Hopefully this national exposure will prompt the city to shred its memorandum of understanding and start over with some accountability measures in place.
Why do I no longer see this sort of reform as even a remote possibility? Instead, if anything happens I think it will probably be some form of "doubling-down," along with some serious persecution, or even prosecution, of whoever let this cat out of the bag.
It IS a protection against frivolous law suits that any cop would be forced to spend 1000's of dollars to defend against.
That was the excuse the SCOTUS used to create it. That is not what it is. It is an incentive for bad cops to do bad things by protecting them after they do those bad things. It is one of the cornerstones in the foundation of an authoritarian police state.
1) I am saying that rights and powers / privileges / immunities are profoundly distinct things, and if you do not understand the difference then you are not qualified to participate in any meaningful discussion of them. It is not simply a semantic distinction without a meaningful difference, by any means.
2) I am also saying that if these "Police Officer's Bill(s) of Rights" were called by more accurate and correctly descriptive names, such as "Government Thug's List of Absurd Privileges and Immunities That Only Serve to Encourage Egregious Criminal Behavior by Said Government Thugs," that there could also be more appropriate and meaningful discussions about them. Calling them a "Bill of Rights" intentionally and propagandistically distorts and distracts from any serious discussion of them, at least for many people.
I know this is the terminology used by those who support such affronts, but the rest of us must always be mindful of the very important distinction between rights versus powers, privileges, and immunities.
Rights are things that we all have, in equal measure, simply by being human. Powers, privileges, and immunities are things that certain people are granted by other people. Whether the powers, privileges, and immunities that are granted are justifiable, and whether the granting itself is justifiable, can be topics of valid debate on a case by case basis, but the essential distinction always applies.
Misuse of words, such as in this instance, can lead to faulty thinking, pointless discussion, and erroneous conclusions by those who are misled, confused, or distracted (intentionally or not) by said misuse.
the whole thing was dressed up as "serious policy" by press and policy wonks who should have known better.
If you view the purpose of the press and the policy wonks as providing generally neutral coverage and objective analysis, then yes, they should have known better.
If you view the purpose of the press and the policy wonks as propaganda tools which exist to give credence to whatever nonsense the government puts out, then they did their jobs admirably.
Ignoring the whole presidential power overreach problem, where presidents view themselves as authoritarian dictators who can "rule" as they please, in this article I saw one "requirement" (service details transparency), one "encourages,"and three "urging / urges."
Anything not required will be ignored, or worse, the lack of a requirement to fix a bad practice will be taken as tacit approval of that bad practice, and that practice will continue to flourish and grow.
When we have a corrupt government f̶i̶n̶a̶n̶c̶i̶a̶l̶l̶y̶ ̶a̶t̶t̶a̶c̶k̶i̶n̶g̶ robbing (or even legislating out of existence) successful, deep-pocketed corporations who happen to make products disfavored by said corrupt government, it is not at all surprising that some of these companies will resort to equally corrupt countermeasures as a means of fighting back, particularly after they have seen the lack of success of companies who tried fighting back using more conventional means.
Granted our apathy to the steadily eroding line between expertise (journalism, academia, science) and marketing and lobbying is certainly nothing new.
This aspect of the situation is a separate issue, and is only involved here because it happens to be Juul's (barely legal) weapon of choice in this instance. Juul could have also chosen other corrupt means of fighting back, such as bribing or blackmailing government officials, but those are much harder to "mouse print" into (barely) legal status.
According to the SCOTUS current view of QI, it must make a new decision for each and every possible way a cop might violate someone's rights, specifying every conceivable detail in each and every case. This would obviously be an infinite number of decisions, which is clearly an impossible task.
Which is precisely what is wrong with the whole QI situation as it currently stands.
I know it has been said many times before by many people, but the only thing that is not surprising about all of this is that it didn't happen in 1997 (or very soon thereafter).
In 3rd-world countries, citizens refer to their police as “thieves in uniforms”. USA has been and will continue to move in that direction u̶n̶l̶e̶s̶s̶ even if all seizures and forfeitures go directly to the I̶R̶S̶ thieves' bosses.
No, it did not take the FBI long at all to s̶e̶i̶z̶e̶ steal the property, but the legal system sure took it's sweet time registering it's disapproval. The s̶e̶i̶z̶u̶r̶e̶ theft took place "on or around" March 22, and the ruling is dated June 22. Three months to state the obvious might seem quick to those in the legal system, but to those of us in the real world it seems painfully slow, maybe even intentionally slow, so as to give the FBI plenty of time to CYA or "misplace" the loot.
The Supreme Court appears to be continuing to make amends for the mess it's made of qualified immunity over the years.
But are they really?
If they were serious about reforming or eliminating the abomination that they created, they could do it, quickly and easily, by ruling that it is a clear violation of the "equal protection" clause. (Or the prohibition of nobility, or "reasonableness," or whatever. I am sure they could come up with plenty of rationale, and probably even save face at the same time.) It would be gone. Done. And it would jerk a serious and long overdue knot in the chain of law enforcement.
But that is not what is happening. What is happening looks to me much more like throwing a bone to a starving dog or kicking the can down the road. It gives the impression of "doing something" while not actually accomplishing a damn thing.
Delaying would clearly have been a much better idea than cops providing multiple likely sources of ignition, of course. Hell, damn near anything besides cops providing sources of ignition would have been a better idea. This is just one of many situations where cops were the wrong answer, and that should have been obvious to everyone to begin with. Mental health counselors, the fire department, EMT's, or maybe even just some peace and quiet would all have probably had a better chance of a survivable outcome for this guy.
Just as an aside: Gasoline is really only flammable when it is a vapor mixed with air (or some other oxidizing gas, like say, pure oxygen or nitrous oxide) and even then only when it is within a certain range of concentrations with respect to the oxidizer. If it is to "lean," or less than about 1.4% gasoline vapor to 98.6% air, it will not burn. If it is too "rich," or more than about 7.6% gasoline vapor to 92.4% air, it will not burn, either. Within that range, well, we all know what can happen then. As gasoline evaporates, under most conditions it is usually quite likely that some of it will be within the flammable mixture range, hence the danger. Depending on how much gasoline was present, it could take a really long time, and some good ventilation with fresh air, for the gasoline and it's vapors to dissipate enough to make an interior space safe.
Our prison system has never been about redemption or rehabilitation. It never has been. Maybe it should be, at least for some, but it isn't.
The few that do manage to get rehabilitated while in prison do it largely by, and for, themselves, and they do it in spite of the prison system, not because of it.
On the post: Documents Show NYPD Has A Secret Surveillance Tech Slush Fund
Not holding my breath
Why do I no longer see this sort of reform as even a remote possibility? Instead, if anything happens I think it will probably be some form of "doubling-down," along with some serious persecution, or even prosecution, of whoever let this cat out of the bag.
On the post: New York Congresswoman Thinks It's Too Hard To Be A Good Cop, Offers Up Bill That Would Codify Qualified Immunity
Re: Immunity
That was the excuse the SCOTUS used to create it. That is not what it is. It is an incentive for bad cops to do bad things by protecting them after they do those bad things. It is one of the cornerstones in the foundation of an authoritarian police state.
On the post: New York Congresswoman Thinks It's Too Hard To Be A Good Cop, Offers Up Bill That Would Codify Qualified Immunity
Re: Re: Rights v privileges
1) I am saying that rights and powers / privileges / immunities are profoundly distinct things, and if you do not understand the difference then you are not qualified to participate in any meaningful discussion of them. It is not simply a semantic distinction without a meaningful difference, by any means.
2) I am also saying that if these "Police Officer's Bill(s) of Rights" were called by more accurate and correctly descriptive names, such as "Government Thug's List of Absurd Privileges and Immunities That Only Serve to Encourage Egregious Criminal Behavior by Said Government Thugs," that there could also be more appropriate and meaningful discussions about them. Calling them a "Bill of Rights" intentionally and propagandistically distorts and distracts from any serious discussion of them, at least for many people.
On the post: New York Congresswoman Thinks It's Too Hard To Be A Good Cop, Offers Up Bill That Would Codify Qualified Immunity
Rights v privileges
I know this is the terminology used by those who support such affronts, but the rest of us must always be mindful of the very important distinction between rights versus powers, privileges, and immunities.
Rights are things that we all have, in equal measure, simply by being human. Powers, privileges, and immunities are things that certain people are granted by other people. Whether the powers, privileges, and immunities that are granted are justifiable, and whether the granting itself is justifiable, can be topics of valid debate on a case by case basis, but the essential distinction always applies.
Misuse of words, such as in this instance, can lead to faulty thinking, pointless discussion, and erroneous conclusions by those who are misled, confused, or distracted (intentionally or not) by said misuse.
On the post: Florida Sheriff's Office Now Notifying People It Will Be Inflicting Its Pre-Crime Program On Them
FTFY
But is it sincere? All evidence points to "Hell no! Are you freakin' kidding me?"
On the post: Biden Executive Order Disrupts Hot DC Trend Of Pretending 'Big Telecom' Doesn't Exist
Point of view matters
If you view the purpose of the press and the policy wonks as providing generally neutral coverage and objective analysis, then yes, they should have known better.
If you view the purpose of the press and the policy wonks as propaganda tools which exist to give credence to whatever nonsense the government puts out, then they did their jobs admirably.
On the post: Biden Executive Order Disrupts Hot DC Trend Of Pretending 'Big Telecom' Doesn't Exist
"urge" = puffery, or worse
Ignoring the whole presidential power overreach problem, where presidents view themselves as authoritarian dictators who can "rule" as they please, in this article I saw one "requirement" (service details transparency), one "encourages,"and three "urging / urges."
Anything not required will be ignored, or worse, the lack of a requirement to fix a bad practice will be taken as tacit approval of that bad practice, and that practice will continue to flourish and grow.
On the post: Juul Rented A Scientific Journal For a Month To Spread Glorified Marketing
Corruption vs corruption
When we have a corrupt government f̶i̶n̶a̶n̶c̶i̶a̶l̶l̶y̶ ̶a̶t̶t̶a̶c̶k̶i̶n̶g̶ robbing (or even legislating out of existence) successful, deep-pocketed corporations who happen to make products disfavored by said corrupt government, it is not at all surprising that some of these companies will resort to equally corrupt countermeasures as a means of fighting back, particularly after they have seen the lack of success of companies who tried fighting back using more conventional means.
This aspect of the situation is a separate issue, and is only involved here because it happens to be Juul's (barely legal) weapon of choice in this instance. Juul could have also chosen other corrupt means of fighting back, such as bribing or blackmailing government officials, but those are much harder to "mouse print" into (barely) legal status.
On the post: Supreme Court Rejects Another Questionable Qualified Immunity Decision By An Appeals Court
Re:
According to the SCOTUS current view of QI, it must make a new decision for each and every possible way a cop might violate someone's rights, specifying every conceivable detail in each and every case. This would obviously be an infinite number of decisions, which is clearly an impossible task.
Which is precisely what is wrong with the whole QI situation as it currently stands.
On the post: FBI Cites Guidelines That Don't Actually Forbid Social Media Monitoring As The Reason It Was Blindsided By The January 6 Attack
The difference between Trump and the FBI
Trump lies because he is a liar. The FBI lies because it is law enforcement.
On the post: Hong Kong Kowtows To China Again, Turns Virtual Police State Into An Actual Police State
Obligatory comment re-run
I know it has been said many times before by many people, but the only thing that is not surprising about all of this is that it didn't happen in 1997 (or very soon thereafter).
On the post: Judge Blocks FBI From Moving Forward With Forfeitures Of Property Seized In US Private Vaults Raid
Re: Re:
In 3rd-world countries, citizens refer to their police as “thieves in uniforms”. USA has been and will continue to move in that direction u̶n̶l̶e̶s̶s̶ even if all seizures and forfeitures go directly to the I̶R̶S̶ thieves' bosses.
FTFY
On the post: Supreme Court Rejects Another Questionable Qualified Immunity Decision By An Appeals Court
Re: One Thing
Judges and prosecutors enjoy absolute immunity, and it should absolutely be removed immediately.
Politician's various levels of actual and journalistic immunity are too involved and off-topic to be discussed here.
On the post: Judge Blocks FBI From Moving Forward With Forfeitures Of Property Seized In US Private Vaults Raid
Re: That didn't take long
No, it did not take the FBI long at all to s̶e̶i̶z̶e̶ steal the property, but the legal system sure took it's sweet time registering it's disapproval. The s̶e̶i̶z̶u̶r̶e̶ theft took place "on or around" March 22, and the ruling is dated June 22. Three months to state the obvious might seem quick to those in the legal system, but to those of us in the real world it seems painfully slow, maybe even intentionally slow, so as to give the FBI plenty of time to CYA or "misplace" the loot.
On the post: Supreme Court Rejects Another Questionable Qualified Immunity Decision By An Appeals Court
But are they really?
If they were serious about reforming or eliminating the abomination that they created, they could do it, quickly and easily, by ruling that it is a clear violation of the "equal protection" clause. (Or the prohibition of nobility, or "reasonableness," or whatever. I am sure they could come up with plenty of rationale, and probably even save face at the same time.) It would be gone. Done. And it would jerk a serious and long overdue knot in the chain of law enforcement.
But that is not what is happening. What is happening looks to me much more like throwing a bone to a starving dog or kicking the can down the road. It gives the impression of "doing something" while not actually accomplishing a damn thing.
On the post: Judge Don Willett Calls Out Appeals Court For Saying Setting A Suicidal Man On Fire Didn't Violate His Rights
Re: Re: ... but that's not the point of this story.
Oops. I meant to reply to The obvious answer from my armchair
On the post: Judge Don Willett Calls Out Appeals Court For Saying Setting A Suicidal Man On Fire Didn't Violate His Rights
Re: ... but that's not the point of this story.
Delaying would clearly have been a much better idea than cops providing multiple likely sources of ignition, of course. Hell, damn near anything besides cops providing sources of ignition would have been a better idea. This is just one of many situations where cops were the wrong answer, and that should have been obvious to everyone to begin with. Mental health counselors, the fire department, EMT's, or maybe even just some peace and quiet would all have probably had a better chance of a survivable outcome for this guy.
Just as an aside: Gasoline is really only flammable when it is a vapor mixed with air (or some other oxidizing gas, like say, pure oxygen or nitrous oxide) and even then only when it is within a certain range of concentrations with respect to the oxidizer. If it is to "lean," or less than about 1.4% gasoline vapor to 98.6% air, it will not burn. If it is too "rich," or more than about 7.6% gasoline vapor to 92.4% air, it will not burn, either. Within that range, well, we all know what can happen then. As gasoline evaporates, under most conditions it is usually quite likely that some of it will be within the flammable mixture range, hence the danger. Depending on how much gasoline was present, it could take a really long time, and some good ventilation with fresh air, for the gasoline and it's vapors to dissipate enough to make an interior space safe.
On the post: Judge Don Willett Calls Out Appeals Court For Saying Setting A Suicidal Man On Fire Didn't Violate His Rights
Re:
Another possible solution would be to get rid of the QI horse$#|t altogether and insist on some sanity in the legal system.
But that idea also makes sense and therefore will never happen.
On the post: Minneapolis Police Officer Derek Chauvin Sentenced To Twenty-Two Years For Killing George Floyd
Re: Re: Re: Death
Yes, as in "head on a pike at the entrance to town" fashion.
Maybe they should put his prison cell on a truck and take it on tour. Murdering Racist Scum Roadshow?
On the post: Minneapolis Police Officer Derek Chauvin Sentenced To Twenty-Two Years For Killing George Floyd
Re: Prison Reform
Our prison system has never been about redemption or rehabilitation. It never has been. Maybe it should be, at least for some, but it isn't.
The few that do manage to get rehabilitated while in prison do it largely by, and for, themselves, and they do it in spite of the prison system, not because of it.
Next >>