Showing posts with label police. Show all posts
Showing posts with label police. Show all posts

Wednesday, December 31, 2014

Taibbi: NYPD protests by making arrests 'only when they have to'?!

Before you jump with a knee-jerk reaction in defense of the NYPD because they saved the universe on 9/11, you should keep in mind that "... the protesting [NYC] police have decided to make arrests "only when they have to." (Let that sink in for a moment. Seriously, take 10 or 15 seconds)."

Yeah, think about that. Isn't that how we want police to do their job all the time?


Saturday, October 25, 2014

Taibbi: U.S. has two criminal justice systems

[HT: Chief].  Taibbi's latest article is worth reading in full -- with outrageous personal anecdotes for my conservative readers! -- but this pretty much sums it up:

The Madoff case proved that in order to actually be convicted and jailed for a Wall Street crime, you practically have to show up, weeping and spontaneously confessing, on the doorstep of the regulatory authorities.

In the early 90s, the US convicted more than 900 people in criminal prosecutions connected to the savings and loan crisis, a mass-fraud scheme similar to the sub-prime mess, but far less serious. This time around, the number is zero. Not one significant Wall Street executive has seen the inside of a jail cell for even one night for the egregious crimes connected to the financial crisis.

Meanwhile, the US boasts the largest prison population in the history of humanity, edging out even the gulag under Stalin.

There are a lot of reasons for the disparity, but two stand out: there are virtually no cops on the Wall Street/rich white people beat, and what few regulators there are increasingly don’t believe that paper or computer thefts in the millions or billions are “crime crimes” that warrant jail time.

Black people and better-off white people have almost completely different experiences with U.S. police and the criminal justice system. It's really two systems masquerading as one.


By Matt Taibbi
October 17, 2014 | Guardian

Sunday, September 7, 2014

News digest / Catching up on news (09.07.2014)

Here's more good stuff from my mailing list that I didn't have time to re-post on TILIS:


"Russia sees a military solution in Ukraine even if the West doesn’t." By Editorial Board, September 5, 2014, Washington Post. URL: http://wapo.st/Yj13ir  


"The Senate Republicans’ foolish fight over ambassadors." By David Ignatius, Septmeber 2, 2014, Washington Post. URL: http://wapo.st/1w4aflz

"A second Sunni Awakening?" By Fareed Zakaria, September 2, 2014, Washington Post. URL: http://wapo.st/1lz1QpE

"Putin's Trap: Why Ukraine Should Withdraw from Russian-Held Donbas." By Alexander J. Motyl, September 1, 2014, Foreign Affairs. URL:http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/141946/alexander-j-motyl/putins-trap  -- A CONTROVERSIAL POINT OF VIEW; BUT IF THIS PAINFUL OUTCOME IS TO HAPPEN ANYWAY, SHOULDN'T UKRAINE TAKE THE INITIATIVE?


"Labor Day: The Beginning of a Breakthrough." By Robert Kuttner, August 31, 2014, Huffington Post. URL: http://huff.to/1Chs0SW

"We need to tell the truth about what Russia is doing in Ukraine."  By Wesley Clark, August 31, 2014, Guardian. URL: http://gu.com/p/4x6hh

"A Market Basket of dignity." By E.J. Dionne, August 31, 2014, Washington Post. URL: http://wapo.st/1owAqLW  -- AT LEAST ONE CEO NOW GETS IT; I GUESS WE JUST HAVE TO FIRE THEM ALL SO THEY WILL UNDERSTAND

"Russian nationalism and the logic of the Kremlin's actions on Ukraine." By Henry E. Hale, August 29, 2014, Guardian. URL: http://gu.com/p/4x5tq  -- REMEMBER, IN UKRAINE NATIONALISM IS CALLED 'FASCISM'; IN RUSSIA IT'S PATRIOTISM

"Why Russia Wants the Federalization of Ukraine." By Alexander Motyl, August 28, 2014, Huffington Post. URL: http://huff.to/1tH7Uxu



"Donetsk POW March: When Is A Parade A War Crime?" By Carl Schreck, August 25, 2014, RFE/RL. URL: http://www.rferl.org/content/ukraine-pow-march-war-crime/26548667.html  -- OF COURSE IT'S A WAR CRIME BUT FAT CHANCE IT'LL BE PROSECUTED

"Hawks Crying Wolf." By Paul Krugman, August 22, 2014, New York Times. URL: http://huff.to/1BJIHpT  -- I BELIEVE THAT 'CHICKEN LITTLE' IS THE MORE APT FAIRY TALE HERE.

"If this is real religion, then you can count me as an atheist." By Giles Fraser, August 22, 2014, Guardian. URL: http://gu.com/p/4xx22  -- TAKE NOTE, CONSERVATIVE XENOPHOBES: MODERATE MUSLIMS ARE SPEAKING OUT

"Never an excuse for shooting unarmed suspects, former police chief says." By Joseph D. McNamara, August 19, 2014, Reuters. URL:http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/08/19/idUS212937500020140819  -- IT WORKED IN THIS MISSOURI TOWN, AND GEE, ALL THROUGHOUT GREAT BRITAIN WHERE POLICE AREN'T EVEN ARMED!

Tuesday, August 19, 2014

VIDEO: John Oliver critiques U.S. police militarization

I've been posting against police militarization since 2012, following the reporting of Radley Balko at HuffPo and WaPo. So I'm glad to see it's finally getting national (actually global) attention, and Balko is recognized as the foremost expert.

As Oliver notes, the big issue is not small-town police's Pentagon-provided equipment,  but rather how police have come to see those whom they are supposed to serve and protect as a hostile Other, and see themselves as armed Occupiers.


Tuesday, June 10, 2014

Militarization of America's small town police

I've commented before about the militarization of America's local police, despite the lack of any increase in crime or threats to them.

Essentially there is an arms race going on inside America: cops perceive crime to be going up (untrue) and citizens to be better armed (true); meanwhile, citizens perceive cops to be better armed and equipped (partly true), so some of them buy more guns, ammo and armor-piercing bullets to maintain an advantage over "the Man" or Big Government in case it decides to "take over" or come for their guns. Then cops see what ordinary citizens are packing and conclude they need armored vehicles and high-powered rifles, etc. to protect themselves. A highly-armed citizenry also fosters an "us against them," quasi-fascist mentality among police, instead of "serve and protect."

It's hysteria on both sides; it's a vicious circle.  And it all starts with fear stirred up by crazy right-wing rhetoric.


By Radley Balko
June 9, 2014 | Washington Post

Sunday, June 23, 2013

T-shirts show semi-fascist police culture

Like many people, I don't like the police.  They make me nervous.  They give me speeding tickets on empty roads.  They talk in that ridiculous, officious police-report diction.  They are inherently politically conservative.  And I doubt their motives for becoming policemen in the first place: inferiority complexes; the desire for power over others; the right to brandish a gun and use violence, etc.

Nevertheless, I admit our police are necessary.  And I'm sure, objectively, that most cops want to serve and protect people, not bully and intimidate them.  What I don't like is the increasing militarization of our police; and this separation between "us" and "them," especially in big city police forces that often look on local residents as an enemy force.

Radley Balko's article is fascinating and, at first glance, there does seem to be a connection between all these violent, semi-fascist T-shirts popular among police, and instances of police brutality and false evidence.  Check it out!

beatcrowds

raisecage

sanjose



By Radley Balko
June 21, 2013 | Huffington Post

Wednesday, December 26, 2012

Left & Right agree: NRA is calling for a police state

It's not often that lefty liberals and far-right libertarians agree -- and in opposition to the NRA, no less!  

Robert Parry sees even farther than Ron Paul: he asks if armed police are what's needed in our schools to "meet a gun with a gun," then why stop there, why not put federally funded police in shopping malls, toll booths, you name it?


By Robert Parry
December 23, 2012 |  Consortium News


December 24, 2012 | FoxNews

Tuesday, September 18, 2012

Dubya gave Fed its own armed police!

Gee, I wonder why I'm not getting paranoid right-wing e-mail forwards about this. Maybe because the Fed's police powers were granted by Dubya's Patriot Act in 2001? Naw, couldn't be.

What's worse, since the Federal Reserve's 12 banks are privately owned by commercial banks, all Federal Reserve Law Enforcement Officers, who have the right to make arrests and use deadly force, work for private banks.

So thanks to Dubya, Wall Street has its own armed police force.  

"There is also the obvious question as to why the expense, training and potential liability of armed police would be necessary when all of the Federal Reserve Banks are in cities with large municipal police forces."  Yeah, that's a really good question.


"Bank boys, bank boys, what you gonna do, what you gonna do when they come for you?..."



By Pam Martens
September 17, 2012 | Wall Street On Parade

Thursday, February 16, 2012

Military-corporate welfare grants NH town a tank

Where are the Tea Parties when we really need them? (Chasing after welfare moms, voters without photo IDs, and Mexican fruit pickers, as usual.....)


By Radley Balko
February 16, 2012 | Huffington Post

"We're going to have our own tank."

That's what Keene, N.H., Mayor Kendall Lane whispered to Councilman Mitch Greenwood during a December city council meeting.

It's not quite a tank. But the quaint town of 23,000 -- scene of just two murders since 1999 -- had just accepted a $285,933 grant from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security to purchase a Bearcat, an eight-ton armored personnel vehicle made by Lenco Industries Inc.

[...]

Since the Sept. 11 attacks, the war on terror has accelerated the trend toward militarization. Homeland Security hands out anti-terrorism grants to cities and towns, many specifically to buy military-grade equipment from companies like Lenco. In December, the Center for Investigative Reporting reported that Homeland Security grants totalled $34 billion, and went to such unlikely terrorism targets as Fargo, N.D.; Fon du Lac, Wisc.; and Canyon County, Idaho. The report noted that because of the grants, defense contractors that long served the Pentagon exclusively have increasingly turned looked to police departments, hoping to tap a "homeland security market" expected to reach $19 billion by 2014.

Tuesday, February 14, 2012

Why does America lock so many people up?



This is really a must-read article, a real revelation for those on the "left" and "right" sides of the crime & prison debate. But it's long so I'll quote excerpts. Let's start with the shocking, shameful stats:

"More than half of all black men without a high-school diploma go to prison at some time in their lives. Mass incarceration on a scale almost unexampled in human history is a fundamental fact of our country today—perhaps the fundamental fact, as slavery was the fundamental fact of 1850. In truth, there are more black men in the grip of the criminal-justice system—in prison, on probation, or on parole—than were in slavery then. Over all, there are now more people under 'correctional supervision' in America—more than six million—than were in the Gulag Archipelago under Stalin at its height. That city of the confined and the controlled, Lockuptown, is now the second largest in the United States.

"The accelerating rate of incarceration over the past few decades is just as startling as the number of people jailed: in 1980, there were about two hundred and twenty people incarcerated for every hundred thousand Americans; by 2010, the number had more than tripled, to seven hundred and thirty-one. No other country even approaches that. In the past two decades, the money that states spend on prisons has risen at six times the rate of spending on higher education."

Think about that. I regard the Soviet Union with horror; it was a giant murder mill and prisoner factory spanning a dozen time zones. And yet, according to Gopnik, today's America is in an important way even worse. How is that possible in the country that defeated Communism? How have we let ourselves get so bad?


And then there is prison rape. We all know about it. We joke about it, or fear it, or try to ignore it, or sometimes say (cruelly) that it is just punishment. Here's what Gopnik has to say:

"Prison rape is so endemic—more than seventy thousand prisoners are raped each year—that it is routinely held out as a threat, part of the punishment to be expected. The subject is standard fodder for comedy, and an uncoöperative suspect being threatened with rape in prison is now represented, every night on television, as an ordinary and rather lovable bit of policing. The normalization of prison rape—like eighteenth-century japery about watching men struggle as they die on the gallows—will surely strike our descendants as chillingly sadistic, incomprehensible on the part of people who thought themselves civilized."

There are two theories for how the modern U.S. prison system came into being (and let's remember it's a fairly new institution, compared to what we had before): a result of Northern efficiency and procedural justice without room for judges to make commonsense, common law rulings; or a continuation of the Southern slave plantation by other means. Regarding that latter theory, writes Gopnik:

"'American prisons trace their lineage not only back to Pennsylvania penitentiaries but to Texas slave plantations.' White supremacy is the real principle, this thesis holds, and racial domination the real end. In response to the apparent triumphs of the sixties, mass imprisonment became a way of reimposing Jim Crow. Blacks are now incarcerated seven times as often as whites. 'The system of mass incarceration works to trap African Americans in a virtual (and literal) cage,' the legal scholar Michelle Alexander writes. Young black men pass quickly from a period of police harassment into a period of 'formal control' (i.e., actual imprisonment) and then are doomed for life to a system of 'invisible control.' Prevented from voting, legally discriminated against for the rest of their lives, most will cycle back through the prison system. The system, in this view, is not really broken; it is doing what it was designed to do. Alexander's grim conclusion: 'If mass incarceration is considered as a system of social control—specifically, racial control—then the system is a fantastic success.'"

And then there is the more recent phenomenon of for-profit U.S. prisons, run as corporations, whose only source of growth, perversely, is more and more inmates:

"It's hard to imagine any greater disconnect between public good and private profit: the interest of private prisons lies not in the obvious social good of having the minimum necessary number of inmates but in having as many as possible, housed as cheaply as possible. No more chilling document exists in recent American life than the 2005 annual report of the biggest of these firms, the Corrections Corporation of America. Here the company (which spends millions lobbying legislators) is obliged to caution its investors about the risk that somehow, somewhere, someone might turn off the spigot of convicted men:

"'Our growth is generally dependent upon our ability to obtain new contracts to develop and manage new correctional and detention facilities. . . . The demand for our facilities and services could be adversely affected by the relaxation of enforcement efforts, leniency in conviction and sentencing practices or through the decriminalization of certain activities that are currently proscribed by our criminal laws. For instance, any changes with respect to drugs and controlled substances or illegal immigration could affect the number of persons arrested, convicted, and sentenced, thereby potentially reducing demand for correctional facilities to house them.'"


Gopnik goes on to describe how falling crime rates -- about a 40 percent decline in crime throughout the Western world in the 1990s -- cannot be explained by increased incarceration; the numbers so far defy easy explanation. But New York City is a different story: its crime rate decreased 80 percent. Why? Not for the reasons often cited. New York is not richer or whiter than it was, in fact, it is twice as black and Hispanic today compared to 1961. Nor did "broken-window" policing do it:

"In the nineties, the N.Y.P.D. began to control crime not by fighting minor crimes in safe places but by putting lots of cops in places where lots of crimes happened— 'hot-spot policing.' The cops also began an aggressive, controversial program of 'stop and frisk'— 'designed to catch the sharks, not the dolphins,' as Jack Maple, one of its originators, described it—that involved what's called pejoratively 'profiling.' This was not so much racial, since in any given neighborhood all the suspects were likely to be of the same race or color, as social, involving the thousand small clues that policemen recognized already. Minority communities, [researcher Franklin E.] Zimring emphasizes, paid a disproportionate price in kids stopped and frisked, and detained, but they also earned a disproportionate gain in crime reduced. 'The poor pay more and get more' is Zimring's way of putting it."

"Zimring said, in a recent interview, 'Remember, nobody ever made a living mugging. There's no minimum wage in violent crime.' In a sense, he argues, it's recreational, part of a life style: 'Crime is a routine behavior; it's a thing people do when they get used to doing it.' And therein lies its essential fragility. Crime ends as a result of 'cyclical forces operating on situational and contingent things rather than from finding deeply motivated essential linkages.' Conservatives don't like this view because it shows that being tough doesn't help; liberals don't like it because apparently being nice doesn't help, either. Curbing crime does not depend on reversing social pathologies or alleviating social grievances; it depends on erecting small, annoying barriers to entry."

And what about NYC's rate of incarceration?

"'New York City, in the midst of a dramatic reduction in crime, is locking up a much smaller number of people, and particularly of young people, than it was at the height of the crime wave,' Zimring observes. Whatever happened to make street crime fall, it had nothing to do with putting more men in prison."

And these facts lead Gopnik to the inevitable but "radical" conclusion that:

"...since prison plays at best a small role in stopping even violent crime, very few people, rich or poor, should be in prison for a nonviolent crime. Neither the streets nor the society is made safer by having marijuana users or peddlers locked up, let alone with the horrific sentences now dispensed so easily. For that matter, no social good is served by having the embezzler or the Ponzi schemer locked in a cage for the rest of his life, rather than having him bankrupt and doing community service in the South Bronx for the next decade or two."

Gopnik admits this goes against our current "common sense" and even a lot of "liberal" studies on crime prevention:

"To read the literature on crime before it dropped is to see the same kind of dystopian despair we find in the new literature of punishment: we'd have to end poverty, or eradicate the ghettos, or declare war on the broken family, or the like, in order to end the crime wave. The truth is, a series of small actions and events ended up eliminating a problem that seemed to hang over everything. There was no miracle cure, just the intercession of a thousand smaller sanities. Ending sentencing for drug misdemeanors, decriminalizing marijuana, leaving judges free to use common sense (and, where possible, getting judges who are judges rather than politicians)—many small acts are possible that will help end the epidemic of imprisonment as they helped end the plague of crime."

This should give us all hope. And it should serve as an example that systemic change does not necessarily result from "changing the whole system," but rather from small, high-leverage interventions which turn self-reinforcing vicious cycles backwards, turning them into virtuous ones.


Why do we lock up so many people?
By Adam Gopnik
January 30, 2012 | New Yorker

Friday, December 2, 2011

Journalists suddenly disorderly at OWS, must be arrested for their own safety

I know the right wing has been trying, with some success, to portray OWS protestors as violent and disruptive, but since when did so many U.S. journalists turn disorderly?!

Journalists have been arrested on flimsy pretexts not only in New York, LA, Chicago and DC, but also in places like Boston, Nashville, Rochester, Richmond, Milwaukee, Oakland, Atlanta and Chapel Hill. Many say they were only taking photos or interviews, and their press passes were visible. (You can read many of their stories here.)

Police actions at OWS protests against journalists are like something out of Russia or the Arab Spring uprisings, where police -- and their political bosses -- simply do not want any record of their violent crackdowns in the media.

Anyway, all you "strict constitutionalists" and Framer-lovers out there should be concerned with how protesters and journalists have been treated at OWS, even if you don't agree with their politics. Otherwise you are hypocrites and opportunists. This baloney about arresting people who are on public spaces in order to protect them from "unsanitary" or "unsafe" conditions, or to encourage commerce in the area, is absurd, esp. when our "protectors" are blasting them with pepper spray, and denying them food, water, or toilets while they are locked up for hours in cages and paddy wagons.

There is nothing in the The First Amendment which allows government to abridge "the right of the people peaceably to assemble" because they are smelly, offensive to your sensibilities, or discourage somebody from shopping nearby. A protest by definition is not a cuddle fest; it's supposed to make somebody in power uncomfortable.


By Josh Stearns
December 2, 2011 | Storify

Sunday, February 6, 2011

The real CSI aint smart or cool

csi1.jpg
Turn off the flashlight and turn on a light bulb, for crying out loud!

Finally, facts to validate my suspicions! I really don't like all those shows like CSI, Bones, etc. First, because they're awfully morbid. To my wife, a fan of all of them, I call these shows, collectively, "Corpses," because that's pretty much how every episode begins, with some grisly murder and how the corpse is discovered.

My second beef with these shows is how much freaking time and resources all these super-genius, super-cool, beautiful people spend investigating every murder. I realize it's TV, but... come on! We've all seen cops. They're not like that. I don't care what city or country you live in, they're all pretty much the same. And no police dept. has the budget to devote a crack team of 5-10 beautiful genius's time solving every murder. Moreover, I'm sure real-life CSI types are nerds who don't haunt dim, ultra-high-tech crime labs sporting Armani, spiky hair and tons of attitude as they do boring forensic work. "Turn a light on, for crapsakes!" I want to shout at the tube.

One of my favorite parts of these shows to hate is when they have to show some actual forensic work: they turn this otherwise BO-ring science stuff into a techno-music montage scene with lots of flash editing so that us slobs on the couch don't fall asleep watching stuff like spinning blood centrifuges.

Anyway, like I said, it's always nice to have my pop-culture biases validated by investigative journalists. Give me Quincy M.E. any day!

Here's the good news: in real life, if you're a murderer, there's a real good chance you'll get away with it. You don't have to commit the perfect crime just to outsmart the quirky cop who loves bugs or the sullen redhead who won't take off his sunglasses. The bad news is, if you're innocent, you might get stuck with the rap.


The Real CSI: How America's Patchwork System of Death Investigations Puts the Living At Risk
An examination of the nation's 2,300 coroner and medical examiner offices reveals a troubled system that literally buries its mistakes.

By A.C. Thompson and Mosi Secret and Lowell Bergman and Sandra Bartlett
February 2, 2011 Alternet

URL: http://www.alternet.org/investigations/149769/the_real_csi:_how_america