BrianGarst.com

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

police abuse Archive

Tuesday

25

November 2014

0

COMMENTS

Case for Criminal Justice Reform Goes Well Beyond Ferguson

Written by , Posted in The Courts, Criminal Justice & Tort

Last night’s announcement that Officer Darren Wilson would not be charged in the shooting of Michael Brown has been followed by violent riots in Ferguson, as well as more peaceful demonstrations throughout the nation. Opinion among the commentary class has unsurprisingly polarized and cleaved along traditional lines, with the left all in on identity politics and the right firmly entrenched in a law and order mentality. Both, I think, are missing the significance of the events taking place.

First, I want to make clear that the looting, destruction and violence taking place in Ferguson should not and cannot be excused. The responsibility for these crimes rests entirely with the individuals committing them, and in an ideal world they would be held firmly accountable for their actions.

Second, I think the specific facts of the incident in question must be separated from the broader social and policy questions. On the facts, I’ll just say that I think the overall outcome that Officer Wilson will not be criminally punished is probably correct, though the standard for grand jury indictment is typically so low that allowing a trial would have been acceptable, even welcome, under the circumstances.

The evidence suggests that officer Wilson was indeed attacked inside his vehicle and that, at some point, Brown disengaged and Wilson pursued. The crux of the case is whether Brown was surrendering or turning to fight at the time he was shot. Perhaps no one knows with absolute certainty whether the shooting was unavoidable, not even Wilson, but the forensic evidence from my understanding is consistent with Wilson’s story, and most of the evidence ambiguous to the point that Wilson would have most likely been acquitted, and rightly so according to the high standards we ought to require for actual conviction.

Regardless, the grand jury verdict has not settled the discussion. While the divisive voices of identity politics are wrong to break this episode entirely down to that of a racial injustice, so too are their critics who see in Ferguson’s aftermath only mindless riots and a need for the restoration of order through force and escalation.

That the right decision was most likely reached in the case doesn’t change the fact that, as Walter Olsen says, “our system for dealing with police use of deadly force is broken.” Illustrating the point, consider the typical outcome for a grand jury. The old saw is that a good prosecutor can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich, and in federal cases (where data is available), grand juries opt to indict 99.99 percent of the time. The single variable that turns the statistic completely around is when a police officer is the potential defendant. Under those circumstances grand juries almost never indict. Possible explanations include excessive deference on part of jurors to police, or disinterest on the part of prosecutors at potentially angering the very police upon which their profession relies on having good relations. In either case, the number of incidents of police misconduct that go unpunished poses a serious problem.

We are seeing the consequence of that problem play out now. The communities that most often come into contact with the police – poor, urban, and minority – trust them the least. This not only makes policing those communities more difficult, but when tensions reach a high enough level it can boil over into social unrest and violence. Simply put, if the police were more believable, and public perceptions generally indicated faith in the ability of the criminal justice system to punish police misconduct, what’s happening in Ferguson right now would not be occurring.

Because the thin blue line works more often than not to protect incompetent, corrupt or malicious officers, broad swaths of the public simply do not trust the system to return a just verdict, even in a case such as this where the outcome was seemingly appropriate. That’s a problem that requires serious institutional changes both in terms of what the law says, such as ending the Drug War, and how it is enforced, including reversing the militarization of police forces, ending practices such a civil asset forfeiture that pit the interests of police against the public, building better relations between departments and the communities they serve, and, perhaps most importantly, consistently and transparently punishing officers who break the law. Until these things are done, we can expect what has occurred in Ferguson to happen again and again.

Thursday

14

February 2013

0

COMMENTS

(In)Justice Served?

Written by , Posted in The Courts, Criminal Justice & Tort

I am troubled by those who find cause to support Christopher Dorner, the ex-cop whose rampage through Los Angeles apparently left four people dead. Whatever one might conclude of his public claims, there is no moral justification for his actions.

I am also troubled, perhaps equally so, by the lawless and incompetent manner in which he was pursued by police. As I previously noted, lives were put at risk by officers who recklessly unloaded with deadly weapons on innocents who they never even attempted to identify. The officers involved in these shootings should be prosecuted for no less than reckless endangerment, if not attempted murder, and failing to do so (which I fully expect based on historical precedent) would be a miscarriage of justice.

But what about Dorner himself? He will not get his day in court to be tried by a jury of his peers. Nor will he be able exercise his right to face his accusers. He will do none of these things because he is dead at the hands of the very people he publicly accused of malice and criminal behavior. Perhaps his death in the log cabin was entirely of his own making, and that he simply would not have surrendered himself alive under any circumstance. But I can’t help but wonder, having told myself before he was found that there was no way in hell the police were ever going to take him in alive, whether or not he was summarily executed. Now, a recording purported to be between officers suggesting deliberate intent to burn him alive has surfaced, and seems completely damning if confirmed as authentic.

Moving beyond Dorner and the specifics of his firing/crime spree/death, there is a serious need for discussion about the conduct and role of police in today’s society. More and more it seems that law enforcement has a blatant disregard for the most basic rule of law, takes an entirely antagonistic view toward civilians, and operates without even the pretense of accountability. This has simply got to change.

Saturday

9

February 2013

0

COMMENTS

Crazed Shooters Open Fire on Woman and Her Elderly Mother

Written by , Posted in The Courts, Criminal Justice & Tort

Maggie Carranza and her 71-year-old mother Emma Hernandez were driving through a neighborhood delivering newspapers when two deranged gunmen unloaded on their truck. The women only sustained non-life threatening injuries thanks to the horrible aim of the nutjobs, whose bullets peppered houses and vehicles throughout the neighborhood.

Oh, and I forgot to mention, the berserk shooters were members of the LAPD:

Residents waking up to the sound of gunfire Thursday say it sounded like a war zone. A number of surrounding vehicles were struck by gunfire in the shooting.

…Friday neighbors were finding bullet holes on cars and on their walls.

“It was close. It sounded terrible. I thought bullets came through into our front room,” said Torrance resident Richard Goo.

Thursday LAPD officers shot numerous rounds into a pickup truck early in the morning. The people inside however were two women delivering newspapers. Emma Hernandez, 71, was shot in the back. Her daughter, 47-year-old Maggie Carranza, was hit in the hand. They both survived.

“They were not the same sex, race, height, weight — anything. They don’t remotely match,” said Christopher Driscoll, attorney for the two women. “The vehicle doesn’t even match. And with that information they thought it was sufficient to open fire on the vehicle, Bonnie-and-Clyde-style.”

Nor were these the only innocent victims in the LAPD’s frantic, uncontrolled rampage through the city in search of murderous ex-cop Christopher Dorner:

Just a block away, Torrance Police officers shot at David Perdue in his pickup truck because it also resembled Dorner’s vehicle. Perdue’s attorney, Todd Thibodo says Perdue was hurt when an officer rammed the truck and opened fire.

“I think he’s the victim of overly fearful and overly aggressive police officers,” said Thibodo.

Cops get particularly worked up when fellow officers or their families are being targeted. I get it; It’s a perfectly natural mentality to protect ones own (not that they can be arsed to protect anyone else). But these are supposed to be trained professionals, and they are acting with all the forethought and deliberation of a small-time street corner gang.

If those officers aren’t charged with attempted murder, it will be a significant injustice.

Saturday

13

October 2012

0

COMMENTS

Stop-and-Frisk is Bad Policy

Written by , Posted in Culture & Society, Liberty & Limited Government, The Courts, Criminal Justice & Tort

On Tuesday The Nation released audio recorded by a victim of police harassment and abuse under New York’s Stop and Frisk program. The officers in the recording behaved as brutish thugs lording their power over the populace, instead of servants of public. Listen to the 2 minutes of audio for yourself here, or for an even better look into the issue (which includes the audio) watch this short documentary:

The Nation also provided this description of the encounter:

In the course of the two-minute recording, the officers give no legally valid reason for the stop, use racially charged language and threaten Alvin with violence. Early in the stop, one of the officers asks, “You want me to smack you?” When Alvin asks why he is being threatened with arrest, the other officer responds, “For being a fucking mutt.” Later in the stop, while holding Alvin’s arm behind his back, the first officer says, “Dude, I’m gonna break your fuckin’ arm, then I’m gonna punch you in the fuckin’ face.”

(more…)

Sunday

18

September 2011

0

COMMENTS

Another Victory in Right to Film Police

Written by , Posted in The Courts, Criminal Justice & Tort

The right to film police officers in the course of their official duties is a common sense defense for citizens against the one-sided power of the badge and all the force of the state which stands behind it. Despite – or perhaps because of  – this fact, many police officers routinely harass, intimidate or assault citizens who film them in action, and corrupt DA’s charge them for violating unconstitutional interpretations of wiretapping laws, which were never intended to protect civil servants acting in public.

It is against this backdrop that a recent ruling by an Illinois judge should be seen as a victory for basic civil liberties.

An Illinois judge ruled the state’s eavesdropping law unconstitutional as applied to a man who faced up to to 75 years in prison for secretly recording his encounters with police officers and a judge.

“A statute intended to prevent unwarranted intrusions into a citizen’s privacy cannot be used as a shield for public officials who cannot assert a comparable right of privacy in their public duties,” the judge wrote in his decision dismissing the five counts of eavesdropping charges against defendant Michael Allison.

…The ruling is the most recent development raising questions about Illinois’ strict eavesdropping statute, which makes it a felony to use a device to audio record or overhear a conversation without the consent of all parties involved, regardless of the circumstances of the interaction.

Allison’s legal troubles began when he recorded his conversations with local police officers who he claimed were harassing him. The officers were seizing old cars he was fixing on his front lawn in violation of a city ordinance, which then forced him to pay a fee to have them returned.

When Allison was brought into court for violating the ordinance, he requested a court reporter so that he could have a record of his trial. The court declined his request and Allison announced that he would record the trial himself.

When he showed up to the courtroom for his trial, the judge immediately asked Allison if he had a recording device and if it was on. He answered yes and the judge had him arrested on the spot for violating her privacy.

When police confiscated Allison’s digital device, they found the other recordings. Allison was then charged with five felony counts of eavesdropping, each of which can carry a maximum 15-year prison sentence.

In Thursday’s ruling, Circuit Court Judge David Frankland said that Allison had a First Amendment right to record the police officers and court employees.

We have a long way to go before the  far-too-regular abuses of the state through the justice system are curtailed, but this is another important step on that path.

Wednesday

6

July 2011

0

COMMENTS

Sick and Tired

Written by , Posted in Big Government, The Courts, Criminal Justice & Tort

If this Reason.tv video doesn’t get your blood boiling, I don’t know what will.

The problem of police abuse, lack of accountability for so-called law enforcement, and a loss of confidence by the public in their would-be servants and protectors is a widespread problem that needs to be seriously addressed.

Unfortunately there are some, such as the Pima County GOP, who are thrusting their heads in the sand and siding with the rights violators over the rights holders by refusing to even allow discussion of the issue.

Pima County, you’ll remember, is where Iraq War veteran Jose Guerena was murdered by Sheriff Dupnik’s officers. When the local GOP Party Chairman Brian Miller dared question the propriety of a SWAT raid which saw Guerena gunned down because he was prepared to defend his wife and child against armed invaders who had no justification for being there, and which was followed by consistent lies and misinformation by the officers involved, the local party wienies decided to strip him of his office. They said (Hat-tip: The Agitator):

The role of the Republican Party is clear: to elect candidates and support those candidates once elected. The recent statements and actions of Chairman Brian Miller have not served to further those goals, but rather the opposite. Mr. Miller’s statements regarding the SWAT raid have created serious problems for our elected officials, money raising efforts and have divided the Party.  Mr. Miller was given repeated opportunities to either mend these fences or resign his position, and has chosen to do neither.  Instead, he has continued to make controversial statements to the press.

The role of the Pima County Republican Party is indeed clear: Defend statist thugs who murder veterans at all costs. Isn’t the GOP supposed to protect rights to life, liberty and property? What ever happened to that party?

Thursday

19

May 2011

1

COMMENTS

Ignorant Cop Harasses Gun Owner, Prosecutors Blame the Victim

Written by , Posted in Gun Rights, The Courts, Criminal Justice & Tort

Continuing the recent theme of police abuses and outrageous legal decisions which demand we bend over and take them, comes another story of flagrant police abuse and disrespect for the law:

Mark Fiorino, a 25-year-old IT worker from suburban Montgomery County, was walking on the street in northeast Philadelphia on Feb. 13 with his handgun exposed on his hip — and an audio recorder in his pocket. A police officer driving by in a cruiser, Sgt. Michael Dougherty, stopped and called out to him, prompting a tense, 40-minute encounter.

“Do you know you can’t openly carry here in Philadelphia?” Dougherty asks, according to the YouTube clip. Fiorino responds, “Yes, you can, if you have a license to carry firearms. … It’s Directive 137. It’s your own internal directive.”

After some profanity-laced back-and-forth, other officers responded to Dougherty’s calls for backup. Fiorino was forced to the ground as he tried to explain that he had a firearms license and was legally allowed to carry his gun openly. He had his permit on him, along with his driver’s license.

Basically, because the Philadelphia police did not even know the law they are asked to enforce, and are also power-tripping a-holes, this man was harassed and threated at gun-point by the police. And contrary to this report, there was not a “profanity-laced back-and-forth,” as there was only profanity coming from one side: the police. We know this because the audio is posted on YouTube.

But this is even worse than a case of police ignorance and abuse of authority, both of which are fairly typical. It’s also a case of the legal system stepping on the law abiding citizen to protect said “law enforcement” personnel. You see, the a-hole DA, protecting his a-hole cop buddy, charged Fiorina with “disorderly conduct:”

Several weeks after the altercation, after it was posted on YouTube, Commissioner Charles Ramsey had detectives look into the case, Evers said. On April 21, Evers said, Fiorino was arrested on charges of disorderly conduct and recklessly endangering another person. The confrontation could have led to Fiorino getting shot and officers racing to the scene also could have been injured in an accident, police said.

On Saturday, several dozen gun-owners turned out at City Hall to protest Fiorino’s arrest.

Fiorino told the Philadelphia Daily News he plans to sue the city whenever his criminal case is resolved. His attorney, Joseph Valvo, said he thinks the move to file criminal charges against Fiorino was retaliation for posting the recordings on YouTube.

Fiorina “endangered another person” by apparently provoking a cop into displaying his abusive ignorance by trying to enforce a law that does not exist and pointing a gun at him. That’s about as legitimate as charging a rape victim for disturbing the peace.

Everyone should record every interaction they have with the police. To fail to do so is to invite them to lie about their abuses, and then blame their victims for it. While the post-incident harassment here is no doubt based on the fact that he exposed their behavior, it is only because of his recording that we know the truth. And more importantly, had he not been recording them – a fact which they discovered – they probably would have made up some other charges to hit him with.

Remind me again why so many conservatives are automatically deferential and assume that “law enforcement” can do no wrong in this country?

Monday

16

May 2011

2

COMMENTS

Resistance is Futile in Indiana

Written by , Posted in The Courts, Criminal Justice & Tort

A man’s home is his castle. He has the basic human right to defend his home against unlawful entry. That is, unless it’s the police breaking the law, according to the Indiana Supreme Court, in which case he just has to bend over and take it.

People have no right to resist if police officers illegally enter their home, the Indiana Supreme Court ruled in a decision that overturns centuries of common law.

The court issued its 3-2 ruling on Thursday, contending that allowing residents to resist officers who enter their homes without any right would increase the risk of violent confrontation. If police enter a home illegally, the courts are the proper place to protest it, Justice Steven David said.

“We believe … a right to resist an unlawful police entry into a home is against public policy and is incompatible with modern Fourth Amendment jurisprudence,” David said.

But don’t worry, it’s not like police are busting into innocent people’s homes, murdering them, and then lying about the facts, or anything.

 

Tuesday

29

March 2011

0

COMMENTS

Too Much Outrage, Too Little Time

Written by , Posted in Big Government, Liberty & Limited Government, The Courts, Criminal Justice & Tort

First, a Delaware man battles big government, which is bravely protecting the peasants from basketball hoops:

More on that story here.

Next, Reason.tv and Radley Balko give the 3 Worst Cases of Police Abuse in 2011:

One particularly egregious case highlighted in the video is the shooting murder of John T. Williams (which actually occurred in 2010), a homeless woodcarver, for carrying a legal knife in a non-threatening manner (the knife was folded closed). The murderer with a badge, Ian Birk, was not charged with any crime despite a finding by the police department that the shooting was “unjustified.” He has since resigned from his position, and one can only hope that society will shun him for the rest of his miserable life. It’s the least of what he deserves.

Sadly, this kind of injustice is all too commonly allowed to occur in the nation’s police forces. Police turn a blind eye to police misconduct. Prosecutors refuse to go after those who they rely on to gather evidence and build their cases, even when they act with such gross disregard for the rights of citizens. Such abuses cannot be separated from the larger problem of big government and its negative impact on the welfare of the country, despite the best efforts of many law and order conservatives to glorify anyone who wears a badge. While there our many fine officers doing their best to uphold the law, the police institutions are more often than not part of the problem and in desperate need of reform.

Tuesday

3

August 2010

1

COMMENTS