Your Government Doesn’t Love You – Page 135

But Police Need Military Gear

I’m firmly in the camp that says police officers should have all surplus military gear stripped from them. They’ve been handed this gear and proven to be irresponsible with it. But there are a lot of people claiming that the police need that equipment. Sadly most of the people making this claim do so because they want the police to be protected when they’re initiating aggression against nonviolent individuals not for protecting people. Take these two letters sent to the Star Tribune by, presumably, readers:

After reading Ross Douthat’s commentary “When the police dress for war” (Aug. 19), I’m thinking he has very little firsthand experience with enforcing the law. I’m thinking that he might completely reconsider his final comment — “time to take their toys away” — if he were sent to a “drug house” on a no-knock warrant, pushed to the front of the line of cops and told to “go in there with your six-shooter and take those drugs and weapons away from those hooligans.” One or two entries like that, and I believe we would find old Ross standing in front of the line at the “SWAT store” buying the latest, greatest offerings that would put him on par with what the criminals are toting.

Richard Greelis, Bloomington

You see the police need all of those toys so they are better protected when they kick in a person’s door, burn their baby with a flashbang grenade, and shoot the family pet all in the name of stopping them from smoking a plant or using some other unpatentable drug.

Every cop who stops a car knows things can go from routine to life-or-death without warning. This is true night or day, even with Volvos driven by middle-aged white men like the author of the Aug. 17 Short Takes (“Questioning authority: Trooper wanted to be in control”). If the writer chooses to drive with illegally tinted windows, then it is he, not the law officer, who is being rude and disrespectful.

By the way, the weather was bright and sunny when the officer from West St. Paul was recently murdered. I’m sure you get the picture.

Dennis H. Roberts, Maplewood

Police officers also need those toys so they can pull you over for exceeding the arbitrarily selected speed limit, create a dangerous situation by forcing motorists to slam on their brakes or pile into another lane in order to avoid hitting the dumbass getting out of his vehicle on a major highway, and issue you a citation for being a safe driver by driving with the flow of traffic.

This is a trend I’ve noticed with police apologists. They usually use examples where police officers are the aggressors and seldom discuss situations where officers are actually protecting lives. Perhaps this is because modern police spend so much time doing the former that nobody realizes that they’re ideally supposed to be doing the latter. But I haven’t heard an apologist say that the police need surplus military gear to handle hostage situations in a way that saves the hostages’ lives or to respond to calls from wives being viciously attacked by their husbands. Some have mentioned that they need that gear to stop riots like those occurring in Ferguson but I don’t give points to government goons who “solve” problems that they created in the first place (I’m harsh, I know).

No First Amendment Rights in Ferguson

At this point it’s pretty fucking obvious that the First Amendment doesn’t apply in Ferguson, Missouri anymore. But the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has finally come out and declared it so:

Police in Ferguson, Mo., on Monday began telling protesters – who have been gathered for days demanding justice for the death of an unarmed teenager at the hands of police – that they were no longer allowed to stand in place for more than five seconds, but had to keep moving.

“When inquiries were made to law enforcement officers regarding which law prohibits gathering or standing for more than five seconds on public sidewalks,” the ACLU of Missouri wrote in its emergency federal court filing to block the apparent policy, “the officers indicated that they did not know and that it did not matter. The officers further indicated that they were following the orders of their supervisors, whom they refused to name.” The ACLU argued the policy was a prior restraint on speech and asked for a temporary restraining order.

As if the emphasis the ACLU’s point law enforcers in Ferguson put their boots on the faces of nine protesters, one of whom was a 90 year-old Holocaust survivor:

She knew about a gathering in downtown St. Louis to protest Missouri Governor Jay Nixon’s decision to activate the National Guard. As she and her fellow protesters peacefully marched towards the Wainwright Building, where Nixon keeps an office, they chanted “Hey, hey! Ho, ho! National Guard has got to go!” and “Hands up! Don’t shoot!” according to The Nation. Some people gave speeches. Others held signs. Epstein says she and her fellow protesters aimed to walk into Nixon’s office and formally ask him to de-escalate the situation in Ferguson. But police and security officers blocked the door, preventing them from entering.

“I really didn’t think about being arrested or doing anything like that,” Epstein told Newsweek. “I was just going to be somebody in the crowd. I guess maybe I was impulsive: Someone said, ‘Who is willing to be arrested if that happens?’ I said, ‘Yeah, I’m willing.’”

A police officer informed the crowd that Nixon and his staff were not in the building, Epstein says, and urged them to leave. When she and eight other protesters refused, they were arrested for failure to disperse. Police handcuffed Epstein behind her back and took her to a nearby police substation. She was booked, given a court date of October 21, and then told she could leave.

I’m sure that won’t fan the flames even more! Sheesh. With the way law enforcers in Ferguson are acting you’d think they were trying to ignite the powder key that city has become.

We keep hearing about the violence occurring in Ferguson as a justification for law enforcer tactics. But law enforcer tactics are instigating violence by depriving people of peaceful means of addressing this situation. When people are being arrested for reporting on the situation, tear gassed for assembling peacefully, and being prevented from petitioning their government then the people perpetuating violence are going to feel justified and the people barred from peaceful action may turn to violent action instead.

Civil unrest needs to be handled with calm and cool heads. When the civil unrest is caused by police actions then the only way to properly resolve the situation is to have a neutral third party investigate the matter and make all information regarding the investigation available to the people. By actively oppressing peaceful protesters and restricting information regarding the investigation the law enforcers of Ferguson are guaranteeing continued civil unrest.

Victim Blaming

With all of the shit hitting the fan in Ferguson I think it’s a good idea to figure out what one needs to do in order to not get their ass kicked or shot by the police. Fortunately Sunil Dutta, a man who was an officer for the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) for 17 years, was kind enough to pen an article explaining exactly that:

Sometimes, though, no amount of persuasion or warnings work on a belligerent person; that’s when cops have to use force, and the results can be tragic. We are still learning what transpired between Officer Darren Wilson and Brown, but in most cases it’s less ambiguous — and officers are rarely at fault. When they use force, they are defending their, or the public’s, safety.

Even though it might sound harsh and impolitic, here is the bottom line: if you don’t want to get shot, tased, pepper-sprayed, struck with a baton or thrown to the ground, just do what I tell you. Don’t argue with me, don’t call me names, don’t tell me that I can’t stop you, don’t say I’m a racist pig, don’t threaten that you’ll sue me and take away my badge. Don’t scream at me that you pay my salary, and don’t even think of aggressively walking towards me. Most field stops are complete in minutes. How difficult is it to cooperate for that long?

Emphasis mine. Did you get that? If an officer uses force, in a majority of cases, it’s the victim’s fault. You see the victim refused to roll over and be an obedient serf so the officer had no other choice but to beat his ass or shoot him! After all police officers truly love us and sometimes we make them do violent things by failing to properly respond to their love. Admittedly there are a few bad apples out there but for the most part cops only beat you because they love you.

Talk about unapologetic victim blaming. Mr. Dutta’s argument can basically be summed up as “Shut up, slave!” It doesn’t surprise me that a 17 year veteran of the LAPD holds this attitude. Although no statistics exist, as far as I know, documenting the reason for police interactions I believe, based on the way laws are enforced, that a vast majority of encounters involve the officer initiating force. A majority of police activity involves extorting money from the populace. We see this in the form of speeding tickets, parking citations, civil forfeitures, fines for drinking alcohol in public parks, littering, and other nonviolent acts. In each of those instances a police officer is approaching a nonviolent individual and threatening them with force (because all laws are ultimately enforced at the point of a gun). In those cases the person approached by police is the victim and the officer is the aggressor.

There is no reason, other than the threat of violence made by an officer, for anybody to be polite to a another person who approaches solely to make a threat. In fact anybody making threats should expect to get an impolite response. Police officers are fortunate that most Americans are polite to a fault. Even when an officer threatens a person that person will usually say a few harsh words, passively resist being kidnapped, or spit in an officer’s face. While police officers often talk about how dangerous their job is in reality they have it pretty easy in this country. Only once in a great while do they have to make good on their threats. Otherwise people blow off a little steam and pay the demanded extortion money.

But, as Mr. Dutta points out, even if your show the slightest amount of displeasure towards a badge-wearing aggressor you risk being pummeled or murdered. And this is somehow the victim’s fault.

I Wonder Where Their Reputation Comes From

More and more modern police departments are getting a reputation for being little more than violent thugs with badges. After reading some of the statements posted by police officers in regard to the Michael Brown shooting it’s pretty easy to see where that reputation stems from. For example, take a look at this gem I came across on Facebook:

Even though the facts aren’t in about what exactly went down this fine officer openly states that he would have tripped up Brown just so he could beat the shit out of him. Additionally he admitted to the fact that he wouldn’t stop until his fellow officers pulled him off of Brown (or, I assume, after Brown ceased living).

Social media has given us access to a treasure trove of information including how many people working for the state really think.

The Angry Mob Has Arrived

A lot of people have been debating whether or not Michael Brown robbed a story and how that justified Darren Wilson’s actions. I feel as though that argument misses the big picture, which is how the situation in Ferguson has been handled by police. To say it was handled stupidly would be giving too much credit Ferguson’s law enforcement. Roughing up and arresting reporters, tear gassing news camera crews, arresting photographers, and tear gassing nonviolent protesters is not a good way to handle civil unrest generated by a general feeling of police corruption. Keeping the name of the officer who shot Brown secret for so long didn’t help matters nor has the secrecy surrounding the internal investigation.

The people of Ferguson are pissed and when the angry mob rises it comes knocking. Protesters apparently tried to storm Governor Nixon’s office yesterday. That doesn’t surprise me but the fact that the building’s security was able to keep the angry mob out does.

In all likelihood this situation is going to burn itself out soon. Riots have a habit of simmering down fairly fast, which is why they’re seldom effective at enacting any meaningful change. But the National Guard could always decided to follow in the steps of the previous law enforcement officers tasked with putting Ferguson back under the state’s foot and bring this entire mass to the flashpoint again. It will be interesting to see how this entire situation turns out. My guess is that the internal investigation, that is to say Wilson’s fellows in the state’s police force, will find no wrongdoing on Wilson’s part. That’s the usual outcome of these investigations. If that happens things could get really interesting.

Betsy Hodges Puts Forward a Stupid Proposition

Betsy Hodges is the current mayor of Minneapolis. Those familiar with her probably read the title and said “No duh.” She’s a statist, which means she frequently makes stupid propositions. But her budget proposal really takes the cake. Specifically:

The most significant new spending is in the area of public safety. Hodges wants to spend nearly $2 million to hire 20 community service officers and an 18-person police cadet class, two of the most reliable feeders for the city’s police force. To drive down crime, she wants to boost the number of officers to 860, which is above last year’s budget but equal to the figure Chief Janeé Harteau has said she hopes to reach by the end of the year.

In the name of public safety she wants to add more people to the ranks of Minneapolis’s most violent gang. Talk about failing to understand the problem. The Minneapolis Police Department has a colorful history but even if you put that aside it still performs a lot of crime. For example, it guns down family pets. When it’s not performing raids on suspected drug users so it can confiscate their property (thankfully that’s slightly harder in Minnesota now). Minneapolis’s finest also find time to write a massive number of parking and traffic citations. And the department has a lot of connections with local business, which it helps drum up business for (my friend recently had his motorcycle stolen and Minneapolis Police Department made him pay to get it out of the impound yard after finding it).

What’s especially ironic about her proposal is that she knows that the city’s police officers are trouble:

Hodges wants to spend $1.1 million for police to wear body cameras, a program she trumpeted during her campaign that she hopes will reduce use-of-force complaints.

I’m all for making police departments wear cameras so long as the footage is always available to the public and cannot be tossed down the memory hole by government officials. But her proposal to make Minneapolis’s most violent gang members wear cameras is also an admittance to the fact that the department has a lot of use-of-force complaints against it. She knows the department has a history of unnecessary violence yet she still wants to provide it more funding to hire more thugs.

If Hodges really wanted to reduce crime she would either reduce the number of criminals in city’s officially sanctioned gang or, preferable, disband the department entirely and allow the market to fill the demand for protective services (something the Minneapolis Police Department doesn’t seem to focus on at all).

Who Rules America

Are you sitting down? If you’re not you should be before reading further because I’ve got some news that will shatter your reality:

A shattering new study by two political science professors has found that ordinary Americans have virtually no impact whatsoever on the making of national policy in our country. The analysts found that rich individuals and business-controlled interest groups largely shape policy outcomes in the United States.

The new study, with the jaw-clenching title of “Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens,” is forthcoming in the fall 2014 edition of Perspectives on Politics. Its authors, Martin Gilens of Princeton University and Benjamin Page of Northwestern University, examined survey data on 1,779 national policy issues for which they could gauge the preferences of average citizens, economic elites, mass-based interest groups and business-dominated interest groups. They used statistical methods to determine the influence of each of these four groups on policy outcomes, including both policies that are adopted and rejected.

The analysts found that when controlling for the power of economic elites and organized interest groups, the influence of ordinary Americans registers at a “non-significant, near-zero level.“

Ho. Ly. Shit. You mean to tell me that economic elites and organized interest groups basically own the government? Mind. Blown.

I can’t believe it! Somebody actually had to do a study to figure this out? It wasn’t at all obvious that the people of the United States have had effectively no say in their government for the last several decades (I would argue since the government’s inception but I’ll be conservative for the sake of this post). Like all men are created equal, the fact that we have no say in our government is self-evident. Without much effort you can usually figure out what special interest group bought a law even when most Americans opposed it.

It’s still nice to see more people pointing this fact out since there are a lot of people who don’t seem to realize it.

Highway Patrol Placed in Charge of Ferguson, Missouri

I guess the police operating in Ferguson went too far when they roughed up and arrested a few reporters because, well, that’s how you get reporters to cover your police state shenanigans. Now that the press is actually covering Ferguson the governor of Missouri has decided to finally step in and make it appear as though he cares by ordering the Highway Patrol to deal with the civil unrest:

Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon on Thursday ordered the state Highway Patrol to take over security in Ferguson, the St. Louis suburb roiled by four nights of unrest over the police killing of an unarmed black teenager.

The governor moved after police came under intense criticism for their handling of the protests, including firing tear gas into crowds Wednesday night and arresting two reporters.

Now the Highway Patrol can come in looking like liberators:

Highway Patrol officers — wearing no SWAT gear — arrived in Ferguson late Thursday afternoon. Cheers greeted the announcement by the head of the patrol, Capt. Ron Johnson, over a megaphone that he and his officers were “going to march with you.”

In reality this will merely ensure that the police officers who committed violent acts against nonviolent people will go unpunished. The people of Ferguson will jump for joy that they have been liberated from the oppressive Special Weapons And Tactics (SWAT) teams and forget that those bastards should be locked in a cage like any other violent gang member. It’s a wonderful ploy that probably saved the SWAT team members’ asses.

If Mr. Nixon really gave a damn about the people of Ferguson he would have ordered the Highway Patrol to arrest every SWAT team member involved in perpetrating violence on nonviolent individuals.

Freest Country on Earth

Yesterday the police of Ferguson, Missouri were telling news reporters to get the hell out. Some of them didn’t listen and decided to exercise their press rights and were duly arrested:

Two reporters covering the unrest in Ferguson, Missouri were arrested and physically assaulted by police on Wednesday.

Ryan Reilly, the justice correspondent for The Huffington Post, and Washington Post reporter Wesley Lowery were working in a McDonald’s when a SWAT team suddenly invaded the restaurant. After being told to stop recording the proceedings, and refusing, both men were then violently arrested. (Recording police officers is a legal act.) Lowery was shoved into a soda machine. An officer slammed Reilly’s head against glass.

In defense of the brave men and women of the Ferguson SWAT team the reporters were told to get the hell out yesterday. Since they didn’t listen the city’s heroes did what they had to do to make a point: beat the fuck out of the reporters and throw them in a cage. That will teach those disobedient reporters what the First Amendment is all about!

What’s ironic is that the biggest criticism people wield against anarchy is that it would be a state of perpetual chaos where the strong prey on the weak. The reason that criticism is ironic is because we currently live in a society that has a state that creates perpetual chaos and preys on the weak. What is happening in Ferguson right now is the product of statism. A gang of thugs working for the state are able to beat people with impunity, even those who supposedly have a legal right to report on the disturbance, because they are soldiers of the state and have shiny badges pinned to their chest that grant them legal immunity. This is why I don’t take that criticism seriously.

Freedom of the Press Means the Freedom to Shut Up and Obey

Welcome to America where the freedom of the press is ensconced in our Bill of Rights. What freedoms does the press have? For starters it has the right to shut the fuck up and do what its told:

While there was a spate of looting on Sunday night, Monday’s demonstrations were peaceful. Protestors faced tear gas and rubber bullets from officers trying to break their ranks up. At the same time, police told local media to get out of the area.

Of course after the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) declared all airspace up to 3,000 in Ferguson feet a no-fly zone it’s not like the press was going to get helicopters in to cover the unfolding events. Living in a totalitarian state is fun!