Gangsters in Blue

If you’ve been following this story then you know just how frightening this passage is:

A jury verdict that cleared a police officer in the drug-raid shooting death of an unarmed woman will allow other officers to do their job without hesitation, police union officials said.

Because, clearly, unloading a hailstorm of bullets into a closed bedroom door in a house you know ahead of time has a family with children present is not something about which you should have the slightest hesitation whatsoever. And hesitation (in other words taking a moment to think about what you’re doing) is something that cops have been told for years gets them killed; therefore, end of story, no possible competing interests worthy of consideration from a public policy perspective at all, period. Don’t worry about that, officer; it’s just a flesh wound, and you’re just doing your job.

If only we understood the unique, existential dilemma of police officers, doing a difficult, dangerous job day in and day out with so little appreciation! Why can’t the pussified public suck it up and understand that officers are professionals who are trained to do, well, whatever they feel like doing at any particular moment, which is by definition “professional” and “heroic” and goddamnit who are you to question them, anyway? And we can’t have any breaks in the thin blue line, so any officers who might disagree with Lima’s professional law enforcement standards will dutifully shut up and let the press frame the entire profession’s reaction to the verdict as “cheering”.

I’ll say it again: if the only way you can do your job safely is by endangering others, don’t act like you’re doing the rest of us any favors. If you’re going to frame this issue in a way that pits cops against citizens, don’t be surprised when you lose public support.

If you don’t read the FlexYourRights.org blog, you’re missing out on good legal information that can seriously help you out on police encounters. There’s even a video they’ve produced to train people on how to deal with the police. While I think it’s good operating procedure to behave as if none of your rights will be upheld by cops, knowing your rights gives you insight into police tactics and actions to which you are likely to be subject. And if you silently observe police behavior, rather than complaining about how bad the cops are on the scene, you may be more likely to simply get out of the situation or at least present evidence to a court that catches police off-guard. Remember: no information you provide on the scene can help you; save any argument you want to make for the judge.

Anyway, the latest FlexYourRights.org blog article deals with a predictable complaint: that helping people protect their rights impedes law enforcement work. As I’ve previously remarked, that’s a feature, not a bug. We should put up the maximum resistance possible to all authority, because it is our cooperation with and obedience to the state that enables and empowers it. However, since the state has a monopoly on the investigation and prosecution of legitimate crimes, should we always refuse to cooperate?

The first thing I’d say is that the maxim of conduct I’ve emphasized is my opinion; before adopting it, you think about it carefully. There are undoubtedly exceptions - my point is that, ideally (and when is a police encounter “ideal”?), you should be in control of the encounter rather than them. You should choose what to say rather than them directing the flow of information; you should choose whether you stay or go rather than them. When in doubt: shut up and trust nobody!

And what about cases where legitimate crimes necessitate the provision of information to investigating law enforcement officers? It is here that FLR.org has wise words:

The situations in which our advice to remain silent is more likely to make a difference is in cases in which the police suspect a crime may be afoot, but don’t have evidence and must intimidate the suspect into self-incrimination, i.e. “If you have drugs, we’re gonna find ‘em. You might as well just hand it over and we’ll go easier on you.” Again, this will have no effect on clearance rates for reported crimes, except, ironically, to the extent that this type of policing draws resources away from investigating unsolved violent crimes.

With regard to requests to search (which you should always refuse; if they have a warrant, they won’t ask!):

The crimes that take the biggest toll on our communities aren’t solved through warrantless searches. Police who are investigating a rape, robbery, or murder aren’t using consent searches to investigate their suspects. Overwhelmingly, consent searches are used to attempt to discover crimes that weren’t known until the search was conducted. They have absolutely no impact on clearance rates for reported crimes. (my emphasis)

This makes sense: when there is an actual crime being investigated, police already have powers that don’t require them to trick you into self-incrimination. Only when they are fishing for a bump in arrest rates will they try to engage you in a conversation without providing for your immunity or legal representation. So deny them the chance: do your part to put the kibosh on the proactive, intrusive, authoritarian police state!

Via Rad Geek I found some great footage that demonstrates just how difficult it can be to be silent in the face of aggressive police tactics:

When this guy tried to remain silent, the cop threatened arrest for “impeding an investigation”. It’s important to know that cops can lie. Legally, they are under no obligation to be honest with you in any way, shape, or form. So how are you possibly going to be able to negotiate with these people?

Remember, you live in occupied territory. Your country has been conquered by a foreign power from the city-state of Washington, D.C. These cops are the troops. The sooner you stop depending on the government, the police, or any institution outside yourself for your safety and the protection of your “rights”, the better prepared you will be for these kinds of encounters.

A freedom based on myths of rights and liberties upheld by strangers is no freedom at all. If you want to be free, build your freedom in the real world: on your ability to choose your attitude, to control yourself, to select your values, to opt-out of the system to the extent possible, and to pick your battles. Don’t blow it trying to showdown with the occupation authority, especially when they have the upper hand.

One more thing: it may seem like a contradiction for me to say that, while you should operate as if none of your rights will be upheld, you should exercise your right to remain silent. I don’t think you should remain silent because you have the right. Stay silent because:

1. They are unlikely to compel you to talk. If they torture you, obviously nobody would blame you for talking. And yes, that probably won’t happen - but this is what I’m talking about: retooling our expectations to reflect our actual experience, not our theoretical rights.
2. Stalling the cops is the safest and simplest way to interrupt their occupation activities. Why should you not “impede their investigation”? By holding the cops up at the scene, you’re doing the community a small favor - the amount of time you delay them keeps them off the streets causing possibly worse trouble.

It’s in that same spirit of passive resistance that I’m considering following a rule of refusing to sign any future traffic tickets. Of course, signing a traffic ticket is not an admission of guilt; it just means you’re pledging to show up for your court date. The alternative to signing is going before a magistrate, which means arrest. If you can possibly afford the inconvenience, it is one way to drain the occupation force’s resources.

What other ways can we passively resist and gum up the administration of the American occupation? I’d be interested in your thoughts.

I think that Obama’s recent statements about poor people clinging to guns and God are being blown out of proportion. Certainly there’s a sense in which oppressed people of any sort tend to fall back on tradition; firearms and religion are our traditions. But it’s not that I think Obama is, on the whole, correct; it’s just that he isn’t out of line with the elite opinion of his class: the politicians. It’s unfair to criticize him for speaking an opinion all his adversaries hold.

But it’s not unfair to criticize him for having a contemptible, elite opinion that looks down on popular sovereignty, and John Médaille does an excellent job. Though I’m not Catholic or a member of any organized religion, I think those paths to God are certainly valid - they’re not themselves good or bad (they are, however, human institutions which must be approached with the same discretion and self-knowledge that any important activity requires). And even if they weren’t, I’d still defend the freedom of people to follow them.

But he absolutely nails the gun issue:

As for guns, we cling to them for another reason, a reason that his little to do with the arguments about the second amendment, arguments which few of us really understand, least of all myself. No, we cling to them precisely because the know-it-alls tell us not to. We live in an age when “experts” give us no end of good advice on subjects that are none of their business, and when each new day brings new headlines about what we should or should not be doing. Be it cholesterol or sex, God or guns, children or politics, there are endless experts to tell us what we are doing wrong. These professional naggers really have our best interests at heart, and the more so the more removed they are from us.

…

The real reason we cling to guns is that they are ours. And even more, they were our fathers. Ownership of guns is something that distinguished the New World from the Old. In the decadent aristocracies of Europe, guns were largely for the landowners, and “poaching” was punishable by flogging or worse. In the New World, every frontiersman had a gun, and it was an essential part of feeding his family and declaring his liberty. We no longer need to feed our families by hunting, but we still need to assert our liberty, and especially our liberty from the army of experts who claim to know what is best for us.

I hope he’ll forgive the selective quote; the whole post is enlightened, but this was just such a great statement on an issue I hold dear. As for whether or not we’re “bitter”, come on: it’s not just the white rural poor.

You just disrespected yourself, your badge, and the Baltimore Police Department way more than any punk kid. Dude.

Did you catch the veiled death threat from the dude officer? And the way it ends is the best. “Is that camera on? If I find myself on - *click*”.

Hat tip to Mr. Balko.

UPDATE 1: Apparently, the cop has been suspended, but I’m sure he’ll be back on the force in no time once the review board finds that “official procedures were followed.” And listen to the police union guy:

Paul Blair, head of the police union, had not seen the video but cautioned that videos show only a slice of a story. He noted that it is impossible to know what happened before or after the camera was turned on.

I’d like to know, Mr. Blair: what could possibly have happened before the camera came on that would have excused such behavior on the part of the officer? No, really, your wildest fantasy - give me a scenario where it would have served the BPD to have that dude act like that. And this is great:

Clifford said the boy never made an official complaint to the Police Department and that Rivieri has no other citizen complaints in his file.

That’s the excuse I love from police departments. If you don’t make a complaint, it didn’t happen. You have to jump through their hoops after they physically and verbally assault you, just so they can have a chance to get their story straight before they dismiss you utterly. No, no - I think YouTube is far superior.

UPDATE 2: In the comments below, John alerts readers to another video of Rivieri out of control. Thanks, John!

Honestly, when you look at this:

what is your first impression? Do these fellas look like the good guys or the bad guys? And, holy hell, do they look like public servants to you?

You may be concerned about judging by appearances, but sometimes there’s a reason it looks and quacks like a duck.

Radley Balko has just posted what I think is the most moving essay yet on the Cory Maye case and the drug war in general (if you think it’s worth sharing, digg it). Getting beyond the legalities, moral appeals, and outrage, Balko simply recounts how the drug war cost a good cop his life and a great father his family and freedom. When you feel like the cards are stacked against any chance of decency in this world, read this post and dig deep down for the strength, not simply to vote for the right politicians and see the right policies enacted, but to make your neighborhood a better, safer, more humane place.

This one comes from my favorite vulgar libertarian, Radley Balko. Despite some of his corporate apologism he is doing some absolutely awesome work on police militarism. Today he has a penetrating comment on police justifications for SWAT raids:

This sort of case also emphasizes the inherent contradiction in the way police justify these raids. You’ll notice in the article that the police say they conducted the no-knock, middle-of-the-night raid to catch the suspect and his family off-guard. They then turn around and say the girl who fired the gun should have known they were police officers. You can’t have it both ways. You can’t say nighttime SWAT raids are necessary to catch people unaware while they’re sleeping, then say they “should have known” that the men invading their homes were police.

This time it’s from Eric Husman:

The Left may not favor the police state, but they are for a police state. The Right is just the opposite: While they claim to be against a powerful, central government, they keep building the powerful, central government.

Of course, he’s entirely correct about the establishment Left and the Right. And keep in mind that the generality or specificity of their authoritarianism changes in direct proportion to who’s in power - in other words, the Right was all up in arms about militant law enforcement in the not too distant past. The establishment is defined by its pettiness, superficiality, lack of reflection, and most of all its sheer hypocrisy.

It occurs to me while reviewing the endless electronic reflection on the VT incident that the gun control crowd and their sympathizers don’t offer any rational, realistic arguments against allowing students to carry on campus. I have yet to see one person actually volunteer a concrete reason why it should be disallowed. What we get instead are appeals to emotion based on perceived feelings of vulnerability.

From an otherwise decent article by Lila Rajiva:

However much we may support the second amendment, do we really want students packing heat in their book bags, as filled with alcohol, drugs and partying as most campuses are today?

From a VT administrator:

The writer would have us believe that a university campus, with tens of thousands of young people, is safer with everyone packing heat. Imagine the continual fear of students in that scenario. We’ve seen that fear here, and we don’t want to see it again.

From a journalist:

Moreover, guns on campuses could turn smaller confrontations into major incidents. As drinking is a large part of university social life, a common drunken brawl could escalate into a deadly duel if firearms were present.

Many students don’t get to hand-pick their roommates in residence; imagine the discomfort of sharing a small room with a stranger who keeps a gun under his or her pillow.

If there are guns in residence and around campus, violence could spread beyond the university confines and into bars and other nearby places.

What do all of these opinions have in common? Simple: they are examples of disarming people on the grounds of vague fears. We just don’t like the idea of students carrying firearms. Students are unpredictable and potentially irresponsible, and that scares us, so let’s take that idea off the table. Let’s ignore the fact that guns are just as deadly to the bad guys as the good guys, and that shooting a bad guy is one very straightforward and undeniable approach to solving the problem.