, it does make federal funding reliant on a chokehold ban, but it leaves a large loophole for cops to exploit.

…[P]rohibit the use of chokeholds — a physical maneuver that restricts an individual’s ability to breathe for the purposes of incapacitation — except in those situations where the use of deadly force is allowed by law.

Enter the "reasonably scared" cops who are too paralyzed in fear to do anything but choke someone to death. Not exactly the deterrent the current situation calls for.

But it does include a carrot, even if the administration isn't willing to cut a switch. Local departments will only be able to obtain certain federal funds if they are implementing these directives or "in the process" of seeking approved credentialing. The latter suggests cop shops can get federal money just by filling out procedural paperwork in lieu of actual credential work in perpetuity (or until the next regime change anyway).

A database of police misconduct will also be constructed, but it will be of very limited public utility.

The database described in subsection (a) of this section shall include a mechanism to track, as permissible, terminations or de-certifications of law enforcement officers, criminal convictions of law enforcement officers for on-duty conduct, and civil judgments against law enforcement officers for improper use of force. The database described in subsection (a) of this section shall account for instances where a law enforcement officer resigns or retires while under active investigation related to the use of force.

Here are the caveats. It won't be searchable. All information will be sanitized by the DOJ before publication, ensuring officers are separated from their misdeeds.

The Attorney General shall regularly and periodically make available to the public aggregated and anonymized data from the database…

Again, federal funds are tied to participation, but federal funds can be acquired in other ways that don't involve police departments sending out aggregated data for DOJ rinsing every so often. And while police departments will continue to release mugshots and personal info of those only accused of crimes, citizens won't be able to see even "anonymized" data on cops accused of crimes until they're "afforded fair process."

The order also won't demand cops decouple themselves from social problems they're ill-equipped to solve. There's no defunding proposal here, only a requirement that cops may eventually have to participate in some more training on handling these problems.

The Attorney General shall, in consultation with the Secretary of Health and Human Services as appropriate, identify and develop opportunities to train law enforcement officers with respect to encounters with individuals suffering from impaired mental health, homelessness, and addiction…

The funding for this is discretionary but involves a tug-of-war between the Department of Health and Human Services and the DOJ. Who would win? The department the president thinks is partially responsible for the supposed coronavirus "panic?" Or the "law and order" side Trump always takes when the general sad state of policing is highlighted in the press?

The only confirmation you need that this mild "reform" effort won't actually do any serious reforming is the Sergeants Benevolent Association's (SBA) show of support for the new executive order. The administration burned a few hundred words budging the dial hardly at all and the SBA -- backer of the worst of the worst NYPD officers -- is happy to hear it. The SBA "commends" the White House for invoking a police-friendly dialog that suggests cops aren't really bad, they're just a little under-trained and underfunded.

This won't change anything. And that's exactly what this administration wants. The Trump Administration realized doing nothing wasn't an option. So it did as little as possible. Cops are still safe from accountability and transparency. All that hangs in the balance are unenumerated federal funds they can probably get by without. Business as usual with the veneer of change: that's the DC way.

Filed Under: donald trump, executive order, police, police brutality, safe policing

Peaceful Protests Around The Nation Are Being Greeted By Police Violence. Remind Me Again How Peaceful Protests Are Better?

from the 'fuck-the-police'---Mahatma-Ghandi-(1940) dept

I have written at least two (admittedly) incendiary posts for this site responding to the response (and -- one level further -- commenters' responses) to the killing of George Floyd by Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin. Chauvin has been arrested and is now facing a shifting set of charges -- some of which are unlikely to be sustained. Minneapolis is still burning. And it will probably burn again once the justice system is done with what's left of Chauvin and his criminal charges.

In these posts, I openly advocated for the targeted destruction of government property. I do not apologize for that. If the problem is law enforcement, it should be law enforcement's stuff that burns. Say what you will for peace and reason, but we're dealing with unreasonable forces that consider themselves soldiers in a warzone, rather than public servants in troubled areas where a little kindness on their part would go a long way.

Peaceful protests can effect change. I'm not arguing that they can't. But decades of peaceful protests -- interrupted occasionally by violent civil uprisings -- haven't changed much in this nation. And that's just the last 50 years of this on/off cycle. The anger presenting itself now dates back more than 300 years to slavery. And the 300 years following that haven't been much better. Nearly 100 years after slaves were freed, governments in America -- along with the populace supporting them -- treated blacks as subhumans only worthy of very limited rights and privileges.

But let's go with the argument that peaceful protests will bring peaceful resolutions. Here's how that's playing out around the nation.

Need more? Plenty can be found here. And Twitter has no shortage of footage showing cops behaving violently in the face of non-violent protests.

With a nation watching them -- including the hundreds of cameras present at any protest -- police officers are acting as though nothing matters. They have responded to accusations of excessive violence with excessive violence. They have greeted non-violence with violence. And it doesn't appear to be slowing down. Empathy and self-awareness are apparently traits considered to be weaknesses by our nation's law enforcement agencies. Proving protesters right isn't helping the cops win. But leaving it up to ineffective and cowardly legislators isn't ending the cops' winning streak either. The cops claim fear provokes every violent reaction they have. But when they have nothing to fear, they engage in violence anyway.

Let's not abandon peaceful solutions. But let's not pretend they're more effective than violence targeting the objects of state oppression.

Filed Under: change, civil rights, defund the police, police, police brutality, police violence, protests

John Oliver Says What Needs To Be Said About Why Defunding The Police Is The Right Thing Right Now

from the watch-this dept

We've posted a bunch of times when John Oliver has said pretty much exactly what we've been saying here at Techdirt, but he always does it much better, more pointedly, and (much, much) funnier than we do. The latest is no exception. It was all about the systemic racism that has created, enabled and encouraged so much police brutality, especially against black communities. Just watch it:

It goes over a ton of things that we've written about in the past, and some stuff we haven't. It talks about the history of policing -- much of which was literally designed as a racist tool to keep black communities down. It covers the ridiculous "drug wars" from the 1970s and 1980s, that we now know were designed explicitly as a tool to target black Americans by Richard Nixon. It mentions the debunked concept of "broken windows policing," that (again) was used specifically to target black Americans by police. Oh, and also the unconstitutional stop and frisk policies used by the NYPD and elsewhere which (stop me if you've heard this one before...) were used by police to target black Americans.

It goes on to talk about how politicians across the political spectrum focused on putting more and more money into police departments, while cutting and slashing all other social services, leaving the police to deal with the fallout. So, when we don't have services for the mentally ill... it falls to the police (who too often step in and shoot the mentally ill rather than help them). We've turned drug addiction from a medical problem (for which many people cannot get medical help) into a criminal problem (again inserting the police).

Then he discusses the insane police militarization that we've been highlighting here for the better part of a decade. The whole setup of a militarized police has never made sense, in part because it literally sets up two things you don't want if you want reasonable policing: (1) the attitude that your town or city is "at war," and (2) the view that the public is "the enemy." Both of these are the exact opposite of what effective policing would be. From there, it covers how police training reinforces these concepts, and has literally nothing to do with protecting the public, but often more to do with making the police feel good about themselves.

There's also a good discussion of just how evil police unions are, and how they seem to focus on protecting the ability of cops to violate everyone's rights with impunity. And that, of course, brings us right to one of the biggest travesties around: the concept of qualified immunity, which is about as close to a literal "get out of jail free" card as there is from almost all police misbehavior. Oliver then goes on to talk about how the federal government could step in, but (especially under this administration) usually chooses to look the other way.

All of this brings Oliver around to the discussion that gained prominence last week about "defunding the police." On social media, I've seen a bunch of people push back on this idea as somehow a bridge too far, but they're wrong, and Oliver makes the point quite clearly why. The issue is not a "few bad cops." It's not that police need better training. The problem is that the entire system is built to reinforce its own problems. Put more simply: the problem right now is not that the system needs reform, it's that it's working as intended. The entire concept of policing in America is broken. And you don't fix that with reform. You need radical change from top to bottom.

And that's what the "defund the police" movement is about. It's about a total rethink of what "policing" means. And, that can include wiping out entire police departments and starting from scratch with a new approach. Oliver mentions Camden, New Jersey, which did exactly that. In 2013 it shut down its police department and started again from scratch. And the results are pretty stunning (though, even there, there are arguments that they could have gone much further and been even more successful).

As Oliver highlights for people who really need to hear it: defunding the police doesn't mean ending any kind of law enforcement. It means completely rethinking the entire structure of terrible policing we've built up over decades (while simultaneously wiping away the other various safety nets and infrastructure that support people in need putting more of that work onto police shoulders, who are ill-equipped, at best, to handle it).

So, please, if you think "defunding" the police, or some of our posts from the last few weeks are going "too far," please watch Oliver. Or watch some of the many other smart people who have been speaking out about this for years.

The problem is not a few bad cops. The problem is the system itself. The system is working as intended, and that is the problem.

Filed Under: black lives matter, defund the police, john oliver, police brutality, police unions, protests, systemic racism

Let's Stop Pretending Peaceful Demonstrations Will Fix The System. 'Peace Officers' Don't Give A Shit About Peace.

from the [types-self-out-of-any-government-employment-ever] dept

First off, I would like to thank Mike Masnick and Techdirt for publishing my post on the George Floyd killing and the (in my eyes) justifiable destruction of police property as an answer to years of injustice and "bad apple" excuses. Very few sites would have published such a post. Most would have rejected it after reading the title.

I also appreciate the commenters who weighed in, including those who disagreed with me. It was a strong stance for me to take and I expected to be drowned in criticism. That I wasn't buried by critics perhaps demonstrates my points were well-made. Or it may just indicate the general public is sick and tired of cop bullshit -- bullshit they far too often walk away from, thanks to generous union contracts, the almost-obligatory judicial application of qualified immunity, or the continued sheltering of police officers from personal responsibility by legislators.

But I did want to respond to one comment in the thread in particular. This comment suggested I was off-base and that peaceful protests are productive and have resulted in systemic changes. Despite the evidence I had laid down that being peaceful and seeking change through acceptable routes has been a net loss over the last 50+ years, a commenter suggested otherwise.

This is the central argument of the comment submitted by one of our many anonymous commenters. (Just a reminder, we love anonymous commenters and would never demand you give us all your vitals in exchange for your ability to comment on articles. We also allow you to turn ads off if you wish with no financial obligation. That being said, there are multiple ways to support this fiercely independent site, so click thru if you'd like to help. Thanks!)

In contrast to a number of the opinions I have been reading here and on other sites, I am not okay with burning everything down and I do not think that rioting and looting is going to result in any lasting change for the better. Taxpayer dollars were used to build that police station and purchase the police vehicles that got destroyed. A person's life savings might be invested in that house or business that was set on fire. A corporate building (such as Target) might not be replaced in the future. (Black neighborhoods have been complaining of corporate chains avoiding them due to the higher costs incurred.) Yes, insurance might pay to replace the lost things. Yes, corporations and people might rebuild. However, what of the turmoil and hardship that occurs in ALL of the surrounding lives that have to find ways to cope without the services or shelter they previously had?

Rioting seems to only divide us into those who follow the rules of civil society and those who do not. I have read multiple accounts of people who came to peacefully protest, but LEFT when they realized things were going turn violent. They came to PROTEST violence, not PARTICIPATE in it. Martin Luther King Jr. and Mahatma Gandhi showed us that big changes CAN be be achieved without using violence. The PBS series "Eyes on the Prize" shows how the system in place tried multiple tactics and violence to derail the civil rights movement. Video clips of police violence were aired on TV. But the protesters did not fight back. They did not join in the violence. As those who wanted to maintain the status quo were forced to use stronger tactics against the protesters, the more it became obvious to the other members of society that something was seriously wrong and needed to be changed. The injustice was clear. Those who wanted justice then JOINED the protesters until those in power couldn't ignore the injustice any further. Remember, our political representatives ONLY rule with the consent of the governed. When the governed rise up in unified agreement, change DOES happen.

I appreciate the point being made. Nonviolent protest can result in positive changes. Unfortunately, given the history of this nation and its law enforcement agencies, one cannot apply it to the current situation. The argument is coherent. But the effectiveness of holding back and operating within the confines of numerous social contracts has yet to prove a net gain for minorities -- especially black Americans, who spent years as slaves and years as subhumans following the abolition of slavery.

Here's Trevor Noah explaining eloquently why this flashpoint isn't an overreaction to a single data point, but rather the culmination of hundreds of years of history.

That's why this commenter's argument doesn't work. And here's why the current situation -- as horrendous and shocking as it seems -- is more likely to move the dial on moving cops back into their rightful position as protectors and servants, rather than self-appointed warlords overseeing a mostly imaginary domestic conflict.

Several commenters said I was advocating for violence and destruction. They're only half-right.

I don't want looting and senseless violence either. In fact, I want no violence. I do not want police officers killed or injured. But if anyone should be targeted for destruction, it should be the entities that have perpetrated this violence upon certain Americans for years. Let them experience what it is to live as a black person in America -- one now "led" by someone who openly calls for violence against those exercising their First Amendment rights (protesters, journalists).

I have already pointed out how peaceful protests have failed to effect change. These acts -- the burning of precincts and police vehicles -- may not either, but it will make the point far more effectively than hanging back and being compliant. I don't want to see business owners victimized by opportunists but I think a few burning cop cars is a small price to pay for equality and serious police reform.

The law enforcement agencies of America have earned every bit of the hatred they're now feeling. But during these protests all things are equal. There are no courts, no unions, no "tough-on-crime" legislators standing between cops and the destruction of their property. Sucks for them. And when the shit goes down, they flee their posts and give up any appearance of giving a damn about serving or protecting.

No one forced cops to behave this way. They took it upon themselves to act as warriors while performing a job that asks them to act as society's protector. They talk a lot about the "thin blue line" between us and chaos, and then act as agents of chaos as soon as an opportunity presents itself. De-escalation tactics are an anomaly. Talking about the great sex you'll have after offing a citizen is the norm.

The police in America have long taken advantage of programs that give them military vehicles, clothing, and weapons at nearly no cost. That they now perceive themselves as soldiers rather than peace officers is demonstrated daily -- beginning with the flash bangs announcing their presence during no-knock raids targeting non-violent crime and continuing through their mostly-unchallenged ability to strip US citizens of their cash, cars, and other property at whim.

There is no compelling reason for cops to change their standard M.O. And, granted, lighting the occasional cop car on fire will likely only solidify their misguided "warrior" mentality. But it does make it clear that the people still have power, even if the greater power -- the US government that has treated minorities as lower classes for years -- will ultimately prevail.

Then there's the entire subclass of US citizens who spend their days bumper-stickering and forum-posting about how they and their guns will rise up against the government should it prove to be dangerous to American citizens and their rights. WHERE THE FUCK ARE THEY? Outside of a few Boogaloo contingents, the "Obama is coming for muh guns" crowd has remained silent and useless, presumably digging into their eight-year supply of dehydrated food until the government makes it safe for white people to walk around again. Fuck those guys. They suck as much as the government entities they claim to view as enemies. When the shit goes down, these motherfuckers start bunkering. Cowards.

The current situation is far from ideal. No one wants to live in a civil unrest hotspot, given the unpredictability of the situation. Governments all over the nation, however, are willing to make things worse -- calling in an offshoot of the military best known for killing Vietnam War protesters. The war is at home, but the instigators are the people we've entrusted to protect society. They have continually proven they're not up to the job. And they've made things worse by pretending every movement is furtive, every black man is probably armed, and every bit of cash in a someone's wallet is probably drug money. They are road pirates, murderers, gang members, and charlatans. Let them feel the flames.

They have created their own personal hell. There should be no more free passes. This is the America they created. Whatever burns, burns. This is on their heads. No matter what any politician says in hopes of mollifying the voting public, the truth remains undeniable: you reap what you sow.

REAP MOTHERFUCKERS. REAP.

Filed Under: black lives matter, george floyd, police, police brutality, protests, racism

Let. The Motherfucker. Burn.

from the 'not-all-cops'-said-the-bucket-brigade dept

Warning: this post will contain what we in the business like to call strong language, invective, and violent content. Govern yourself accordingly.

Content warning 2: possibly exceedingly long.

ONCE UPON A TIME, A MAN GOT FUCKED

Let's start with a story:

(Those of you who'd like to read a transcript, rather than watch this powerful performance by Orlando Jones [possibly for "Dear God, I'm still at work" reasons], can do so here.)

This is the history of black Americans. For a few hundred years, they weren't even Americans. And even after that -- even after the Civil War -- black Americans spent a hundred years being shunted to different schools, different neighborhoods, different restrooms, different bus seating, different water fountains. They are not us, this land of opportunity repeatedly stated.

Integration was forced. It was rarely welcomed. Being black still means being an outsider. Four hundred years of subjugation doesn't just end. This is how the story continues:

A hundred years later. You're fucked. A hundred years after that. Fucked. A hundred years after you get free, you still getting fucked out a job and shot at by police.

Fucked.

That's George Floyd. The Minneapolis resident allegedly passed a counterfeit $20 bill at a local store. The penalty was death -- delivered extrajudicially by Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin. Officer Chauvin put his knee on the neck of the handcuffed Floyd for 8 minutes and 46 seconds. This continued for more than two minutes after Officer Chauvin had checked Floyd's pulse and stated he "couldn't find one."

It was all captured on video:

A man was dead under Chauvin's knee and yet he never moved. No one around him moved either. The other three officers at the scene watched Officer Chauvin kill a man, and not a single one of them did anything to prevent this from happening.

The good news is they've all been fired. The other news -- with the "good" excised -- is Officer Chauvin is being criminally charged. That's only news. Buy your insurance now because it's almost guaranteed Minneapolis will burn again once a jury has had a shot at this thing.

First, there's the murder charge. We all want this but there's little that supports it. It looks like murder, but the state has to prove things it's probably not going to be able to prove -- especially when the people doing the prosecuting aren't all that interested in prosecuting cops.

Third-degree murder is the most minimal of murder charges and even that might not be enough to drag Officer Chauvin into the crushing wheels of the carceral state. As Scott Greenfield explains, there doesn't appear to be enough to justify this charge in what's been seen in multiple videos. It appears Chauvin deployed a restraint technique that's been given a thumbs up by multiple law enforcement agencies.

Former police officer Derek Chauvin was charged with Murder 3, a not-insignificant charge even if it lacks the panache of Murder 1, with a potential sentence of 25 years in prison. Unlike intentional murder, the mens rea under Minnesota Statutes § 609.195 requires only a “depraved mind.”

609.195 MURDER IN THE THIRD DEGREE.

(a) Whoever, without intent to effect the death of any person, causes the death of another by perpetrating an act eminently dangerous to others and evincing a depraved mind, without regard for human life, is guilty of murder in the third degree and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than 25 years.

Yet, the complaint filed by the Hennepin County Attorney made almost no effort to assert that the elements of the charge were met, that Chauvin was “perpetrating an act eminently dangerous to others and evincing a depraved mind, without regard for human life.”

While the video clearly showed Chauvin’s knee on Floyd’s neck, which was naturally assumed, for obvious reasons, to have been the cause of death, that alone does not suffice to meet the element that it was an “act eminently dangerous.” It’s hardly an undangerous immobilization technique, but it’s also not an uncommon restraint, and is a permissible use of force in Minneapolis. That it’s only supposed to be used to restrain someone actively resisting gives rise to a departmental violation, but doesn’t elevate a lawful use of force to an eminently dangerous act.

If that falls, we're left with manslaughter. And that probably won't be enough to convince anyone Chauvin has been punished enough for continuing to use his knee to "restrain" Floyd for almost three minutes after a cop couldn't detect his pulse.

Then there's the preliminary findings by the coroner, which have a bunch of "GET OFFICER CHAUVIN OUT OF JAIL FREE" excuses already built in. But let's start with the police officers who allowed Officer Chauvin to kill George Floyd. One officer deployed an excuse constructed by a manufacturer of "non-lethal" weapons to excuse almost any death in police custody.

“I am worried about excited delirium or whatever,” Lane said.

From that, we run into the details of the coroner's report. These are preliminary, so they will change. But the exonerative text is already in there, ready for deployment by tough-on-crime politicians, media personnel willing to act like PD stenographers, police union officials (and the police union in Minneapolis is one of the worst), and anyone else seeking to justify Chauvin's actions.

George Floyd didn't die because Officer Chauvin crushed Floyd's neck with his knee for almost nine minutes -- most of which were spent with Floyd stating he couldn't breathe. He died because he was going to die, with or without Officer Chauvin's intercession.

The autopsy revealed no physical findings that support a diagnosis of traumatic asphyxia or strangulation. Mr. Floyd had underlying health conditions including coronary artery disease and hypertensive heart disease. The combined effects of Mr. Floyd being restrained by the police, his underlying health conditions and any potential intoxicants in his system likely contributed to his death.

George Floyd died of heart disease, you guys. It coincidentally killed him while he was having his neck compressed by a cop who checked his pulse and discovered he was likely already dead and continued to compress his neck for another two minutes. Also peep the "potential intoxicants," which probably gave George Floyd the superhuman strength he needed to stay alive for seven of those nine minutes before succumbing to "coronary artery disease."

If Chauvin walks, Minneapolis burns again. Multiple cities burn. Unlike other killings of black men by cops, this has prompted intense protests across the nation. This one -- committed in full view of multiple phones and at least one nearby CCTV camera -- shows cops do not give a fuck who is watching. They will do what they want to do and roll the dice on a favorable ruling by federal courts.

LET IT BURN. LET IT ALL BURN.

In response to this killing, Minneapolis burned. Looting accompanied the protests, as is often the case. We can argue about the positive/negative effects of looting for as long as you want in the comment threads, but let's take a look at a couple of facts.

We have had riots in America for years. And looting. Those arguing that the destruction of businesses during these protests is counterproductive need to have their memories refreshed. This nation began with the looting of British ships. A whole offshoot of the "rule of law" party (also the "free speech" party, which is currently headed by someone seeking to directly regulate social media platforms) named itself after protesters who boarded British ships and threw their merchandise overboard.

Even if you decry the the destruction of local businesses which may not have the funds to recover from this unexpected turn of events, you cannot argue with protesters going straight to the source of the problem.

And, as a bonus, the thin blue line between us and chaos being filmed abandoning their posts and leaving us to the chaos they could never protect us from, no matter how many black men they killed.

The cops fucked this up. The cops should pay. Unfortunately, it will be taxpayers funding the rebuilding of the Third Precinct station in Minneapolis, but, by all means, burn every cop car, precinct, etc. that stands between black Americans and the respect of their rights.

The message is clear: cops are the problem, not the solution. Burn the shit that means something to them -- the stuff that protects them from the people -- and see where we all are at the end of the day.

Let's take the long view. What has this accomplished? Here's a list of riots sparked by police violence against minorities -- one dating back nearly 60 years.

1965: Los Angeles
1967: Newark
1967: Detroit
1968: King assassination
1980: Miami
1992: Los Angeles
2001: Cincinnati
2014: Ferguson
2015: Baltimore
2016: Charlotte

What did that get us? Burning small parts of the system to the ground got us Nixon (who ran on a "tough on crime" platform following the riots in the 1960s) and a immensely-harmful drug war that has done nothing to slow the supply of drugs but has done everything to improve the bottom lines of PDs and prosecutors.

Cops haven't changed. And they haven't changed despite having every reason to. Several dozen cop shops are operating under consent decrees with the Department of Justice because they can't be trusted to not violate rights en masse on their own. The rest are still acting like it's a war zone out there, cladding themselves in cast-off military gear and equipment even as crime rates remain at historic lows. It's tough to be a cop out there, say cops, even as unimpeachable data says otherwise to a bunch of impeachable cops.

But let's just say you're arguing that riots/protests/looting don't solve anything. Let's look at the data again. Here are the years where nothing happened:

1966
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2017
2018
2019

Did not attacking cops help then? Did leaving retail outlets intact make policing better? Did a lack of looting force cops to realize their systemic bias was hurting communities? Did all of this non-action bring us to a better place in terms of our relationship with law enforcement? (Those of you who are not minorities can put your hands down. Thanks.)

Short answer: it did not. The boot stamping on a human face forever is the past, present, and future. This image was personified by Officer Chauvin, who placed his knee on the neck of a human being suspected of passing a counterfeit $20 bill until he died. And continued to perform this inadvertently symbolic move for nearly another three minutes after that.

If it's going to burn -- and it should -- it should start with those who have earned the flames. Cop cars are burning. Police stations are burning. Good. There is nothing wrong with this. The cops pretended to fear us whenever it was convenient. They claimed their subjective fear that someone might have a weapon justified every bullet they pumped into a person. Then they did nothing when people carrying actual guns marched on government buildings to demand access to restaurants and haircuts.

Fuck them. If you're going to cry about the threats separating you from making it home to your family every night, at least be consistent. And if you can't be consistent, at least restrain yourself from killing non-resistant people in the street in front of several cameras. And for fuck's sake, if you can't do that last part, it just means you don't fear the public and their representatives. It means you think the courts will clear you, if not your own department and union. No public official deserves this much deference, trust, or unearned protection.

YOU OWE US.

That obligation has never changed. The only thing that has changed is the other branches of the government, which have decided -- either through QI rulings or deference to police unions -- that the public matters less than those sworn to serve it.

This is not me wading into a recent controversy with my eye on harvesting clicks. This is me -- and this site -- covering the abuses perpetrated by law enforcement agencies for years. There is nothing anomalous about this event. It just shows accountability can't be brought solely by the mute witnesses of criminal acts by law enforcement officers. We have our cameras pointed at them. They have their own cameras. And yet, they still don't care.

If this is how they want it, we have the power to give it to them.

Be the god of righteous hellfire. All these years of not setting fire to the possessions of an invading force intent on treating fellow citizens as enemy combatants has done nothing.

Let the motherfucker burn.

Filed Under: 1st amendment, derek chauvin, free speech, george floyd, police, police brutality, protests, racism, violence

Hell Forms Bobsled Team After Police Chief Admits Fault In SWAT Raid Targeting Wrong Address

from the tfw-the-gold-standard-should-just-be-the-goddamn-standard dept

Something that happens far too often -- police officers raiding the wrong house in search of criminals -- has resulted in national headlines.

A police search warrant team going after a drug dealer targeted the wrong address and burst into the apartment of an innocent resident who shot and wounded two officers believing they were home invaders, Prince George’s law enforcement officials said.

It has been greeted by something that almost never happens.

Police Chief Hank Stawinski apologized for the error Thursday and said he has halted executing search warrants until the department reviews how it corroborates information to confirm addresses and the location of investigative targets.

There's more. No charges will be filed against the man who shot two officers. The police chief said the man ambushed in his own home was a "law-abiding citizen." Beyond that, he called the warrant itself into question, along with the information used to obtain it.

A confidential informant led investigators to the address at which they were serving the search warrant Wednesday night, Stawinski said. But the chief said he is “not satisfied” with the amount of information investigators used to obtain the search warrant and with the efforts to verify the information from the informant.

Here's all the things that didn't happen:

- No one suggested everyone "wait until all the facts are in."

- No one blamed the media for rushing ahead with a narrative the PD didn't find flattering.

- No one refused to comment until an investigation was completed.

- No one disparaged the victim of the raid by feeding his criminal record to local media.

- No one suggested the resident be more compliant in the future.

- No one defended the officers' actions as reasonable.

- No one filed charges against the resident for shooting and wounding police officers.

This is an astounding reaction to incidents that are far too commonplace in this country. This is also an indictment of policing in America. There is no reason this reaction should be as stunning as it is. This should be standard operating procedure when cops screw up. Instead, we're most often greeted with defense of indefensible actions combined with a multitude of efforts designed to make the SWAT raid victim appear as unsympathetic as possible.

Wrong address raids, killings of unarmed citizens, excessive force deployment… all of these events are normally handled by police departments with maximum defensiveness and minimal acceptance of culpability. A law enforcement agency immediately stepping up to take responsibility for its errors -- especially ones with potentially deadly outcomes -- is a breath of fresh air in the fetid, stagnant swamp of US policing.

But this shouldn't be the ultra-rare exception. It should be the rule. The public law enforcement serves deserves far better than the condescending, self-serving crap it's so often handed in the wake of incidents like these.

Filed Under: apology, hank stawinski, police brutality, prince george, responsibility, swat, swat team, wrong address

State Legislator Says 11-Year-Old Tased By Cop Deserved It And Her Parents Probably Suck

from the christ-what-an-asshole dept

TODAY IN GARBAGE HUMAN BEINGS:

Cincinnati police officer Kevin Brown’s decision to fire a Taser at an 11-year-old girl suspected of shoplifting from a grocery store in August immediately drew criticism from city officials and advocates.

But Ohio state Representative John Becker had a different take. Had it been his daughter, he announced in an August newsletter, “I’d be ashamed and embarrassed that she did something stupid enough to get herself tased.”

This is even worse than the police union's take on the incident, which referred to the completely expected backlash as "kneejerk." But, hey, I guess deciding to tase an 11-year-old in the back -- one who reportedly was all of 4'11'' and 90 pounds -- couldn't possibly be portrayed as a kneejerk reaction by a law enforcement officer. When force isn't truly needed, we can be sure some cops will deploy it anyway.

But Rep. John Becker's take is the hottest take of all. Anyone tased by a cop -- even an 11-year-old -- is a person who brought that crackling, barbed punishment down on themselves. There's no reason to question the wisdom or necessity of the Taser deployment. Rather, we should question ourselves. And perhaps society. But mostly ourselves.

Becker also addressed police shootings in his newsletter. If his child were shot by police, he wrote, “rather than blaming the cop, I’d be blaming myself and endlessly soul searching to figure out how I failed as a parent and why my kid grew up to be a punk.” He added, “Based on the evidence of what I see on television, it often times appears to me that justice was delivered to the dead punk.”

"Based on the evidence of what I see on television…" Holy shit. This is an elected representative. And he thinks the TV is giving him the "evidence" he needs to make snap judgments on tased kids. Blame the victim. And blame the victim's parents.

The police chief -- in a surprisingly reasonable statement -- said the Taser deployment was "unnecessary."

Back to Becker:

Becker also told The Appeal that if police tase a child, “it could be an indication of a parenting problem.” He added, “If I were to do research, I would expect to find that kids that come from two parent in-tact [sic] supportive families are less likely to get in trouble with the authorities than kids that came from tougher environments.”

"If I were to do the research…" Would this be research beyond the television watching that's given Becker such keen insight into officer-involved shootings? Who knows? Becker's certainly not going to do the research. He's just going to stick by his electro-guns and blame victims of cop violence for being raised badly or otherwise being harmed by the disintegration of the nuclear family unit -- the 2.5 children born to married heterosexuals who have managed to weather an escalating divorce rate, porn, video games, movies, television, the internet, social media, Satanism, multiple pagan-based holidays, postal rate hikes, alternate sexual orientations, public school indoctrination, Daylight Savings Time, mandatory vaccinations, HAARP projects (known and unknown), President Obama, Brown v. Board of Education, morning-after pills, weird Twitter, the removal of prayer from schools, the Simpsons, artistic expression in general, and whatever else has reduced the American way of life to a hideous nightmare where punk kids manage to live their whole lives without being deservedly tased by blameless, saintly police officers.

Becker is an idiot, but let's pretend the research he didn't do actually says what he thinks it will say. Even if a majority of kids tased/killed by cops are raised by single and/or inattentive parents, that doesn't justify force deployments that far exceed the danger presented by the developing situation. This 11-year-old was tased in the back by an officer who was taller, weighed more, and had the ability to summon any number of additional officers if it appeared this preteen was going to, I don't know, grow a foot, add 100 pounds of weight, and produce an arsenal of weapons before the officer got the mild shoplifting situation under control.

If you agree with John Becker, you're probably John Becker. Or a cop who hates using force reasonably or responsibly. But you're definitely not the sort of person who can be trusted with government power.

Filed Under: children, cincinnati, john becker, kevin brown, police brutality, tasers, victim blaming

Police Officers At A Tactical Disadvantage Bravely Tase 87-Year-Old Woman Into Submission

from the when-u-gain-the-high-ground-just-by-showing-up dept

No police department should ever have to explain why they tased an 87-year-old woman. It's not that the public doesn't deserve an explanation. It's that there is seldom any reason to deploy force against 5'2" 87-year-old. But that's what Chatsworth Police Chief Josh Etheridge had to do after one of his officers tased the woman during a "confrontation" behind the local Boys and Girls Club.

The police chief of a small Georgia town is defending an officer who deployed a stun gun on a "smiling" 87-year-old woman, saying she refused to comply with numerous commands to put down a kitchen knife she was using to cut dandelions.

Perhaps we civilians just don't appreciate the danger presented by a smiling 87-year-old woman -- in this case, Martha al-Bishara, who lived across the street from the Boys and Girls Club. I mean, she was carrying a kitchen knife and "refused" to put it down. If we could just see the recordings…

He said there is police body-camera footage of the incident, but he has yet to release it because charges against al-Bishara are pending.

Oh.

Because we civilians probably can't imagine a situation where we might have to use a stun gun against an octogenarian, here's some helpful statements by the PD to help us visualize how a 5'2" 87-year-old got the drop on responding officers.

"We were able to contain her to the back area. She was in an elevated position above both myself and the other officer that was there on scene. She did have a knife in her right hand."

I understand the only way out of this debacle is going straight through it, but it's astounding the chief is actually trying to present this as a dynamic situation in which officers were at a tactical disadvantage. It was two (2) officers against a 5'2" 87-year-old woman who didn't speak English. It seems they could have regained the high ground by walking at a normal rate of speed around her. And if it looked like she might charge them, they could have walked slightly faster. (And it's your own damn fault you "contained" her on the high ground.)

But we're supposed to be grateful she was only tased. Chief Etheridge twice suggests she could have been shot. First, she might have been "accidentally" shot because an officer might have pulled a gun for god knows what reason…

Etheridge said he realizes that some people might ask why the officer didn't just retreat. But he said had the officer backed up down the sloping terrain, he could have fallen and accidentally shot the woman.

Go ahead and click through to view the gently sloping terrain for yourself. I guess this explanation is plausible. But that doesn't make it any less stupid. And the only plausible part is the "accidental" part. As we know, officers never shoot citizens. Their weapons "discharge" magically and fill citizens with bullet wounds. The only way an officer could "fall" and "accidentally" shoot someone is if the officer already has a gun out and pointing at the person. This is Chief Etheridge admitting he would have escalated to deadly force to "resolve" the situation.

Second, if the elderly woman had changed her grip on her kitchen knife in any way during the incident, she'd probably be dead right now.

"Lord help us if she had tried to stop the officer and held the knife in an aggressive manner, and then deadly force would have been used."

There are many problems with this statement, including the fact that "aggressive manner" is in the eye of the gun-wielding, badge-wearing beholder, but here's just one of them: for many people, knives are tools, not weapons. Its police officers who insist every tool is a weapon that keep situations like these from being de-escalated.

When an 87-year-old walks down a hill towards officers carrying a kitchen knife, she's not taking advantage of the high ground to overpower officers. She just wants to know why cops are yelling and pointing weapons at her. But these cops didn't want to know what she was doing. They just wanted her to stop walking around with a knife. So they tased her. And then they charged her. Here's one final detail from the story which indicates how little these officers actually care about the people they serve.

The grandmother was arrested on suspicion of misdemeanor criminal trespass and obstruction of an officer and held at the police station for about three hours, Douhne said. Police refused to allow his mother and sister to interpret for al-Bishara while she was being booked and having her mugshot taken.

At the end of the day, I guess we're supposed to be grateful officers showed up, took control of the situation, and got this 87-year-old miscreant off the street, if only for a few hours. I'm sure we'll see these same defensive statements again in the eventual civil rights lawsuit. When that happens, the cops will have to convince an actual court the force deployment wasn't excessive. Unfortunately for this woman, that court is far more easily persuaded than the court of public opinion.

Filed Under: martha al-bishara, police, police brutality, tasers

The Attorney General Thinks Police Having To Follow The Constitution Leads To Violent Crime Increases

from the it's-not-just-him-unfortunately dept

Attorney General Jeff Sessions is an old-school law and order man. He wants asset forfeiture returned to its former glory -- no longer questioned by all and sundry for its ability to enrich law enforcement agencies without making much of a dent in criminal activity. He wants drug sellers jailed for as long as possible, suggesting the last time he read a policy paper was sometime during the mid-1980s. And he thinks people questioning law enforcement efforts should be ashamed of themselves, what with the dangers faced occasionally by officers whose workplace can't even crack the Top 10 Deadliest Jobs in America list.

Sessions goes where he's wanted when he speaks, ensuring he'll receive applause and accolades, rather than a bunch of "wtfs?" when he delivers bullshit like this:

I believe one of my highest duties is to call attention to your successes, and to encourage our fellow citizens to support you in your difficult and dangerous work.

But what has made times difficult recently for law enforcement is that—by the end of the previous administration—many of you came to believe that some of the political leadership of this country had abandoned you. Some radicals and politicians began to unfairly malign and blame police as a whole for the crimes and unacceptable deeds of a few. Amazing— their message seemed to be that the police were the problem, not the criminals. They wanted the ACLU to determine police policies, and that was enforced by a federal court order. They said police were violent while homicides in America increased by a total of 20% in 2015 and 2016, the largest jump since 1968. Law Professor Paul Cassell and economics Professor Richard Fowles established that in Chicago, homicide jumped 58% after the ACLU settlement ended proven and constitutional policing.

This was delivered to the National Association of Police Organizations -- a union of police unions -- so there was no one present to question the veracity of this statement, nor push back against its loaded, implicit assertions. No one would expect any more (or any less!) of an organization of organizations which are largely responsible for the general state of disrepair that passes for policing these days.

Law enforcement has never been abandoned. Even when the criticism rains down from the federal government, it's always hedged with phrases implying the problem is a few officers, rather than the culture itself. If all it takes is an incremental increase in accountability to make officers feel "abandoned," they're far too sensitive to be holding positions of public power.

Second, Sessions shows he doesn't care about police misconduct or public accountability by maligning those who demand accountability as "radicals." This suggests Sessions is more interested in a docile nation than upholding his duties as Attorney General, which (used to) include investigating and prosecuting officers who abuse their power.

Finally, his portrayal of the rise in violence in Chicago as the direct result of a consent decree is both dishonest and ugly. The consent decree dealt with the Chicago PD's stop-and-frisk tactics. The PD agreed to revamp its policies after a 2015 report by the ACLU found the program disproportionately targeted black residents. In other words, Sessions is claiming requiring cops to behave Constitutionally results in increased criminal activity.

That would be bad enough on its own, but there's not one single thing Sessions can point at to back up this claim -- not even the report itself. Correlation isn't causation and there's ample evidence a consent decree that requires Constitutional policing does not lead to increased crime. We have apples-to-apples comparisons that disprove this ridiculous theory.

The NYPD was forced to drastically alter its stop-and-frisk program for the same reasons (targeting minorities). Crime went down, despite then-mayor Michael Bloomberg's promise of a criminal apocalypse. That's only one example. Salvador Rizzo of the Washington Post has several more.

Philadelphia has been working under a settlement agreement on stop-and-frisk practices like Chicago’s since 2011, and its homicide rate fell for several years afterward before rising again in 2016 and 2017 (albeit at much lower rates than in Chicago).

Seattle has been under a consent decree that includes stop-and-frisk provisions since 2012, and its yearly homicide rate has been mostly steady, hovering between 19 and 27, in the following years.

In Newark, N.J., a consent decree imposing requirements for stop-and-frisk practices, among other provisions, was adopted in 2016. The city reported 72 homicides in 2017, a 25 percent drop, although nonfatal shootings increased.

“The consent decree was signed and the monitor appointed in the spring and summer of 2016, and Newark continues to have the lowest crime in 50 years since then,” said Paul J. Fishman, the former U.S. attorney for New Jersey, who implemented the consent decree.

Sessions is correct in terms of quoting the report's findings. But the findings cannot possibly be correct. Even if the stats are right, the rationale is wrong. Fewer police stops may lead to increased crime, but connecting the two is far from a foregone conclusion. And yet, there it is, in a still-unreleased report that provides ammo for supporters of unconstitutional policing.

Even the authors of the report find it difficult to make this conclusion stick. To do so means throwing out other contradictory evidence, which is exactly what appears to have happened.

Cassell and Fowles called New York City an “anomaly” and wrote that it had a much lower rate of homicides committed with firearms than Chicago, “a small number of guns and gun crimes (relative to Chicago and many other cities),” and a police force that is about 25 percent larger than Chicago’s on a per-capita basis.

The other "anomalies" (Philadelphia, Seattle, Newark, etc.) were ignored. The DOJ itself -- which Sessions heads -- did not arrive at this conclusion either. Its report on increased violence suggests a few factors, none of which are the consent decree governing police stops.

“Over the year-plus since release of that video, and while we have been conducting this investigation, Chicago experienced a surge in shootings and homicides,” the DOJ report says. “The reasons for this spike are broadly debated and inarguably complex. But on two points there is little debate. First, for decades, certain neighborhoods on Chicago’s South and West Sides have been disproportionately ravaged by gun violence. Those same neighborhoods have borne the brunt of the recent surge of violence. And second, for Chicago to find solutions — short- and long-term — for making those neighborhoods safe, it is imperative that the City rebuild trust between CPD and the people it serves, particularly in these communities.”

While Chicago may be grabbing headlines with its high number of homicides, several other US cities have experienced higher spikes in the violent crime rate -- Ft. Worth, Houston, Memphis, and Baltimore have seen far more significant increases than Chicago's. But no one is claiming these spikes are due to ACLU meddling, consent decrees, or the actions of "radicals" opposed to abusive policing. Nope, it's just AG Sessions cherry-picking a single report with anomalous "findings" -- one that refers to data that doesn't agree with its theory as "anomalous." Speaking in front of cops makes it that much easier to peddle bullshit. But that doesn't change the fact it's still bullshit, no matter how much uncritical applause is offered in return.

Filed Under: 4th amendment, chicago, jeff sessions, police, police brutality, police misconduct, stop-and-frisk
Companies: napo, national association of police organizations