Why Reform of Police Accountability is Unlikely
It's as simple as this: Republicans fetishize the police (like they do the military) and will always give them the benefit of the doubt. They have this gauzy teary-eyed love of the police. Just watch Megyn Kelly on Fox to get the idea. Democrats are allied with public unions and will not under any circumstances take on the powerful police unions who fight any attempt at accountability tooth and nail, a behavior Democrats have become habituated to enabling for other unions like the teachers unions.
The issue is mostly about giving police accountability that matches the special powers over the use of force we give them. But it is also about racism. It just burns me up to have folks in power point to the business world constantly for supposed institutional racism, when in fact I witness very little if any day to day. The one institution I see that clearly has elements of institutional racism are many police forces, but no one will touch them.
Every year there are hundreds of police shootings and the number that are determined not to be justifiable rounds to zero. What are the odds there is a process involving humans with this small of a Type I error rate? We are learning form cell phone cameras that the stories we used to believe from police officers about events are often total bullsh*t. And yet still police are not held accountable even when there is horrific video evidence showing them out of control.
At the drop of a hat, at the smallest hint of a single example of a bad outcome, the government will not hesitate to impose enormous new restrictions on private individuals. But even with the most overwhelming evidence the government will not put even the lightest restrictions in itself or its employees.
I have always shied away from my fellow libertarians on the anarcho-capitalist end of things who wanted to privatize the police force. I always thought use of force to be a unique privilege and one dangerous to hand out to private groups. But I am starting to see that I was thinking about it wrong. It is a dangerous power to give to anyone, but at least if you give it to a private party someone might possibly exercise a little accountability over them.
Walter Olson has a good roundup of police and lethal force here.
Postscript: Here is an example of what I mean: The Obama Administration has imposed significant rules on universities to bring greater accountability to sexual assailants when it was perceived that the universities did not impose enough accountability on such predators. I think the Administration has gone overboard in stripping away the accused due process protections and handing justice to people who will not manage the process well, but its the seriousness of this effort I want to point out. While I don't think the Administration's actions were appropriate to colleges, they would represent an entirely appropriate response to police violence. Someone needs to step in and enforce some accountability.
lolz..."losing a debate." [notso]Slyfield is a willful retard intoning the same mantra repeatedly. Debate with mouth-breathing fuckwits isn't possible. Too, "a certain class" knows how to spell "ad hominem."
You haven't been around very long. [notso]Slyfield's "debating" skillz are akin to several other retarded trolls that stink up the blog. He and they doggedly stick to demonstrably untrue, vague, or retarded talking points, to the point of absurdity. He and they think that they are clever and smarter than the collected wisdom of juries, experts, and such, but what they really are is retards and fuckwits unable to admit that they are ignoramuses on a mission. Civility is wasted on such assclowns.
Republicans have a fetish for cops such that they have no interest in accountability? What a complete crock.
No, it is impossible to debate with people who dismiss honest disagreement with insults. Of course, anyone who doesn't hold your identical views is mentally deficient, so you are just being "real" right?
I honestly don't know the facts of the case, and thought this exchange was interesting until your insults make clear you weren't to be taken seriously.
Federal rules on sexual misconduct at universities didn't come out of nowhere. They came out of Title IX.
And there is no Title IX-style legislation aimed at reducing the use of excessive force by police. It seems it could exist if it was based on the carrot of federal funding. But the legislation doesn't exist so the administration has no basis for writing rules. Period.
One problem is that the forensics data was gathered and processed by the police department. The witnesses were questioned by a prosecutor who works closely with that police department - and at least one lawyer-blogger is of the opinion that the grand jury transcript reads like Darren Wilson's defense attorney was questioning the witnesses, not a prosecutor. so if you don't trust the PD or the prosecutor, the grand jury proceedings don't prove anything.
And the second problem is that the people of Ferguson and many other communities around St. Louis have plenty of reason to distrust their cops and the rest of the criminal justice system. First off, these towns have been trying to finance themselves from fines, and late fees on fines, etc. - nearly all on the backs of the poor. Ferguson has more outstanding warrants than residents. The politicians started this system, but the police, prosecutors, and judges all play their part.
Also, it was Ferguson police that arrested the wrong man, beat him up in jail, and charged him with destruction of public property for bleeding on their uniforms - and then (apparently after someone told them how bad that sounded) switched their story and swore that no blood got on their uniforms. I don't know if they were lying then or lying now, but they lied. They were ready to swear to _anything_ that wouldn't make them look so bad, and there's been no sign of the prosecutor indicting them for perjury, nor of the department even firing them. So, is Wilson an honest cop among a pack of rogues, or another rogue?
My best guess is that _this_ _time_ he is basically telling the truth, Brown was looking for trouble, attacked Wilson through the window of the cop car, backed off when Wilson managed to fire a shot, but then charged. But the investigation by what amount to Wilson's fellow gang members doesn't increase my confidence in that.
In principal, tho rarely seen, a prosecutor is supposed to seek justice. His job is not to drag anyone who is accused of a crime off to trial. But he is supposed to act as a gatekeeper who prevents people from being unjustly prosecuted when the evidence does not lead him to think there will be a conviction.
I have seen comments from other prosecutors who say that the forensic and witness evidence so strongly supported the officer's story that they would never have brought this before a grand jury in the first place. The only reason that this was placed before the grand jury was to attempt to placate the mob.
So that being the case, why would he try to convince the grand jury to bring forth a true bill?
Was that powder burns or just torn up skin? Some of the wounds on Brown's hand (and DNA on the gun) may be consistent with getting his hand caught in the slide. That would also explain why the gun wouldn't fire the first two times Wilson pulled the trigger.
The problem is, this doesn't prove anything about what happened after Brown backed off. That is, we know:
--Brown was out and around the town in a bad mood. See the store surveillance tape. That kind of makes any questions about whether Wilson politely asked them to get out of the street or was abusive and apparently out to hassle anyone of the wrong age and color irrelevant.
--Wilson made a stupid tactical decision - instead of following the suspected strongarm robbers until backup arrived, he tried to cut them off with his car and take them himself - and when he did that, he placed himself where Brown could shove the car door back in his teeth and pound on him through the window. If you're going to block someone twice your size using your car and you don't intend to stay inside with the doors locked, you've got to block them on the passenger side. And you'd even more need to be on the opposite side from the suspects if they turn out to be armed. (Note that a related mistake was made with the 12 year old with the air soft gun - the driver/supervising cop put the passenger side next to the suspect, but that put the rookie at point blank range without cover, and the rookie panicked.)
--Brown shoved the door back in Wilson's teeth and attacked him.
--Wilson eventually got a shot off, and Brown backed off and ran. Wilson got out of the car.
--???
--Wilson pumped out a whole lot of rounds, several of which hit Brown in the front side. (If that picture that's been going around of a man with a terrible black eye is really Wilson right after this incident, he has a good excuse for poor aim, but maybe not as good an excuse for endangering the whole neighborhood?)
But the unanswered or unprovable questions:
--Why didn't Brown just keep on running? Was it perhaps that Wilson was shooting at his back, so he decided it was better to either stop or defend himself?
--Did Brown charge unprovoked, or charge because Wilson was going to kill him anyway?
--Weren't there any security cameras turned on that 30 feet of street? Or were there some, but Wilson's fellow cops made the tapes disappear?
Yes, those questions are highly biased against the Ferguson PD. It's a reputation they've earned.
The trouble is, even if the grand jury finds out about and uses these powers, it still goes to the prosecutor's office to prosecute - or dismiss (like the San Francisco prosecutor did with the indictments against higher police officials in Fajitagate), or to take the case to court and throw it. (Any competent lawyer could do that and still not look as bad as the Zimmerman prosecutors, who really were trying to win against all the evidence.)
The grand jury also needs the power to hire an independent prosecutor.
You are confusing "honest disagreement" with stubborn assholishness. [notso]Slyfield is a proudly ignorant Liberaltarian fucktard that dismisses facts, figures, and features of reality...like the rest of you Liberaltarian jackasses. Also: fuck you. You don't have any better grasp of the evidence, yet you feel compelled to chime in and defend [welcome]Matt from criticism. Fuck you and the Liberaltarian mare that dragged you here, felchtardian wretch.
You mistake the function of a grand jury with that of a petit jury. The grand jury's job is to determine whether there is sufficient evidence to warrant a trial. The petit jury's job is to determine guilt or innocence of particular crimes.
You mentioned 'that 30 feet of street', but remember that, according to blood spatters, Brown ran for about 160 feet (the width of a football field), and then came back about 25 feet, eventually falling 8 to 10 feet from Wilson from where Wilson had backed up to. Shell casings support Wilson's story that he had been backing away as Brown came towards him.
Wilson called for backup before going back to confront/keep an eye on the two suspects, and Brown was dead by the time the backup arrived, 90 seconds later. So backing up, the struggle at the car, Brown handing the cigarillos to Johnson, further struggle and gunshot, Brown running away 160 feet while Wilson chased him, and Brown coming back 25 feet, all happened in less than 90 seconds.
Haha, I hope that is just spittle on your keyboard.
Utopian??! I weep that we now EXPECT government to implement bullshit laws about reselling legally purchased property.
So many people poo-poo libertarians as "wanting lawless anarchy", but hell, we are buried up to our eyeballs in ridiculous laws. Can't we just TRY maybe just maybe not passing really stupid piddly laws that enable government to roll over the average Joe? Maybe we could get rid of some of the worthless laws we already have?
Case in point. I am absolutely convinced that within the next 1-2 years there will be a story in national news about a fatal shootout at a farm between a farmer and an EPA SWAT team (its terrible that we even have those) over a dispute where the farmer plowed and planted land that the EPA now classifies as a "waterway". There is in fact no other reason for this law than to appease "we're raping the natural world" environmentalists and to collect large fines, no other reasons at all. And force is what its going to take to make that pay off.
Poof goes Matthew Syfield's narritive.
Highly trained quarterbacks survive that, but there is also a person there that makes the attacker get off the quarterback and let him get back up.
I'm 6'3" but if I got hit full force by a 300+ pound lineman, I'd almost certainly end up in the hospital.
Physically assaulting a police officer.
There is virtually no instance where I would ever think that trying to hit a police office is a good idea. As a rational human being I believe that that kind of action could get me killed, or at the very least injured. You do have to be quite stupid or reckless to think that you can physically assault a cop and not be jeopardizing your life and health.
Yes, just taken as an exercise of logic there exists a case where the Brown shooting is justified.
BUT, having stricter ammunition rules and policies is very good method for increasing accountability.
AND you and skhpcola can agree on an action that will increase accountability, which will help increase our knowledge about police interactions. So there are solutions to this that do make sense.
A few years back I was in a Forest Service Campground (eastern USA) where our campsite neighbors were a small group of young men and women who clearly were doing drugs and alcohol. They were loud and abusive late at night. The contractor campground host was clearly an ex-military or cop who spent over an hour trying to talk them down with increasing serious references to bringing in the local sheriff. I debated joining him to offer some support, but I had our young daughter with us and let it go. The drugs took effect and the group passed out. But it was a good reminder of how tough it is to handle a belligerent, irrational group. I would not have wanted to be a lone deputy and campground host trying to remove them from the site. Would I be able to intimidate them by sheer presence and aggressiveness? If I did that every day, I'm pretty sure all my soft edges would wear off quickly.
The bottom line is that if you really want Andy Griffith, live in Mayberry with maybe one or two incidents a year. Put cops into gang country and you will get hard ass aggressive policing.
Someone needs to step in and enforce some accountability.
Great idea..not
Why not expand the Forest Service and train them to supervise all police and prosecutors and grand jurys, we constantly read here how equitable this arm of the FED govt can behave.
Or maybe the new panthers, they are holder and sharpie's buddies.
I got it!!! Obama promised on Youtube the SDS/SEIU agenda was his agenda and promised to paint the USA SEIU PURPLE. Sign them up. Or skip to the conclusion and sign up the CPUSA, headquarters in chicago to make sure all is "fair". Or van jones color of change, obama likes those commies. Free Mumia.. or whatever that cop killer's name is..
Local control, with very high level oversight like we have now, is working, look at the real numbers, except in Berkley. No wonder the DNC said this year we should destroy the Constitution, FED control past what now exists would be a nightmare bureaucracy.
Maybe someone has plans for Ferguson once many abandon the place? We will see. Why should any FED $$ be spent there? Much of the damage could have been prevented by responsible statements by obama and holder and they could have let ex-gov Nixon deploy the Nat Guard.
I would like to publicize an event of GOOD policing in Southwestern Michigan. To, y'know, balance all the recent stories of abusive policing.
Quick Summary: members of the public in danger from a knife-wielding stranger, four injured & could have been more. Timely & appropriate response by local law enforcement. Perp taken into custody. Detectives investigate & take wit statements. Initial court appearance tomorrow.
Stuff like this happens multiple times a day, EVERY DAY, in this country -- but you don't generally hear about the occasions when it all works just fine. Which is most of the time.
http://www.foxnews.com/…/police-credited-with-saving-lives…/
Ferguson and Staten Island are the anomaly, not the pattern. And the race-grievance industry in this country has latched onto them for their own political and activist purposes. And the willing sheeple march in supportive "protest." What a crock.
Glad to see Mr. Meyer slowly coming over to the AnCap side. Watching government is far less stressful when you realize that it's a waste of time to try and change it.
As a recovered minarchist / small-government conservative and then libertarian, it's almost funny to go back to the old argument: "Government is inefficient, incompetent, and nearly impossible to control. Therefore it should only be in charge of the most important things." Markets don't always deliver perfect or even great goods and services, but at least you always have choice (and if not, you can create it). Voting with your dollars is a million times more effective than voting at a ballot box.
Republicans fetishize the police, it is simple as that, Coyote?
You have done better work than this, often. We loyal readers appreciate the many links and your many disquisitions on things philosophical, not to mention interpretation of statistics and the limits of knowledge.
How about another categorical statement like, "Libertarians promote sex with heifers and sheep?" Is it possible to be a Republican and to be wary of the power of the state? Is that the biggest worry, now that WWIII has started and that there is a native-born Iranian Democrat acting as the Unlibertarian president's chief advisor? Are the Republicans ending coal?
The plural of datum is not hyperbole.
http://www.city-journal.org/2014/eon1204sm.html
William Scott who has a great blog addressing the issues of law enforcement reform and government reform would be a great read if you have the time. He has been in a situation where his son was killed by Vegas law enforcement and his story is amazing. I can't imagine how he must feel, but he is putting it out there for all to see and the call for reform from him is more than credible. williambscott.com is his site, his book is fantastic, a fiction novel based on his son's story called The Permit.