What’s Wrong with the World

The men signed of the cross of Christ go gaily in the dark.

About

What’s Wrong with the World is dedicated to the defense of what remains of Christendom, the civilization made by the men of the Cross of Christ. Athwart two hostile Powers we stand: the Jihad and Liberalism...read more

How Do You Like It, White Boy?

The Seattle Times reports:

"The father of a 16-year-old West Seattle boy who said he was attacked by two men who made racially charged statements wonders why there have been no arrests even though police have identified two possible suspects.

"It's been nearly three weeks since 16-year-old Shane McClellan showed up at an emergency room beaten, his father said, almost beyond recognition and almost one week since the teen was called into the police precinct to identify photos of suspects.

"'We just can't understand why there haven't been any arrests,' said Shane's father, Tim McClellan. 'It doesn't seem right. I mean, the guys had my son's blood on their hands.'"

Further details:

"...Shane McClellan said he was walking home around 2 a.m. on May 25 when two men, one black and one Filipino, asked him for a light..

"They then robbed him and beat him for four hours, whipping him with his own belt while saying things like, 'How do you like it, white boy?' and 'This is for enslaving our people'...

"...McClellan...said the two men also poured Four Loko energy beer on him, burned him with a lit cigarette and urinated on him..."

OK, I know what you're thinking - we've only got the boy's word to go on, and how likely is it that the sort of thugs he describes would be literate enough to say anything like "this is for enslaving our people," in between burning him with cigarettes and pissing on him?

But the story goes on:

"The officer who took the report went to the scene of the beating [where he] found blood, discarded...Loko cans and fresh cigarette butts...

"A short time later, while returning to the precinct, Blake saw a black man and a Filipino man who appeared to be trying to conceal an open can...

"When he stopped to talk to the two men, he noted they had dried blood on their hands, were drinking the same brand of energy beer and smoking the same brand of cigarettes he'd found earlier."

So, being the frightful racist that we all know that all American policemen are, he then beat them both to within an inch of their lives, knowing that his higher-ups would cover for him. Right?

Wrong: "After [the officer] talked with his supervisor, it was decided that he should get good contact information on the two but not take them into custody." (The Seattle Police are, after all, justly proud of their "long history of diversity.")

But never fear: we are assured that "the assault is being investigated as a possible hate crime." Ain't that special?

I don't suppose there's much point observing that, were the races reversed, this incident would be national news, by now, with the very reverend Jesse Jackson & the equally reverend Al Sharpton and the even more reverend New York Times falling all over each other to publicize and to condemn the limitless iniquity of the White Man, world without end, Amen. So let's just take that as read. But might one be allowed to wonder, in the context of incidents like this, whether it's such a great idea for the American educationist establishment to go on, year after year, (a) further pumping up the already weirdly high levels of self-esteem among black students and (b) instilling in those same students the historically absurd belief that slavery is a crime for which all whites, as such, owe all blacks, as such?

Comments (48)

get good contact information on the two

How da heck he gonna do dat? Ask 'em "hey pretty please tell where yo home at?"

Da cop's a moron and his boss a stupid butt. Whatever "good contact information" might have existed earlier, it won't be worth squat now. And whatever physical evidence was on them earlier, will never be recovered. Stupid, Stupid, Stupid.

Unless, of course, the Seattle police's objective never did include finding the perpetrators and subjecting them to justice under the law.

"Unless, of course, the Seattle police's objective never did include finding the perpetrators and subjecting them to justice under the law."

But that's...inconceivable...isn't it?

I think we can definitely say that the police in this case acted stupidly.

We've had a few cases like this in California. White victims beaten by non-white groups. For some reason these stories just never get the media attention the inverse scenario does. Boggles the mind. A little.

Lydia - I can't stand the expression "high five," but, nevertheless - high five.

Man I want in on this action. You white people oppressed my white ancestors, too! You're grandparents owned factories that my grandparents worked in! Admit it!

Does this mean that Irish people can now legitimately kill englishmen in the streets in reprisal for cromwell's crimes?

If you think that is bad, then check this out:

LOUISVILLE, KY – Police are on the lookout for a group of teens who beat without warning, a cancer patient (he was an elderly man) in the broad daylight, in front of a Dollar General Store while his girlfriend was inside the store. The victim was checking the oil in his car.

If you believe cases like this are "isolated incidents," then you probably also believe that when police abuse their authority those are just a few bad apples that make everyone look bad...

But that's...inconceivable...isn't it?

I don't think that word means what you think it means.

then you probably also believe that when police abuse their authority those are just a few bad apples that make everyone look bad

Mike, I have in the past few years found that a significant number of people (including white males) think that the police departments commonly are highly corrupt and uninterested in justice except in very incidental ways. They trot out evidence (sometimes anecdotal, sometimes broader) of endemic attitudes of undue harshness, assumptions of guilt, and us-against-them bunkering, as well as gross careerism in police depts. My response is two-fold: first, however likely or however valid this picture is as a generality, it is not true of all. It is probably still the case (or was until recently) that the people who want to become policemen do so out of a root altruism, a desire for justice and order, and any change in them is found later. Secondly, that change is probably MORE a reaction due to the other ways in which the justice system is damaged than to a basic systemic police brutality paradigm: the ways in which known criminals are not dealt with, not locked up, released early, evidence ignored, trials and appeals taking decades, etc; the way some, especially women and minorities, are accepted and promoted not due to personal excellence but for political reasons; the way they are "trained" with politically correct nonsense theories about the causes of crime and irrational limits to police actions against crime.

Which came first: the chicken or the egg? Are the systemic evils in the system the result of or the cause of common police abuse of power?

I hope the boy gets justice, but I doubt it will happen.

Everyone else needs to remember not to walk around in condition white. Walking at two AM and two guys approach you for a 'light', you don't let them approach to begin with.

The two attackers are of politically protected classes (yes, we have them in the US, I've even been told this by state workers, but that's another, long story).

A good description of this from a veteran police reporter:
http://fredoneverything.net/Diversity.shtml

NOTE: I should have mentioned that some of the descriptions of the crimes listed in the above article may not be good for minor eyes. My apologies.

Tony,

They trot out evidence (sometimes anecdotal, sometimes broader) of endemic attitudes of undue harshness, assumptions of guilt, and us-against-them bunkering, as well as gross careerism in police depts.

You make it sound like no one has actually taken the time to do serious research. Radley Balko has done yeoman's work on this subject to document the behaviors, practices and statistics. In fact, his last paper for Cato "Overkill" is widely cited as an authoritative research on the way that SWAT is increasingly used to enforce warrants, bust up drug use and use for general law enforcement.

I would encourage you to watch this video which shows what happened to one such family who was raised over a misdemeanor amount of marijuana. Raid by a SWAT unit, in the middle of the night, in the suburbs.

It may be "not that common," but it doesn't take 10,000 bad raids a year for the white middle class to say "enough of this crap." The fact that these problems happen all over the country and routinely answered by a refusal to reform or prosecute only heightens the outrage.

The real problem here, though, are not the police, but the prosecutors. I would actually wager that the corruption among prosecutors is significantly higher than it is among the police. Most of what can be attributed to the police is simple thuggish behavior (brutality on the street) or stupidity combined with stubbornness and groupthink (thinking it is actually "reasonable" to send a SWAT unit to the suburbs because Johnny is doing pot or is a small time dealer). Prosecutors on the other hand frequently withhold exculpatory evidence, assassinate the character of the defendant before the media and work to deny suspects access even to DNA evidence.

Most of the problems with the police could be resolved simply by unconditionally revoking their individual immunity and making false arrest a felony offense that is classified as a violent crime (so it can be resisted with force). This used to not be controversial. In most of America's history, it was perfectly legal to assault or even kill (if necessary) a police officer who was breaking the law or placing you under arrest without arrest authority. It wasn't until a few decades ago that that changed. I learned about that from my father, who was in law enforcement during that transition and has said that taking away the ability of private citizens to violently resist unlawful arrest was one of the worst mistakes the government ever made for preventing the police from abusing their authority...

Mike T, I find it a little hard to believe that you are going on about the evils of prosecutors and police treatment of alleged criminals in a thread about a case where people with (literally) blood on their hands weren't even calmly arrested, evidence collected from them, and charges filed. Doesn't it seem a bit strange to you that you've moved from that story to this discussion? To me that's the mark of a person with an axe to grind.

Why do you think the police wouldn't have arrested these two assailants? I mean, people--black, white, and Asian--get arrested for beating people up all the time. Why not this time? I'm serious--no mock sarcasm here.

I really wish no Catholic site would ever link to this. It has become clear that this is a "pro-white" 'blog.

It seems to me there are two issues here. First, there's the issue of justice -- and if it is the case that someone is targeted because of his race -- or even, regardless of that, if it is true that someone has been assaulted -- then certainly those who abused him are culpable.

But if this is a form of racial violence, then of course there's the larger question of what can be done to prevent it. I suppose America is not as bad, in this respect, as some countries at some times (Hungary comes to mind, from what I've heard of it, or probably Poland). But I take it that we value ethnic diversity, and that we would like to live in a society that is both diverse and peaceful. How does one accomplish that?

I always imagine that the moral issues and the practical issues have to be separated out so to speak. Of course one has to find a way to ensure that in particular cases justice is served, but I would also think you want to get at the root of the problem, and to deal with that in a way which is also just, which is not so easy. (No doubt if everyone in a country shares the same ethnicity, that would get rid of racially motivated violence, but of course no one thinks that that is a desirable way of avoiding it.)

I always think you have to step back from the particulars of blame, to a certain extent, and to imagine that people are animals or machines -- so that these undesirable events are as it were natural phenomena -- and then one asks how to tinker with the machine (I mean society as a whole) to get the parts to work better.

But then of course you have to treat all the parts of the machine, not simply as parts of a machine, but still as *people*, who are capable of being blamed, but who are also autonomous and retain a certain human dignity, even if they have committed a crime.

And in these matters too, I always want to take a Socratic approach and to imagine that I have to treat those who have hurt me (I wouldn't dare go so far as to say my enemies) in a just and civil way, both individually and insofar as they are members of a group. (And the whole question here is, I suppose, whether one has some sort of a symbolic assault by one group on another, where the individuals involved in this incident serve as representatives of each party.)

So it seems it always comes down to this, that there's a problem one would like to fix, and yet one's choices are constrained by the dictates of justice.

And then of course I don't know how many of us agree as to what the dictates of justice are, and that just leads to more confusion.

But I'm always imagining that everything must be very difficult.

To Bobcat:

I'm not an expert, but I think in many cases it has to do with politics.

You are correct. In my area B&Es, standard assaults, robberies, etc. get handled and prosecuted seemingly on autopilot regardless of the race of the attacker or victim. This is exactly as it should be as far as I'm concerned.

But when it comes to very serious, especially horrible and/or racially motivated crimes, the media is VERY careful to censor entirely or certain aspects of some crimes and the police are careful where they tread.

For example: when some disgusting men drug a homosexual man to death behind their truck, the case was fully reported, as it should have been, and the country was justifiably outraged at such a hideous crime motivated by hatred.

But when a black man knifed a young white juvenile to death, and left an actual written statement that he did it because of racial hatred, it was hushed very quickly and given little to no coverage. Yet as far as I'm concerned, both crimes that I have listed are equally hideous. It's just in one case, the attacker was of a class that it is NOT politically allowable to mention in such cases.

As for why these PARTICULAR men were not arrested, well, I'm not an officer investigating the case, so I don't know. Heck, it could be that the eveidence, while it appears that there is some, is simply circumstantial. I don't know.

It's a topic I've become more interested in during the course of my studies. This guy ( http://fredoneverything.net/FOE_Frame_Cop.htm ) has a lot of experience with it, as well as other police/law topics.

Yeah, Brian, that's why I posted today on Tocqueville's abolitionist writings -- because we're a "pro-white" blog.

Bobcat, my guess is that racial PC insanity is like a disease that crops up in nearly unbelievable and virulent form somewhat unpredictably. To tell the truth, I can't think of any other explanation for what happened here. In particular, the failure to attempt to gather _physical evidence_ by taking the two men to the station seems utterly scandalous from the sheer perspective of justice, law and order, and normal police work. Sure, it's possible that there's some totally extenuating circumstance that we don't know, but I'm having trouble thinking of it. When people fake racial incidents against themselves, they don't usually turn up beaten almost beyond recognition, and the goal here should have been to apprehend and convict the perpetrators, whoever they were. The victim didn't beat himself up, and the police appear to have been wildly negligent in not detaining these two men. The racial angle, and the fact that the policeman called back to his higher-ups for instructions, seem to mesh and are unfortunately impossible to ignore as possible explanations.

Well now, if you're not a pro-white blog then are you an anti-white blog? I guess you could also be an indifferent-to-white blog, but why are either of those any better than pro-white?

Yes yes, I know, 'pro-white' is often used to refer to something that is a little more than the literal definition of the term. Americans must be setting some kind of record for the number of political euphemisms we use.

A white man is, by definition, racist (white = racist), so they were simply meting out rough liberal justice.

You make it sound like no one has actually taken the time to do serious research. ...Most of the problems with the police could be resolved simply by unconditionally revoking their individual immunity and making false arrest a felony offense that is classified as a violent crime (so it can be resisted with force). This used to not be controversial. In most of America's history, it was perfectly legal to assault or even kill (if necessary) a police officer who was breaking the law or placing you under arrest without arrest authority.

Interesting, Mike T. I wasn't attempting to claim that the evidence of problems in police forces was invalid. Even though you thought you were disagreeing with me, you end up making almost exactly the same point I made to my brother a year ago. Well, there are a couple of differences: I wouldn't have thought calling it a "violent" crime, but certainly a prosecutable crime, absolutely.

What do you characterize as making an "arrest without arrest authority"? Obviously, a cop doing it in the wrong jurisdiction would be out of his arrest authority. But what else? Surely not merely arresting someone who happened to be innocent - that kind of error is exactly why courts exist. What kind, then? Would a cop arresting the the two men in the above story constitute an example of a wrongful arrest? I am no expert on laws governing police behavior, so I wouldn't be surprised if there is stuff out there that says that they cannot arrest except if A, B, or C is true. But I thought A was that they had reason to believe that I had committed a crime, and that's sufficient.

About the prosecutors: I suspect they would say that they never would have started down the road of withholding evidence etc if the judges hadn't been so durn gung-ho on screwing up trials, dismissing real, valid evidence, letting violent criminals off on probation, etc. And probably the judges would say that they never would have gotten into all that business if it hadn't been for police brutality, police thuggish stupidity, profiling minorities, etc. Which came first?

Mike T, I find it a little hard to believe that you are going on about the evils of prosecutors and police treatment of alleged criminals in a thread about a case where people with (literally) blood on their hands weren't even calmly arrested, evidence collected from them, and charges filed. Doesn't it seem a bit strange to you that you've moved from that story to this discussion? To me that's the mark of a person with an axe to grind.

You and Tony both jumped to conclusions about what I meant. I left it open-ended when I said that they abuse their authority. Would you not agree that this is an abuse of authority? For a few decades now, they've had exclusive authority to arrest and prosecute criminals. In this case, so far, they are literally sacrificing justice to keep from having to send a message to a segment of the black community.

My second comment, which was a response to Tony, was, I think pretty even toward the police in that I assigned a lot of the blame to the way that their culture works over the individual.

Prosecutors are, more often than not, politicians and prone to the same corruption issues as that class, but with a level of power than most politicians do not have (a legislator, for example, has nothing on a prosecutor in terms of practical ability to destroy your life).

What do you characterize as making an "arrest without arrest authority"? Obviously, a cop doing it in the wrong jurisdiction would be out of his arrest authority. But what else?

Traditionally, arrest authority matched up 1:1 with an actual statute. Meaning that if there was no law against reading a book in front of a coffee shop in one of the chairs the store provides outside, if a cop tried to arrest you, you could knock his lights out; if he then pulled out his gun, you could pull out yours and shoot him. The reason for this is that police were not treated as a special class in areas like use of force and their authority ended where the law ended.

About the prosecutors: I suspect they would say that they never would have started down the road of withholding evidence etc if the judges hadn't been so durn gung-ho on screwing up trials, dismissing real, valid evidence, letting violent criminals off on probation, etc. And probably the judges would say that they never would have gotten into all that business if it hadn't been for police brutality, police thuggish stupidity, profiling minorities, etc. Which came first?

I suspect both sides would too. My sympathy would be with the judges since the legitimacy of the legal system is more important to law and order than its raw effectiveness. Vigilantism is usually the result of people believing the system is illegitimate.

I didn't intend for this to become a full blown side discussion. It was just a sarcastic quip on my part. I probably read The Agitator and Reason a little too much ;)

I really wish no Catholic site would ever link to this. It has become clear that this is a "pro-white" 'blog.

Yes, because ignoring evil will surely make it go back to the pit of Hell, turn out the lights and have a good cry...

Traditionally, arrest authority matched up 1:1 with an actual statute. Meaning that if there was no law against reading a book in front of a coffee shop in one of the chairs the store provides outside, if a cop tried to arrest you, you could knock his lights out;

I still don't get it, Mike. If a cop tried to arrest me for what he claimed was a law against reading a book in front of a coffee shop, and I don't know what law that would be (because, of course, there in fact is no such law) then can I punch his lights out? (There are a whole bunch of real laws that I know nothing about, so if he cites one of those, can I still punch his lights out when he tries to handcuff me?) What if he cited a law against "reading a book in a place that obstructs foot traffic" and he claims that I am obstructing foot traffic, even though I strongly disagree?

You see what I mean, of course: generally, a cop doesn't need to both cite a specific law, AND establish a clear connection to my actual behavior to my satisfaction to arrest me lawfully - that's part of what the filing charges, arraignment, and trial process sorts out. If the cop makes an egregious mistake, that is clearly unconscionable, then I have a wrongful arrest suit available to me. But if we leave it in the hands of the citizen to decide whether the cop is correctly citing a valid law and correctly matching up the law and this actual behavior, then most citizens most of the time are going to claim they thought the arrest was an arrest without authority.

Have you heard about the case in northern Virginia, 4 members of the Citizen's Defense League openly carried weapons into a restaurant and sat down to order a meal? When someone called the cops, the cops wanted to arrest them since they didn't have concealed weapon permits. The men carefully pointed out that the weapons were not concealed, so they were not violating a law that requires permits to carry a concealed weapon. The way I heard the story, the cops still arrested the men even though they were unable to clearly and explicitly cite a definite law; the men submitted without violence but with clearly stated verbal objections; when they got to the station, they were released because there was no law to book them under as being violated. I don't believe that the men filed wrongful arrest suits, but they were clearly free to do so, since (a) there was no law they were violating, and (b) even the cops who arrested could not identify a law that they THOUGHT was being violated. Suppose, though, that the men had resisted arrest, got into a shoot out, killing at least one of each party and maybe one bystander, and it later turned out that although there is no law preventing open carrying of weapons, there was some OTHER technicality that they failed to observe, even though the cops themselves could not actually recall that specific law in the heat of the moment?

If the only thing you know about a group of people is what you see on the news, or through your windshield, or across the store counter, then you don't know as much as you think you do. Instances like this of reverse racial favoritism are despicable, true. But overall, the hammer comes down more heavily on blacks than whites.

Hey Inspector,

Did you ever stop to consider there is a good reason for those disparities:

http://www.city-journal.org/2008/18_2_criminal_justice_system.html

What is really despicable, is violent black criminality, which I don't need to see on the news -- I can drive about 30 minutes into some "diverse" neighborhoods here in Chicago to experience it up close and personal.

Yes, Jeff; I know the FBI stats. I firmly believe in "do the crime, do the time". I just don't want people to get the idea that black-on-white crime is ignored by the authorities.

I just don't want people to get the idea that black-on-white crime is ignored by the authorities.

But it was in this case.

I just don't want people to get the idea that black-on-white crime is ignored by the authorities.

In reality, there is a certain amount of black on white, white on black, brown on green and purple on polka-dot crime that is "ignored" by the authorities. The shameful, despicable portion of that is when such ignoring is done consciously and directly to carry out a political objective. And that's what this case represents. (Other instances of "ignoring" often represent simple limitation of resources, or other non-politically motivated reasons).

Tony,

Ignorance of the law has never been an excuse for anyone until recently. It's now an excuse that the police can cite. I am very unsympathetic to them because they are trained in law enforcement which means they have at least a broad, but shallow, understanding of what is in the criminal statutes. The public does not.

We have courts for a reason. If a private citizen fights back and the officer is justified, the courts will do their job by bringing down the hammer. If the officer is wrong, the courts will uphold the rule of law by vindicating the private citizen's defiance of unlawful arrest. The public and police will both learn to be very careful when confronting one another.

I have a serious problem with allowing the police to arrest someone without statutory authority. That is a major assault on the rule of law. Furthermore, between the advent of mobile communications and the glut of lawyers, there is no reason why even a modest sized police force cannot employ at least one person who can clarify what the law says on the spot. Heck, even someone in the police chain of command could probably have told those arresting officers "Virginia is a right to carry state, leave those guys alone."

I just don't want people to get the idea that black-on-white crime is ignored by the authorities.

In general, it is not. Most black crime is actually black-on-black anyway. However, what separates crimes like this from the ones the authorities don't ignore is the fact that they believe, and not without some good reason, that if they enforced the law here on the blacks like they would on whites, they'll have an explosive racial incident.

Problem is that white anti-racism will evaporate the moment they start seeing large segments of the black community not condemning this in the same terms they would if the roles had been reversed.

The only useful additional piece of info. I see there is that at least the policeman swabbed the hands for DNA comparison before letting them go. The reason given for not arresting them is the lack of a "full physical description" from the victim. Sheesh. What would Sherlock Holmes say? I think Lestrade could have done better here. No good explanation for the blood on their hands, the same type of energy drink. People have been convicted on less evidence than this, much less detained and charged.

I have a serious problem with allowing the police to arrest someone without statutory authority.

Me too, Mike. Seriously. My question has to do with what is the correct response to an arrest that does not have authority. Or, to phrase it a new way: who has the benefit of before the law during an attempted arrest?

If a private citizen fights back and the officer is justified, the courts will do their job by bringing down the hammer. If the officer is wrong, the courts will uphold the rule of law by vindicating the private citizen's defiance of unlawful arrest.

Well, a few times that might happen. But what's more likely to happen? If you happen to get a few good pokes at the cop, he grabs for his gun. If you get yours out first and shoot him, then all of a sudden you will be the subject of a manhunt, you versus 457 angry cops. What are the odds of your getting to the police station alive and conscious enough to give your side of the "wrongful arrest"? No too good. If the cop gets his gun out first and shoots you, how likely are you to be able to vindicate your claim of wrongful arrest later?

This used to not be controversial. In most of America's history, it was perfectly legal to assault or even kill (if necessary) a police officer who was breaking the law or placing you under arrest without arrest authority. It wasn't until a few decades ago that that changed. I learned about that from my father, who was in law enforcement during that transition

I wonder if this is different in different jurisdictions. My Dad taught all of his kids in the 50's and 60's that if a cop tells you to do X (like, put down the club, or get out of the bar, or put your hands behind your back) then you DO it, and if he was out of line you sort it out later. Later, as in after peace and order is established, either at the police station, or in a wrongful arrest suit, or in a disciplinary board hearing. You don't necessarily know WHY he is telling you to do something, so you don't necessarily know what law he has backing him up. He doesn't have to tell you WHY he is arresting you until time to charge you, and the police have lots of time to charge you after they have you in custody.

We have courts for a reason.

Yes, including deciding when a cop was out of line in an arrest.

If a cop has a thread of reasonable belief that there is a law permitting him to arrest you, then HE gets the benefit of the doubt during the arrest . You get the benefit of the doubt at trial. In order for you to reasonably resist arrest, you not only have to know that there is no such law authorizing arrest, you have to know that he has no reasonable stance for thinking there is. Since he doesn't have to explain himself until later, that threshold is quite difficult to get past, IMO.

I would be perfectly happy with loads and loads of cops being held to account with disciplinary actions, demotions, firings, fines, and prison sentences for unauthorized actions, all determined after the fact. Indeed, anyone who respects the rule of law would encourage this, and every cop who exceeds his authority damages the law and respect for it. But I don't think that resisting wrongful arrest is usually a good choice, unless you are quite positive that resisting will place you in less danger than submitting, and that he has no reasonable grounds before the law for arresting you.

My Dad taught all of his kids in the 50's and 60's that if a cop tells you to do X (like, put down the club, or get out of the bar, or put your hands behind your back) then you DO it, and if he was out of line you sort it out later. Later, as in after peace and order is established, either at the police station, or in a wrongful arrest suit, or in a disciplinary board hearing.

My dad taught me the same thing in the 80's. I think Chris Rock had a video with a title like "how not to get your [butt]-kicked by the police" or something like that. It's common sense.

However much Mike T may lament the end of the days when girls were girls and men were men, they're gone. You are generally not going to win a fight with the cops if you inflict injury on them. Whatever you think about Tony's approach, it has the benefit of being pragmatic.

Having said that, in my former life as a prosecutor, I prosecuted a locally famous black activist for resisting arrest. Here in Ohio the lawfulness of the arrest is an element of the crime. That is, I had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the arrest was lawful. Deion Sanders beat a resisting arrest case here precisely because the arrest was unlawful.

Check your state's laws. It's still on the books here that you can't arrest someone on their way to church, or a lawyer on his way to court.

I was a criminal investigator for 30 years and a supervisor for 15 of those years. Had that supervisor worked for me I would have fired him. There was more than enough probable cause for arrest and conservation of evidence.
brian

Tony,

The most likely outcome would be that the police would be more cautious and private citizens more likely to listen to them on the assumption that the police are more likely now to know what they can and cannot do. What I think you are missing here is that in such a legal climate, the presumption would more often be that the police wouldn't be doing something if the law weren't on their side since discretionary authority would be minimal under the law.

One thing you miss is that back in the 1950s and 1960s, the police were far more reserved than they are today. Some of the ways force is routinely used today would have been unconscionable to the average cop from that era. If you told them that it would be considered good policing to do a commando raid on a house in the suburbs over a misdemeanor amount of drugs or bootleg liquor, they'd ask you what alternate universe you came out of where Hitler and Stalin won WWII.

One thing you miss is that back in the 1950s and 1960s, the police were far more reserved than they are today.

So were people, in general. Remember holding doors open for women? Remember biting your tongue to hold back the swear word you wanted to say? If fathers were shown demonstrations for tv sets featuring today's television programs, they would have taken baseball bat's and smashed every tv in existence. Police brutality is nothing more than a part of and a response to the degradation in everyday life.

The Chicken

Check your state's laws. It's still on the books here that you can't arrest someone on their way to church, or a lawyer on his way to court.

Hmm...I got mugged on the way to Church a few years ago (interesting story). If the mugger had also been on the way to church, would that mean he could not be arrested, even if he had a gun? Even if he planned to rob people in the church after he finished mugging me (the person who mugged me did not have a gun - but he pretended to and I doubt he was on his way to church)?

excellent and revealing post--just linked it today---thanks...
C-CS

"I really wish no Catholic site would ever link to this. It has become clear that this is a "pro-white" 'blog."

So what's wrong with being pro-white? Are you some sort of racist Brian? Would you whine similarly about a blog that's clearly pro-black or pro-asia or pro-muslim?

Police brutality is nothing more than a part of and a response to the degradation in everyday life.

My point exactly. I seriously doubt the theory that police brutality is the first-in-time cause of the other legal system degeracies, for the simple reason that I know some people who recently have gone into police line of work, and they ain't brutality types at all . I have to think that a lot of other new cops are similar. Which means their brutality comes as a result of the justice system and the problems in society.

Some of the ways force is routinely used today would have been unconscionable to the average cop from that era.

Let's consider that: today, if a cop asks a guy to get out of a car, and the guy comes out swinging, what is likely to happen: the cop won't merely respond with a single good (hopefully immobilizing) punch to the stomach or something - he may use his billy club and break a few bones. That's a lot of violence in response to a stupid, and possibly ineffective punch by a drunk. But here's the problem with that scenario: in today's world, that drunk may work out at the gym 5 days a week, bench press 400 pounds, and take karate lessons on the side. Secondly, that drunk may have had some PCP or other drug that simply wipes out the cop's ability to use pain as an effective control mechanism. Quick, overwhelming force that destroys the drunk's ability to respond is the cop's only sure route to staying out of the hospital.

(By the way, in the above, WHO KNOWS whether the cop had the right to arrest the drunk? It doesn't really matter, in the long run, whether the drunk was doing something illegal or not - that's a matter for court - for whether the cop needed to use overwhelming force to avoid becoming a statistic, does it?)

If you told them that it would be considered good policing to do a commando raid on a house in the suburbs over a misdemeanor amount of drugs or bootleg liquor,

Mike, I agree that this event was bizarre. Are you sure that the cops themselves thought they were going after a misdemeanor amount of drugs, and not 50 pounds of cocaine? And that they had no specific reason to think that the house was an arsenal of weaponry? It seems so bizarre, even in today's standards, that a misdemeanor amount of drugs doesn't explain the event.

Are you sure that the cops themselves thought they were going after a misdemeanor amount of drugs, and not 50 pounds of cocaine?

Drug users, even hardcore drug users, tend to have only misdemeanor amounts of drugs in their possession, so when a house is targeted in such a fashion over drug use, it would be unreasonable for the police to claim that they thought the person had such a stockpile. It wouldn't add up because that is well outside the normal behavior of drug users (let alone, their ability to possess).

Furthermore, in the metro DC area, it is quite normal to use SWAT for such mundane enforcements. Read up on the cases of Cheye Calvo and Salvatore Culosi, men who were targeted by militarized raids over a minor shipment of drugs (which the police suspected weren't even for him) and for sports gambling respectively.

The bottom line is that this level of force is inherently unjustified in such cases because SWAT units are intended to escalate violence. That is their point. They were created specifically to give the police a highly lethal and effective tool for those rare cases when normal police tactics were too civil like taking on insurgents or terrorists.

I would recommend you read this comment sent in to TheAgitator.com by an Army officer who helps coordinate special forces attacks in Afghanistan. It's very telling that we tolerate a level of force against our people that the military is unwilling to use in foreign countries against actual terrorists when innocent lives may get in the way.

Tony,

I realized I didn't answer part of your question. I don't know the state of mind of the police going into these raids because I'm a third party. What I do know is that statistically speaking, the following apply:

1) The person is rarely someone with a reported history of violence.

2) The person's "capacity" for violence is often nothing more than simple gun ownership.

3) The use of these raids is done quite often on people who do not come even close to the type of crime that SWAT was created for in the first place.

4) The police often rely on a single, unreliable informant who is often a criminal himself.

As I said, SWAT was created specifically to give police forces a highly lethal tool to use in fast-moving, extremely dangerous confrontations like taking out a school shooter who is on a rampage or a terrorist. Therefore, their use in most cases is inherently unjustified.

One of the controversial things that came out of the Sal Culosi case was that Fairfax PD actually uses its SWAT to do a significant amount of its felony warrant services.

Mike, I wasn't aware of all this garbage. And you're right, it IS atrocious. Bizarre and atrocious. Do you have any leads into how the police claim that such measures are justified?

Post a comment


Bold Italic Underline Quote

Note: In order to limit duplicate comments, please submit a comment only once. A comment may take a few minutes to appear beneath the article.

Although this site does not actively hold comments for moderation, some comments are automatically held by the blog system. For best results, limit the number of links (including links in your signature line to your own website) to under 3 per comment as all comments with a large number of links will be automatically held. If your comment is held for any reason, please be patient and an author or administrator will approve it. Do not resubmit the same comment as subsequent submissions of the same comment will be held as well.