Should You Ever Find Yourself Stopped By the Fuzz

19 Monday Aug 2013

Posted by Sherry in 4th Amendment, Crap I Learned, Humor, Judiciary, racism, Satire

Tags

Well, see, most of you won’t. Won’t find yourself stopped and “frisked” by the PO-lice. I am pretty sure of that. But some of you will.

And you will wonder why.

And you will know.

You were “walking or driving while black”, or brown. Pretty much stop and frisk laws don’t apply to driving. But the principle is still pretty much the same. Pretty much they don’t apply to white people. Pretty much they are really “stop and frisk that black/brown kid” laws.

And I should know.

I worked with this stuff for twenty years, “back in the day”. Yes, it goes back that far, in fact it goes back way far. To the early 60’s.

When crime was “rampant” and large cities were losing white folks due to “white flight”, and that was due to “crime” or so they thought. And so they thought they would get tough on crime.

Detroit, of which I am intimately familiar, did it with a unit called S.T.R.E.S.S. (Stop the Robberies, Enjoy Safe Streets). It was supposed to reduce crime. All it did was make the black community fear and hate the cops, and after a whole lot of black kids were shot to death, it was disbanded by newly elected black mayor Coleman Young.

S.T.R.E.S.S. had been brought to an end before I arrived, freshly washed behind the ears, full of the desire to stick it to the “pigs” and protect “the people” from militarist style policing.

But then there was stop and frisk. Stop and Frisk arose from a case called Terry v. Ohio. Now we can ignore the facts, and just state the rule: “if an officer comes upon a person who he reasonably believes is, has or is about to commit a crime, he may, IF he can point to specific and articulable facts from which it can reasonably be deduced that the person so confronted is armed and dangerous, he may pat down the outer clothing of said person for the SOLE purpose of determining whether said person is carrying a weapon.” Whew. Got all that?

If he feels a weapon, he may retrieve it. Otherwise he may ask the person questions which may or may not allay his fears and concerns. The point of the frisk is solely for the officer or “bystanders” safety in the moment. The law was extended to an “area” around the individual to which he might “lunge” in an attempt to secure a weapon. (read glove box or sofa or other hiding spot).

Now that’s what the law says is legal.

And being a normal person, you assume that that is how it works.

If you believe that then you believe that doctors and nurses have no dirty little secrets about what goes on in hospitals, labs and operating rooms, and you trust the military to always follow the rules of war.

Some of you may be familiar with the Rules of Justice as enunciated by Alan Dershowitz, well-known professor of law and attorney:

I. ALMOST ALL CRIMINAL DEFENDANTS ARE , IN FACT, GUILTY.

II. ALL CRIMINAL DEFENSE LAWYERS, PROSECUTORS AND JUDGES UNDERSTAND AND BELIEVE RULE I.

III. IT IS EASIER TO CONVICT GUILTY DEFENDANTS BY VIOLATING THE CONSTITUTION THAN BY COMPLYING WITH IT, AND IN SOME CASES IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO CONVICT GUILTY DEFENDANTS WITHOUT VIOLATING THE CONSTITUTION.

IV. ALMOST ALL POLICE LIE ABOUT WHETHER THEY VIOLATED THE CONSTITUTION IN ORDER TO CONVICT GUILTY DEFENDANTS.

V. ALL PROSECUTORS, JUDGES AND DEFENSE ATTORNEYS ARE AWARE OF RULE IV.

VI. MANY PROSECUTORS IMPLICITLY ENCOURAGE POLICE TO LIE ABOUT WHETHER THEY VIOLATED THE CONSTITUTION IN ORDER TO CONVICT GUILTY DEFENDANTS.

VII. ALL JUDGES ARE AWARE OF RULE VI.

VIII. MOST TRIAL JUDGES PRETEND TO BELIEVE POLICE OFFICERS WHO THEY KNOW ARE LYING

IX. ALL APPELLATE JUDGES ARE AWARE OF RULE VIII, YET MANY PRETEND TO BELIEVE THE TRIAL JUDGES WHO PRETEND TO BELIEVE THE POLICE OFFICERS.

X. MOST JUDGES DISBELIEVE DEFENDANTS ABOUT WHETHER THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS HAVE BEEN VIOLATED, EVEN IF THEY ARE TELLING THE TRUTH.

XI. MOST JUDGES AND PROSECUTORS WOULD NOT KNOWINGLY CONVICT A DEFENDANT WHO THEY BELIEVE TO BE INNOCENT OF THE CRIME CHARGED (OR A CLOSELY RELATED CRIME).

XII. RULE XI DOES NOT APPLY TO MEMBERS OF ORGANIZED CRIME, DRUG DEALERS, CAREER CRIMINALS, OR POTENTIAL INFORMANTS.

XIII. NOBODY REALLY WANTS JUSTICE.

And that my friends is pretty close to being the utter truth. In big city courts, it’s mostly about moving the mountain of cases through the system in a reasonable order, such that the state supreme court doesn’t start getting on your back for “backlogs”. The entire plea-bargaining system is predicated on it–too many cases, not enough cells. Plead to something you did not do, get out of jail, OR insist on a trial, wait until next year and wait IN jail for it, and God help you if you lose, cuz them I’m gonna throw the damned book and the library it’s attached to at ya, and say hi to not getting out of prison before you’re a very old man.

That’s the system.

So, how is this stop and frisk actually done in practice you ask?

Well, it goes something like this:

Drive to area which is designated as “high crime” usually involving drugs.
Swoop in. Multiple police cars coming from all for directions works best.
Jump out and start chasing all the young black men you see.
Scream a lot, using the “f” word liberally.
Spread-eagle on any wall of any building all those corralled.
Search them all.
Go around the sidewalks picking up any dope you find lying around.
Arrest anyone who was “holding”. Give the “found” dope to anyone who is a big mouth.
At station, write a report that says something like:

“My partner and I, while on routine patrol in the vicinity of John R and Erskine, observed the defendant walking down the sidewalk. As we approached, he looked in our direction, then turned and walked briskly away. As he was walking, I saw a white folded up paper, which through previous experience, I suspected was cocaine, fall from his hand onto the sidewalk. We stopped the scout car, and my partner went toward the paper while I continued to follow the defendant on foot. My partner alerted me that it was suspected cocaine, and I detained the defendant and placed him under arrest.”

And that is what he will testify to in court, or as we now call it, testalie.

And the defendant will most often plead, though he was one of the loudmouths who didn’t have any dope, but was visiting his uncle’s house down the street, and was actually sitting on the porch when the police came in and ordered him off the porch. He told them they were harassing him for no reason and that he would sue. So he got to be “it” –the recipient of any contraband they could not obviously tie to any individual.

He will plead because the judge said he would entertain a motion to release him on personal bond if he copped, but alas if he wanted a trial (which he really does, being innocent and all), he won’t get one for five months and being a drug user presumably, poses such a risk to all, that he will have to remain in the county jail all that time. Oh, and due to the fact that he has no record,he will surely get probation most probably (I’m sure your lawyer already told you that) for a plea, but if a jury convicts you, well then we will just have to see (the book is headed for your head).

And that is how justice is pretty much meted out in the mean streets of big city USA, and yeah, it’s all racial profiling, and worse, and nobody thinks it can be fixed, because nobody really cares.

All that crap Bloomberg has been spouting about “stop, question, frisk? Pure bull.

Are we clear?

Stop & Frisk (skyestats.wordpress.com)
Judge Rules NYC Stop-and-Frisk Policy Unconstitutional (newsy.com)
Stop And Frisk Is Criminal (dish.andrewsullivan.com)

Whose Ox Is Getting Gored Today?

28 Thursday Feb 2013

Posted by Sherry in 4th Amendment, Brain Vacuuming, Constitution, GOP, Health care, Humor, Individual Rights, poverty, Satire, Steven King, teabaggers

≈ 10 Comments

Tags

4th Amendment, Bruce Braley, constitutional rights, freedom, GOP, Health care, Steve King, tea party, teabaggers, Tom Latham, welfare programs

With some folks, freedom and all that fuzzy patriotic stuff can be, shall we say, relative. Much like fundamentalists and their rather astute manner in taking what they like in the Bible quite literally (even when that is not the actual meaning) and ignoring that which they don’t agree with, it seems that our more loudmouthed extremists on the right do the same thing.

You don’t have to watch it. Suffice it to say that our Hannity of Faux News is busy calling Mayor Bloomberg a nanny for his efforts to help his constituents stop ingesting such awful fake food into their bodies.

Now you can agree or not agree with Bloomberg on this. I tend to agree, but I also recognize that it’s very hard to impose such things on people who are addicted to the high sugar, high fat, no nutrient value of a lot of fast food and drink. And there is this other thing–it is an impingement in a sense on one’s right to kill themselves if they so choose.

Note we are not talking about school lunches and the right of school officials to help children develop good eating habits in the first place. That is a laudable goal, and schools provide the opportunity for some children to get the only decent meal they get all day.

But juxtapose Hannity’s silly outrage at Bloomberg’s behavior with that of Nikki Halley’s attempt to limit food stamp usage in her state to only “healthy” food items, meaning that you can’t use them to buy chips and soda and stuff like that I presume. Is she now to be called “nanny” Halley? I’m sure Republicans support her efforts to reduce “obesity” in her state, or is it just possible there is some other motive involved?

I recently had a conversation with a man who hates government programs like food stamps, precisely because he has “stood behind people in line who had food stamps and they weren’t buying good food, but stuff that was unhealthy, and “stuff I wouldn’t be buying if I was allegedly that poor” The real motive being–I want to control charity to others so I can make sure it goes to the “right” people and is used in the “right” way. He had early objected when he offered some leftover pizza to a man who asked for a couple of bucks. When the man reiterated that he’s just like the two bucks, the guy grew incensed, since “he wanted the money, obviously for something other than hunger relief.”

This raises the ugly specter of folks that think they have the right to control those people who they deign to give help to. I you think I’m assuming a bit too much here, I invite you to the case of Florida and Governor Scott’s attempt to impose drug testing on welfare applicants.

A federal district court ruled Scott’s attempt blatantly unconstitutional, and a Federal appellate court agreed, finding unanimously that the attempt to monitor citizens in this fashion violated their 4th Amendment rights. Note the assumption made here by Scott and Republicans: that welfare recipients necessarily pose a significantly higher threat of drug usage than other citizens. Such is neither warranted by the facts or commons sense, and bespeaks a racist overtone that is apparent to at least me.

Now, I’m told that the conservative seeks to remove government from interfering in the lives of individuals. These examples, serve I think to suggest that that is nothing but balderdash to use a quaint conservative term. It all depends it seems on whose freedoms are at stake–the tiny minority of fellow-traveling extremists, or all those “others” who we don’t really like simply because they ain’t like us.

What to know the ugly truth of why health care costs are so high? It’s because they charge ten times more for stuff and you get stuck with it. They give you a Tylenol and the charge is more than a whole bottle would be at the drugstore. There is a major exposé in Time this week and you can read it here. Thanks to Squatlo Rant for the link up.

Best news of the day? Oh by far it’s that Tom Latham, (R-IA) has determined not to run for Tom Harkin’s senate seat. Latham is a true conservative, but he’s not insane. This leaves the pathway wide open for the one and only truly insane candidate on the extremity of the Republican Right little toe—-our favorite idiot Steve King.

And that means that Bruce Braley, an excellent Democratic candidate who is already “in” for running, is sure to win this seat.

I cannot wait to watch this one. King, who is so famous for not debating his opponent, won’t get away with it this time. It should be fun.

Dear Karl of course was threatening to send in his money against King, which hopefully only will make him want it all the more, and that is all she wrote, said the spider to the fly.

Tom Latham won’t run for Senate in Iowa, clearing path for Steve King (dailykos.com)
Latham out of U.S. Senate race; King weighing decision (thegazette.com)

Or Are You Just Glad to See Me?

03 Tuesday Apr 2012

Posted by Sherry in 4th Amendment, Election 2012, GOP, Health care, Humor, Individual Rights, Mitt Romney, religion, Satire, What's Up?

≈ 6 Comments

Tags

4th Amendment, Christianity, health care law, Mitt Romney, religion, SCOTUS

Strip search!

Oh yeah.

Oh?

You mean it’s not THAT kind?

Oh.

You mean nasty women in sensible shoes making me do what?

Oh no, no, no, no.

It seems our illustrious banc of increasingly, how shall I say this delicately, CRAZY MF’ing NUTS, have decided that the most minor of offenses (and only being charged) subjects the lucky recipient to a lovely and sexless full body search. Strip it ma’am!

Now, once upon a time, in a universe invented by me, a remember sitting in a classroom at MSU listening to a professor tell me all about his computerized model for predicting the outcome of cases before the supremest of Supremes. He had something like a 93% level of accuracy, so there was something to his madness.

I do very much recall that he suggested that one idea that played heavily on their collective minds in determining these “individual rights” cases, was the degree to which they could envision themselves or others of “their kind” being subjected to the objected of action. Most could see themselves, for instance, stopped in a store by mistake by a security officer who thought they saw something funny. So they were protective of people’s sense of personal privacy when confronted by rent-a-cops.

Well, apparently, five of ’em no longer see the possibility that they might be *gasp* arrested for some minor offense, even by mistake. So they have no problem with all your privaty parts swaying in the wind before strangers as they poke and probe parts unseen since your mommy wiped your butt.

I personally don’t know whether to be offended or excited. I’m still pondering. Denise finds it all odious.

I’m a fan of Andrew Sullivan. Which is not to say that I agree with him on a whole host of issues. But sometimes he is just simply right. If you didn’t see the piece he did on Christianity, then do please follow the link and read it. It’s really good. I’ve been kicking around a post about religion and organized religion for a bit, and this certainly helped to gel some ideas I’ve been bubbling up. The organized Church is to a real extent, merely the vehicle we choose to express our faith. When we start defending the institution, we are probably heading in the wrong direction.

Those of you who hang out here regularly, know that I loves me some quantum mechanics. I get all squishy doe-eyed when quarks are mentioned and singularities, and oh, be still my beating heart–dark energy. Well, here’s one that purely had me giggling. A Quantum Theory of Mitt Romney, well, it does explain a lot. It does. Really. Think multiple universes and Romnealities. Think Romneverse. Delicious.

Bless her heart, Ann Romney is doin’ her best to stand by her man. He’s human! He’s funny! He’s a prankster! Ann assures us that he is no stiffy. Just “unzip” him and you’ll see. Well, gosh, I bet she didn’t mean it THAT way. But that’s the way we all took it.

We know that Willard is amusing.

We expect they are a fun family.

But I am concerned about one thing.

They name their kids weird too. Like Tragg.

What is a Tragg? Is it like a Trig or a Bristol or one of those Alaskan things?

Is there something we don’t know here?

Or did Sarah pick it up from Willard?

Wanna use an etch-a-sketch now Ann?

I probably should read more Susan Sontag. I definitely should read more Peter Abelard. I need more lives in order to read all the things I need to read. Which doesn’t even begin to account for all the things I want to read.

Ya know, the Supreme Court. I’ve been reading lots of opinions about what they will do. And why. Mostly about why. I mean lets start out with the fact that they have no enforcement tool. They depend on a sense of legitimacy which will encourage the active arms of government to do as they say. How precarious is that?

So far, it’s not been.

But plenty of folks were disturbed by Bush v Gore, and thought it was partisan.

Plenty of folks are disturbed by Citizens United. Plenty figure the Court is overly supportive of big business interests.

When something like 96% of all legal experts say that the constitutionality of the AHCA is clear, you have to wonder.

Do these black-robes actually care how history views them? Do enough of them care? Does Roberts care?

Kevin Drum at MotherEarthJones has a good article. Would a defeat of the health care act mobilize the Left?

I just read, (without citation) that Willard has said that an economy is simply the sum total of businesses. Has he been reading Rand? I guess workers, consumers, teachers, police, firemen, doctors, and on and on and on, don’t have a thing to do with it. Just fodder. If ever there was a man consumed with the idea that what he ~~does~~ has done, is the only thing that matters, it’s Willard.

There has been comment on the fact that Newty and Ragin’ have failed to correct or to respond to ugly remarks made by supporters of theirs who ask questions. Things that have to do with the President being a “Muslim” and so forth. It turns out that Willard is cut of the same piece of cheap cloth, more than willing to allow slurs to go unanswered, and even willing to have his picture taken with them. Witness: