Random Friday Morning Links

• Cato's Ted Galen Carpenter has a new study on what the drug war violence in Mexico means for the U.S.
• Guy buys old strip club, spends $600,000 to convert it into a family-friendly steakhouse. State liquor board refuses to grant him a license, because of the prior owner. "It's frustrating how inflexible the bureaucracy can be."  Yep.
• "Anarchist hangout surrendering to market forces."
• England to make it a crime to photograph police.
• D.C.'s CCTV system neither preventing crimes nor helping to solve them.
• The Chinese good-times state executions traveling road show.
• Minneosta DA finds that cop who broke into the wrong house in response to a domestic disturbance call, then fired five shots at the frightened owner before fleeing, acted "reasonably and responsibly."

Comments

[Jason Weider]

OMGosh can you believe that nonsense about the steakhouse? Thats the craziest thing I ever heard!

RT
http://www.anon-tools.us.tc

[Nick]

"government should be there as a resource, not a foe."

This mentality drives me up a wall. Government is almost always THE impediment.

[Jim Bob]

The first comment at the liquor license story is from anonymity guy. I am beaming telepathic death his way.

[Reinmoose]

Does the WaPo think its headline is ironic?

[Marc]

Re: anarchist bookstore.

"This isn't a place to get records or literature," Tsoi said.

Misread it this way the first time. Then realized it improved the sentence.

[Xeones]

FUCK

[robc]

Lets apply a little Occam's razor to the Minnesota case (which the DA didnt).

Guy is at home having done nothing wrong. Some guy starts beating on his door asking to be let in. Instead of letting him in, he goes and gets his gun, door is broken down.

Now, did he identify himself as a deputy or not?

Well, if he did in a way that would clearly indicate to the guy inside, the guy would have opened the door for him, not pulled a gun on him. This seems most likely to me.

The other option is that the deputy properly identified himself and the guy inside, despite having done nothing wrong (that we know of), decided it made sense to get in a shootout with the police.

Occam thinks the DA is an idiot.

[matth]

"Backstrom also concluded the deputy lawfully fired his weapon, fearing for his own safety or that of others."

Which others?

[P Brooks]

Yeah, but! What if the guy was inside hacking his wife to pieces in the bathtub? The Depitty is obligated to check it out, otherwise you'd be saying he didn't save her. He can't win, so you hafta give him the benefit of the doubt free rein. He's out there laying his life on the line protecting you!

[P Brooks]

Which others?

The people who could have been trampled by the terrified fleeing depitty?

[SugarFree]

Give the poor deputy a break. He probably just thought he was shooting some sort of horrific bipedal dog.

[David]

Why don't they just come out and tell people that we should expect police to be kicking our doors in and so should sleep on our living room floors with our hands behind our hands?

[Seamus]

Minneosta DA finds that cop who broke into the wrong house in response to a domestic disturbance call, then fired five shots at the frightened owner before fleeing, acted "reasonably and responsibly."

I'm sure that if the frightened owner had fired five shots at the cop, the DA would have found that he too had acted "reasonably and responsibly," right? Right?

[BakedPenguin]

I sure hope England doesn't make that cop law retroactive, I have a picture of myself with a British cop in front of the Bond Street tube station.

[Seamus]

OMGosh can you believe that nonsense about the steakhouse? Thats the craziest thing I ever heard!

Actually, I can understand the rationale behind laws that make this possible. Imagine that the authorities decide to yank a restaurant's liquor licenser because they find it's a Mafia joint, or because the owners tolerate drug dealing, or maybe because the joint seems to attract the kind of people who typically get in gunfights in the restaurant parking lot at 3 a.m. Sunday morning. The law doesn't want the owner to evade the purpose of the license revocation by "selling" to his brother-in-law, Big Julie, or otherwise making a change that's merely superficial.

Of course, they ought to figure out some way to waive the requirement for cases like this. Maybe they don't because they're afraid the Mob is sufficiently well placed that they'd get waivers all the time, making the law a nullity.

[Fluffy]

My advice to the steakhouse guy is:

Burn it down.

Let the burned down shell stand there as an eyesore.

Let the "community" decide if they like that better than a nice restaurant.

And Seamus:

Basically you're saying that the rule is justified because it's necessary to enforce a bunch of different rules that aren't justified. This is yet another example of my rule of thumb: if the law enforcement technique doesn't make sense or sound fair, the odds are that the underlying aim or goal of that technique won't be just either.

[Tulpa]

If the story took place as the deputy said it did (ie, the resident raised his gun after the deputy identified himself) then he was acting reasonably. So it's his word against the cop's.

And I fear that this place has become as reflexively anti-cop as many other venues are reflexively pro-cop. Perhaps we shouldn't automatically assume the cop is lying in the absence of other evidence.

[robc]

Tulpa,

Im not talking about the shots, those might have been reasonable (if the other guy raised his gun). Im talking about the deputies actions that caused that situation to occur at all. The behavior outside the door is the root cause of the problem.

[SugarFree]

Tulpa,

While I do agree with the broad strokes of your comment, I would like to add that the best way for the police to be generally regarded as truthful is for them to stop fucking lying all the time. A stereotype observed repeatedly becomes a fact.

[robc]

Tulpa,

In more logic form, we have three actions called A B and C.

C (firing the shots) is a reasonable response to B.
B (pulling the gun) is a reasonable response to A (guy breaking down door).

A is the unreasonable action. Thus, C is unreasonable because it was a direct result of A. The person who performs A has no right to then perform C, becuase they are the cause of it being necessary.

[robc]

Now, if A' was performed instead (cop identifying himself in a calm and clear way that anyone inside could identify and accept) then B was an unreasonable response and C was justified.

But, for that to be the case, I need an explanation for the guy choosing B over B' (opening the door and talking to the cop).

[Tulpa]

robc,

I don't see how breaking down the door is unreasonable when no one is answering the door at what looks like the only occupied building at an address where a domestic violence report has just been called in.

This isn't a midnight drug raid. There are plenty of instances where cops are behaving unreasonably when they break down doors, fire at occupants, etc. This isn't one of them.

[Tulpa]

robc, so basically you assume the guy inside was a completely reasonable person, while the cop was a psychopath cruising around hoping to shoot someone. This is what I mean by anti-cop hysteria.

[Tulpa]

SugarFree,

Every openly gay person I've known has been promiscuous, unserious, and a spendthrift. Does that justify me assuming that about every gay person I meat?

[robc]

Tulpa,

robc, so basically you assume the guy inside was a completely reasonable person, while the cop was a psychopath cruising around hoping to shoot someone. This is what I mean by anti-cop hysteria.

I didnt say anything about psychopath. Stop burning strawmen. I said he didnt behave reasonably at outside the door. Like yelling and beating instead of calmly knocking.

Most people, if you knock on their door, will come to the door and look out to see who it is, when they do, you can show your badge and explain calmly without yelling why you are their.

[robc]

every gay person I meat?

lol.

Paging Dr. Freud.

[robc]

s/their/there/

[robc]

what looks like the only occupied building at an address where a domestic violence report has just been called in.

Not the only one. The more likely, sure, but not the only.

[Tyler]

I hate it when so-called Anarchists get capitalism wrong. Many of them would probably agree that a simple system of voluntary bartering free of coercion is best. When you tell them that's what "capitalism" is supposed to mean, their heads might explode.

However, I see these anarchists as the obvious social and intellectual response to our government's misuse of capitalism in rhetoric and practice. They probably never devoted the time to learning the distinction between real capitalism and the bullshit we get fed that's labeled "capitalism."

That, or they don't believe in property rights at all, which is simply a matter of stupidity in my mind.

[robc]

Tulpa,

Why are you assuming the guy inside the house is a psychopath who enjoys killing cops?

This strawman thing is kinda fun.

[SugarFree]

Every openly gay person I've known has been promiscuous, unserious, and a spendthrift. Does that justify me assuming that about every gay person I meat?

If 99.99% of gay people (not just your self-selected sample) lied and said that not one of them is "promiscuous, unserious, or a spendthrift" would you have any reason to believe them?

Once again, when the vast majority of police officers stop committing violations of the public trust or covering up for the same done by others, then we can sort out which prejudices about the police are fair or unfair.

[SugarFree]

And yes, robc... Best Freudian slip ever.

[David]

Tulpa,

The real problem here is there scream for a few seconds and kick the door in part of the equation. I don't know about you, but I can't clearly hear my girlfriend when she's downstairs, let alone someone outside. So I assume that the cop is telling the truth when says he announced, it's just that what constitutes an announcement is crap.

There's also the problem of not checking the address more carefully in advance.

[Jennifer]

There's also the problem of not checking the address more carefully in advance.

Plus the entire idea that if a screaming man breaks into my house and starts firing at me, I'm somehow unreasonable for getting upset and feeling threatened by it. I'm getting damned sick of Nurse Ratched-style policework: do things that would make any normal human being upset or threatened, then punish them for feeling threatened or upset.

[Jennifer]

How about a one-strike proposal? Cop fucks up like this once, he loses his job. No fines, no prison time, but neither can he continue enjoying the privilege of being assumed more trustworthy than the average citizen.

[Doctor C]

To be fair, there were evidently two occupied residences at the given address. Although one would think after knocking for a while and obtaining no response, one would eventually go check the other residence ...

[P Brooks]

If the story took place as the deputy said it did (ie, the resident raised his gun after the deputy identified himself) then he was acting reasonably.

There's your trouble.

[P Brooks]

"Anarchist hangout surrendering to market forces."

-or-

"Anarchist gravy train runs out of track"

[R C Dean]

Every openly gay person I've known has been promiscuous, unserious, and a spendthrift. Does that justify me assuming that about every gay person I meat?

RC'z Law Hall of Fame.

[Kwix]

RE: Anti-Capitalist Anarchist Bookstore

Winning quote of the piece:

Skyler bought a copy of Thoreau's essay "Civil Disobedience"...

You mean, this Civil Disobedience, which if it was ever copyrighted has long since lapsed into public domain?

The mind, it boggles.

[LarryA]

What if the guy was inside hacking his wife to pieces in the bathtub? The Depitty is obligated to check it out, otherwise you'd be saying he didn't save her.

According to SCOTUS, it's not a law enforcement officer's job to protect individuals.

From the story on Mexico: Other proposed solutions, including preventing the flow of guns from the U.S. to Mexico,

The main source of guns moving from the U.S. to Mexico is the U.S. government. Plans like the M?rida Initiative provide small arms to the Mexican military and law enforcement that are diverted into the drug gangs. Note that the gang assassinations feature automatic weapons fire, hand grenades, rockets, etc. Those are pretty hard to get at the Texas gun shows which are being scapegoated.

[Tulpa]

Since I don't "meat" gay people, I suppose my statement above holds vacuously as there is no counterexample.

And the people saying the cop broke down the door and started firing are leaving out the possibility that he announced who he was and the occupant raised his weapon in between these.

[Fresno Bob]

every gay person I meat?

Hmm... Was this the best freudian slip ever? or was this best example of RC'z law ever? How much overlap is there between freudian slips and RC'z law? If a tree falls in the forest, and no one is there to hear it...

[robc]

Not all freudian slips are examples of RC'z law. Not all RC'z law are freudian slips.

That one was both. And awesome.

[robc]

And the people saying the cop broke down the door and started firing are leaving out the possibility that he announced who he was and the occupant raised his weapon in between these.

No, we havent. Stop with the fucking strawmen, you asshat. I specifically raised the possibility and suggested that Occam's law says otherwise.

If he knew it was a cop, why would he raise his weapon? You seem to be assuming that the cop ran across a random cop killing psychopath. While that is possible, it isnt the way to bet.

Look at my examples above, which is the most likely sequence of events:

ABC or A'BC?

I think there are only two possibilities that make sense, ABC and A'B' (no need for C - shots dont get fired in that case). Since the latter didnt happen, that only leaves ABC.

[Kolohe]

what appeared to be an empty pole barn.

Ok, speaking of freud, can any of you country folks illuminate what the heck is a 'pole barn'.

[David]

It's an all-male strip club.

[TrickyVic]

The problem is cops have an extraordinary right to self defense. If your a law abiding home owner and a cop fires at you first, you're not allowed the same self defense claim the cop has if you fired at the cop first.

[TrickyVic]

It's not unlawful for cops to kill innocent people, it's unlawful for you to kill a cop in almost every circumstance. Including self defense.

That's the problem. We need laws that say cops are responsible for what happens when they fuck-up.

[tassawwuf burrfoot]

Kolohe- it's where we keeps the pole-cats, uh course... actually, a pole barn is just a barn without walls, basically just a roof held up by poles...you can fit alot of hay under there, or shelter the animals out of the weather, etc...

[P Brooks]

Actually, many pole barns are fully enclosed, but they are called that because the primary structure consists of vertical "poles" (six-by-sixes, around here) at the perimeter, with roof trusses spanning the entire thing. No structural interior posts or walls. They are cheap and easy to build.

I'm sitting in one.

[tassawwuf burrfoot]

P Brooks, good call on the more precise definition...guess i was just thinking specifically of the one on my folks farm, in which i used to smoke much hay in the middle of...