Police Abuse

Cops Drag Brooklyn Grandmother Naked Out of Apartment—Complaints About NYPD Brutality Still Pouring In

|

new york's finest
via New York Daily News

Since the death last month of Eric Garner at the hands of New York City police during an attempted arrest (ruled a homicide by chokehold by the medical examiner), there have been a series of complaints about police brutality directed at the New York Police Department (NYPD). Some occurred after Garner's death but some occurred before, only appearing after because of the renewed attention to the NYPD's record of police brutality in the wake of Garner's very publicized death.

Here is the latest of the latter kind, via the New York Daily News:

A Brooklyn grandmother who had just taken a shower was dragged from her apartment by about 12 cops who then stood by for more than two minutes while she was naked in the hallway, according to video that emerged Friday.

Denise Stewart was in her Brownsville apartment on July 13 when police — responding to a domestic disturbance call at the building — pounded on her door at 11:45 p.m. and demanded entry.

Stewart, 48, cracked the door wearing only a towel wrapped around her body and underpants — and was yanked into the hallway by cops over the screams of her family and neighbors.

The video shows a chaotic scene as a dozen or so male officers burst into Stewart's apartment, while several others struggle to subdue and cuff the nearly naked woman in the hallway outside.

Police did not get a specific apartment number for their call but chose Stewart's residence because it sounded loud on the inside. They claimed a 12-year old girl in the house had visible injuries on her, that becoming their reason to act, although it didn't protect her from being arrested either. The Daily News explains:

Cops removed the 12-year-old from the apartment and say she refused to get into the police car and kicked the door. A police spokesman said the child kicked out one of the police van's windows, with the broken glass cutting the chin of one of the cops. The cops were treated at local hospitals and released.

Denise Stewart was charged with assaulting a police officer, and — along with her oldest daughter, Diamond Stewart, 20, — resisting arrest, acting in a manner injurious to a child and criminal possession of a weapon.

Stewart's son Kirkland Stewart, 24, was charged with resisting arrest. The 12-year-old was charged with assaulting a police officer, criminal mischief and criminal possession of a weapon.

Children's Services found no sign of neglect of the 12-year-old, although it sounds like the police's behavior toward her may count as abusive.

Related: my column earlier today explains how incidents like these illustrate the dangerous effects "progressive" policies have on the very people they claim to be enacted on behalf of, the poor.

Advertisement

NEXT: The Drug War, the Fourth Amendment, and Anal Cavity Searches in New Mexico

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Wow, what a profitable guess for the cops. It sounds like just about everyone in the apartment they decided to raid was put in bracelets. Keep up the good work, boys!

    1. Stewart’s son Kirkland Stewart, 24, was charged with resisting arrest.

      …That’s it? You can be charged for resisting arrest, but not for whatever it was that the cop was trying to arrest you for? Do we know why Kirkland was being arrested in the first place?

      1. If 12 cops busted into my apt and attacked my naked mother, I would probably be dead right now.

        1. But those heroes would be sleeping safely in their beds tonight, plebe.

      2. For being a generic black guy?

        1. No, for being a genetic black guy. Big difference.

  2. Every time a bell rings an angel gets his wings a pig kicks an innocent ass a libertarian is made.

    1. I wish this was true, but we both know that really isn’t the case.

      1. Yeah, it’ll just result in calls for more diversity training, lowering standards so that more minority officers can be hired, blah blah blah.

        1. “You mean to tell me that minority grandmothers don’t like to be dragged around naked? Kewl. Thanks, bra.”

          1. They can’t understand that because of white privilege. Oh, and rape culture.

        2. First Class: How to Recognize When You are Being Filmed.

    2. If only that were true. Because if it were true, New York alone would be the largest concentration of libertarians in America. 🙂

      Still, it’s fun to dream. I really do hate the cops. And Reason keeps that hatred seething.

      Record _THAT_, NSA.

      1. New York alone would be the largest concentration of libertarians in America.

        Every black community in the country would be majority libertarian.

        1. Free shit trumps freedom.

  3. This is a thing on Twitter: #slutshamingsaturday

    It’s hard to keep up with all the holidays.

    1. Is that a reference to the “walk of shame?” In college, that was used to refer to a girl walking back to her dorm on Saturday morning wearing whatever she was partying in the night before, messed up hair, and carrying her heels in her hand.

      1. A concept that was overused, including the ‘walk of shame’ title, in the recent movie 22 Jump Street.

        Don’t ridicule me too much for actually having seen that in the theater, my son was dying to go (and the humor was perfect for his age, 12, but probably not as funny for ages 14 and up) but the movie was rated R so he needed dear old Dad to get him in to the theater.

        1. What’s up with all the R-rated comedies that are funny to no one over the age of 12…?

          /get off my lawn

          1. How *dare* you mock this administration!

        2. I liked it, and there have been a couple other complimentary posts around here, too. “Adults”, it turns out, have diverse tastes.

    2. I ignore holidays where the grocery store doesn’t close.

      1. So all of them then….

      2. Me too, except I use the liquor store standard. Here in Taiwan they’re open every day. They have to compete with 7-11.

  4. Peace officers, huh?

    1. In this case, it was more like “piece” officers.

  5. Thanks for the story, Ed. Now I have “Cop Shaped Range Targets” in my search history. Probably just made another List.

    1. Were there any results?

      1. Not that I saw. Probably illegal because “Terrorism.” Saw lots of hoodie cut-outs though.

        1. Market niche?

          I smell money.

          *adjusts monocle*

        2. Wouldn’t the targets be too large?

          1. Wouldn’t a generic donut shape work just as well?

            1. Just put a cop hat on a Homer Simpson cut-out.

    2. Thanks for the story, Ed. Now I have “Cop Shaped Range Targets” in my search history. Probably just made another List.

      They should exist, even if just for those reaction ranges where there are a mix of ‘shoot’ and ‘no shoot’ human targets.

        1. That’s up to the range operator.

      1. They should exist, even if just for those reaction ranges where there are a mix of ‘shoot’ and ‘no shoot’ human targets.

        They do exist.

        I used to host a PPC-style “tactical” shoot at my range on the second weekend of the warm months. It was just a fun two-gun thing that didn’t obey any strict conference rules. I made a very controversial course of fire once using only no-shoot targets (i.e. unarmed “civilians” and armed cops) on one stage. When asked how it was supposed to be scored I replied, “Standard scoring on the targets that represent the greater threat to the life of the shooter, deductions for hits on targets that pose no threat.”

  6. The 12-year-old was charged with assaulting a police officer, criminal mischief and criminal possession of a weapon.

    I assume the kid will be put into some detention facility for a while, breaking up the family. All because the cops knocked on the wrong door. At least the officers went home safely to their families. That’s all that matters.

    1. “Criminal possession of a weapon” was the piece of window class used to cut the cop.

      1. The 12 year old will some be known as the masked superhero Liberto.

        1. Wait, are you suggesting she’ll be raised by this comment board?

          1. I pity anyone who suffers that misfortune.

            1. Paging sloopy & Banjos ….

              1. and soon to be those other two.

    2. The 20 yr old was charged with possession of weapon. What kills me is that New York City’s finest forgot to charge granny with indecent exposure. But she was wearing…granny panties? A thong? Well, she was wearing underwear…and a towel until the cops came because ‘naked’ was in the headlines. Are saggy titties on parade a sex offender criterion?

  7. Police did not get a specific apartment number for their call but chose Stewart’s residence because it sounded loud on the inside.

    What, not because they detected the odor of raw marijuana?

  8. I can smell illegal activity like Morgan Fairchild’s pussy. Smoochez!

    /D

    1. ptfacpnmawlaltc

      (per the facts and circumstances presented needs more acronyms, weightlifting, lifeguarding, and lose the capitalization)

      In other Puget Sound cop news:

      SPD investigates cop who wrote 80 percent of pot tickets

  9. Good job by the 12 year old girl at least drawing some blood.

    I need a better word than animal to describe the pigs on this one; you would think one of them would have said, hey, maybe we should let her put some clothes on?

  10. So, these cops arrested an entire family that they had no evidence did anything wrong.

    This is a police state, and it sickens me every time someone calls it the land of the free.

    1. And those heroes in blue trumped up charges against a 12 year old girl (the whole pretext they used after barging into the apartment to make an arrest in the first place)…and had to go the hospital? Give me a god damn break.

      1. Any time the cops assault someone, they charge the person with resisting. Because why would a cop assault anyone unless they were resisting? Any assault by the cops is justified as responding to resisting, because cops never initiate force against someone who is not resisting or otherwise using force against the officer. They are automatons that never deviate from their training.

      2. No no no. See, they were rescuing her and after she made It clear none was needed, she was arrested for resisting rescue

      3. I hope they brought the poor injured officer to a real hospital not one of those atrocious VA hospitals for fake heroes.

    2. Can you believe they pepper-sprayed the 4 YO?

  11. The 12-year-old was charged with assaulting a police officer, criminal mischief and criminal possession of a weapon.

    So, she threw her backpack at one of the cops?

    1. “Criminal possession of a weapon” in your own domicile? How does that work, exactly?

      1. They had a dozen Tomahawk Cruise missiles stowed away in the laundry room.

      2. It’s NYC. As I recall you have to have a nearly-impossible-to-get pistol license to possess pepper spray.

        And your apartment isn’t “your” apartment because SWAT.

  12. “Related: my column earlier today explains how incidents like these illustrate the dangerous effects “progressive” policies have on the very people they claim to be enacted on behalf of, the poor.”

    I think domestic disturbance calls and resisting arrest charges were probably not particularly inventions of the progressives.

    1. As usual you miss the forest because of all those damn trees in the way.

      1. What’s that forest I’m missing?

        1. The one that all those trees are obscuring.

          1. Point it out then my smart fellow.

        2. (hint: one tree is called ‘domestic disturbance’ and the other is called ‘resisting arrest’)

          1. Go on, there’s going to be a point here somewhere, right?

            1. Go on

              No thanks.

              there’s going to be a point here somewhere

              Not that you’ll ever get.

              right?

              Yeah. Right.

              1. You got nothing, got it.

                1. Nothing that your conceptual-thinking-impaired mind could understand. No.

                  1. I like you Sarcasmic. The point is so obvious yet you can’t waste your time identifying it (though you can waste it telling me you really do have one, but aren’t going to waste your time saying it!).

                    You have no point, your post was an emotional ouburst confusedly dressed in an aphorism

                    1. There is no point in making an argument to someone who is being intentionally obtuse.

                    2. I’ll play along Bo – what was the underlying crime that allowed the police to invade the apartment? Got one for us?

      2. No, I think vice versa. All this is is a posse in blue went to an apt. bldg. for whatever reason & acted as goons. This is not a matter of “progressive” anything, or “regressive” anything, IT’S JUST BEING MEAN!!!

        1. Right, it’s got little to nothing to do with those kinds of progressive laws, and so addressing it is going to have to take a different tack than addressing those laws

    2. You really are retarded Bo-Bo.

      1. No, you really are retarded Red!

        What are you, twelve?

        1. What are you, twelve?

          No, I just see the ridiculous inanities you post for what they are Blue Tulpa, retarded.

          1. Maybe you’re more clever than sarc, what’s the inanity here?

            1. Nah, I already spent all my “argue with obtuse morons” energy for the week on mtrueman.

              But the fact that you can’t see how ridiculous the post I was responding to is pretty clear evidence that you are, in fact, retarded Bo-Bo, and I know you well enough, you won’t get it even after it’s explained in detail just how fucking stupid it is.

              1. Don’t even explain it in detail then, do it one sentence. I mean, like sarc you’re going to write paragraphs about how you have this point, and it’s a good one and obvious, oh you betcha!, but I just can’t waste my time identifying, no, no, I’m too busy writing paragraphs about how I can’t do that

      2. He’s a future judge. (Q: What do you call someone who graduates at the bottom of his class in law school? A: Your honor.)

        1. Jokes usually only get funnier by repetition for kids sarcasmic.

          1. It’s not a joke.

            1. Well, you got that part right…

          2. I thought it was funnier the second time.

            1. Yeah, I explained that Francis.

              1. Then, why didn’t you think it was funnier?

                1. I can see how that joke just dawned on Francis!

              2. Bo, when I was in medical school there was a law student who lived down the hall from us at the dorm. No matter what we were doing when he’d pop by, he’d always try to get an argument started. And he’d always try to start the argument by trying to get a rise out of one of us by something ridiculous: e.g. he once told me that people should be able to sue if they visit a doctor and the doctor doesn’t make them well, regardless of their illness or prognosis.

                You remind me a lot of that guy. I know you’re trying to get good at arguing for your law career, but sometimes you just argue for the sake of arguing. You are obviously a smart guy and can be clever and even funny sometimes, but you would do well to pick your battles better and know when to move on.

                You’ll see this a lot in people well ahead of you in law careers. I have friends who are senior partners in enormous firms, and they are about the most pleasant, fun-to-be with people you could ever meet. In other words, they know how to turn off being a lawyer and go back to being a likeable person again.

                1. How was I getting an argument started? By disagreeing with Ed’s comment? More like (seeming to) exonerate the evil progs no doubt.

                  Look, since we are reminding each other of people, sarc, red and Francis remind me of that guy at every bar who comes in and wants to vent. He wants to get a good hate on someone or something going and then show that he can be the loudest, angriest, most extreme hater of that evil in the place.

                  And one thing that really, really burns that kind of person up us someone who interrupts the simplistic rage is someone asking a question like “are you sure that’s right?’

                  1. Let’s be clear, Bo. There is only one reason I hate you. It’s, quite simply, because you are an asshole.

                    You are a childish, impudent, argumentative, never wrong, know it all at the ripe old age of 24, pedant, asshole. And what makes you all the more annoying is your complete lack of self awareness. You actually believe the reason you are hated is because everyone is jealous of your abilities.

                    Got news for ya, retard. When you enter a room where EVERYONE despises you…it ain’t them.

                    1. Got news for ya, retard. When you enter a room where EVERYONE despises you…it ain’t them.

                      That’s not what his mom said!

                  2. It is piling on, but hardly anyone deserves it more:

                    “And one thing that really, really burns that kind of person up us someone who interrupts the simplistic rage is someone asking a question like “are you sure that’s right?'”

                    You are absolutely right, Bo, and I’m sure YOU would be that person, knowing zero about the circumstance and jumping right in to push someone’s buttons to show YOU ARE SUCH AN INTELLIGENT HUMAN BEING TO POINT OUT WHAT NO ONE COULD POSSIBLY HAVE CONSIDERED WITHOUT YOUR SUPERIOR INTELLIGENCE!
                    No, you’re self-centered twit, totally without regard to others, and thoroughly convinced that the world NEEDS you.

    3. I think domestic disturbance calls and resisting arrest charges were probably not particularly inventions of the progressives.

      So? Are you saying progressives had to invent those policies in order to support them?

      1. You think progressives are particularly big supporters of those? Domestic disturbance calls are as old as police work, as is resisting arrest charges, that goes on in Georgia and Utah just like New York

        1. Hint for sarc, Red: we could get rid of the awful regressive laws described in that earlier post and this kind of thing would still roll on.

        2. As outraged as they claim to be about the War On Women, yes, I think progressives are very supportive of paramilitary responses to domestic disturbance calls.

          1. Not to mention that progs should be outraged about particularly abusive treatment of the alleged victim.

            File this under: eggs, omelettes, etc.

    4. Communist tyrants execute “reactionaries” by firing squad.

      Bo says it is ok because communists didn’t invent firing squads.

  13. #MyPoliceState

  14. Based on this weekend at HnR, I’m guessing as libertarians the only issues we care about any more are shitty police?

    I think we can all agree about bad cops.

    Perhaps there is something related to ‘free minds and free markets’ that can be a post today?

    1. Agreed. I’m burned out on this shit.

      Cops suck…no kidding.

    2. How about the hag Pelosi getting called on BS?

      “Nancy Pelosi Confronts GOP Congressman In ‘Out Of Control,’ Testy House Debate”
      http://www.sfgate.com/technolo…..664502.php

      The headline is lefty-rag agit-prop; she ‘confronted’ him after he pointed out she’s a hypocrite.

      1. Bat-shit crazy, that woman is.

        1. When someone suggests I contact my rep over some issue, I simply point out who that is.
          End of discussion.

          1. I was impressed that the kid wasn’t gonna let her slide by at first.

          2. What does it say about a constituency that keeps reelecting…that?

            1. Well, you think I’m gonna defend the SF voting population?

              1. Sevo, you alone, double the collective intelligence of that population.

                1. Francisco d’Anconia|8.2.14 @ 8:54PM|#
                  “Sevo, you alone, double the collective intelligence of that population.”

                  I’ll thank you for the compliment, but if you look just a bit down-thread, that guy Papaya represents a real gain also.

                  1. Why, thank you.

                    1. Hey, you deserve it as do others.
                      Who posts on SF Gate; forgot his handle? Starchild has yet to disappoint. And, then, uh, and uh, well…

                    2. “Who posts on SF Gate; forgot his handle?”
                      Oh, yeah! He posts as “Cassidy” and is amazingly constrained in the sewer that is SF Gate comments.

                  2. My apologies to Papaya. I think I don’t associate him with SF because my brain always interprets PapayaSF as “Pappa Smurf”. 😉

                    1. “Papa Smurf” is a new interpretation. I just always thought the word “papaya” was funny, and I’ve in SF for many years.

                      I used to post at SFGate under this handle now and then, but have pretty much stopped even reading the site because they changed their comment system (for the worst) a while back. It used to be easier to read, and you could downvote comments.

                    2. Yeah, in my brain, you’ll always be a short blue guy with a red hat and white beard. 😉

            2. What does it say about a constituency that keeps reelecting…that?

              That their voting machines are registering incorrectly?

              It is incomprehensible to me how she got to be *Speaker of the House*.

              1. Proof that being a successful politician has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with intelligence.

                1. “Proof that being a successful politician has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with intelligence.”

                  As if we need more:
                  Barbara Boxer!

            3. Homeless people don’t vote?

            4. There is a lot of acid consumed on election day?

    3. It gets a lot of att’n because it’s on video, everyone in practically any audience of any political opinion thinks it’s bad, and it should be one of the easiest things in the world to correct. Just tell the cops they’re out of a job if they’re assholes. Since we’re interested here in making the world better, and since this type of betterment is so uncontroversial and hence should be easy to achieve, why shouldn’t it get a lot of play here?

      1. Oh I get it, you think HyR should focus only on things that are controversial, because that makes it more interesting. Not only do libertarians have to be right, but also everyone else has to be wrong, huh? We can never press hard on a popular cause, huh?

      2. “Since we’re interested here in making the world better, and since this type of betterment is so uncontroversial and hence should be easy to achieve, why shouldn’t it get a lot of play here?”

        Not only do we hope to make things better, but we hope to do so by limiting government, and you can hardly find better examples of why we do than cops acting like cops.
        But that doesn’t stop me from enjoying the hag Pelosi being handed a shit-sandwich.

      3. I even overheard this one being talked about at the Dunkin’ Donuts-Taco Bell. That’s where I 1st heard of it: old white men talking about how the aggrieved parties should sue the heck out of the city, and bemoaning the fact that the taxpayers will pay. Come to think of it, since it was a doughnut shop, they might’ve been cops too.

        1. I think it’s actually a Dunkin’ Donuts-Taco Bell-Pizza Hut, but who eats Pizza Hut in NYC?

          1. Are there other pizza places in NYC?

            1. Yeah, but I heard they all sell deep dish. *ducks*

              1. Every pizza joint has a stale plate of deep-dish sitting around, unsold.

                1. It’s not pizza. It’s quiche.

    4. Perhaps there is something related to ‘free minds and free markets’ that can be a post today?

      Hmmm.. well do you prefer Marijuana, Mexicans, or Butt-Sex?

      1. How about Marijuana-addled Mexican Butt Sex?

      2. I knew I should read down before posting a reply. 🙂

    5. I agree, the police brutality/puppycide stories are getting repetitive and just an excuse for ideological outrage. I prefer stories which have some sort of interesting or clever libertarian solution, beyond “cops shouldn’t do things like this.”

      1. Maybe here, yeah – but I think the MSM needs to print one of these after the other (there’s an endless supply) in order to get it through the average person’s skull that shit needs to change.

  15. Or, some ‘activists’ get some people with walkers (and you might well wonder when they got the walkers) to piss and moan about prosperity:

    “Seniors and people with disabilities block tech buses in S.F.”
    http://www.sfgate.com/default/…..663641.php

    1. OK, there’s a lot of agit-prop in there but aside from that, if what I’m reading is accurate, I think it’s pretty shitty if the “techie buses” are blocking the “wheelchair buses”.

      1. “if what I’m reading is accurate,”

        There’s the key. It’s not. There is no way one of those buses is gonna block disabled access. I promise, the driver is gonna be out of that bus, CARRYING the DP to the destination.
        You’d have to follow it, but it’s a manufactured ‘crises’ with the full approval of the SF Chron. That gal mentioned in the article sets up the protest, calls the Chron and stages the photos to make it look like there’s more than 5 or 6 people there.

        1. Oh, so SOP. Carry on.

          Now, not knowing the details here, I would say the obvious solution would be to grant the Rich People buses their own stops – perhaps with a token tribute to State if necessary to pay for the space.

          1. “the” State

    2. The tech companies have to pay 3.95 per stop per day? Sure that’s nothing to them but I’m sure that if this Council needs any tech work done by any of these companies they’re going to find that the fee is just high enough to cover the shuttle fees.

      Or more likely, being government types, they wont notice at all.

      1. The amusing thing is that there’s a law that prevents the city from charging enough to make a profit, so they charge just enough to pay for the extra city bureaucracy needed to implement and supervise the charge!

  16. What else do we have here….?
    Park Service puts people out of work, ’cause, uh,.. Nobody is really sure:

    “Tears, hugs, shucking at Drakes Bay Oyster Co.’s final day open to public”
    http://www.sfgate.com/science/…..hc-bayarea

    This might yet be enjoyable as the local food fascists are fighting the Park Service.

    1. That’s a particularly annoying story. Apparently the “environmental damage” caused by oyster farming is minimal or non-existent, and was trumped up by opponents of the farm.

      1. “and was trumped up by opponents of the farm.”

        It was profitable.

        1. I think it’s partly city-dweller worship of “untouched” nature and consequent devaluing of actual food production. Greenies trump small business and locavores.

          1. Greenies trump small business and locavores.

            Until they don’t.

  17. 12 police arrive for a domestic disturbance, as if it were a riot in progress. There always seem to be way more police than needed, and I think it’s because they have an excuse this way to socialize & goof off. At Spring St. & Lafayette Ave. there was a policeman who appeared to be guarding a wooden barrier closing off traffic for the day’s biking & walking event on Lafayette Ave. I was trying to cross Lafayette Ave. on foot, but the bike traffic on it looked daunting. You’d think the cop would be there to direct traffic, but no…he just stood there while pedestrians took their chance entering the stream, the traffic signals apparently being inapplicable at the time.

    1. There always seem to be way more police than needed

      We are so over-copped in NYC it’s ridiculous. Esp. in Manhattan, at any “event”, you will see dozens of cops at every intersection – doing nothing.

      1. Overtime.

    2. I was in Reading, PA one time and there was a car accident at a busy intersection. Three cops were standing around in the middle of the intersection bullshitting and no one was directing traffic (or even paying attention). Surprise! Another accident at the same intersection and the cops didn’t even see it happen. They were startled and jumped at the sound of another collision.

  18. These PUNK cops need a SERIOUS beating

    http://www.TotalAnon.tk

    1. Even Anon bot is pissed off by this.

      1. Even Anon bot knows which side its bread is buttered on.

        1. Anon-bot hates cops worse than any of us, I think.

        2. And he can jsut roll with the punches!

  19. The beatings will continue until morale improves.

    (Or maybe until they pick on the wrong guy, and he blows them away.)

    1. Which will result in more beatings under the guise of “officer safety”

  20. http://fox13now.com/2014/08/02…..l-assault/

    Slutwalk? Really?

    1. “I love that people say, ‘Oh she was in a dress. She deserved it.’ Um, I was in my own home in pajama bottoms and a T-shirt: No I didn’t deserve it,” said Shawndell Hoyt, who is the event director for SlutWalk SLC 2014.

      Who the fuck says this, outside of nutjob savage Islamic clerics?

      As usual, these crazy feminists are conflating actual violent crimes with rude or crude behavior.

      1. Apparently this slutwalk movement started with some piece of Canadian bacon suggested women dress more conservatively to avoid being raped.

        I don’t think that cop in some other country was necessarily speaking for the whole establishment, or was the tip of the iceberg of some Patriarchal Conspiracy.

        1. Psst, you aren’t supposed to mention that which doesn’t exist – or you’ll lose your privilege.

    2. I don’t see this as a problem.

      They are rejecting their victimhood and standing tall.

      No idea if it will work how they want it to.

      1. It’s not a ‘problem’. It’s just dumb.

    3. “They took the world’s top 80 offenders and asked what their victims were wearing and not one of them could say,” Hoyt said.

      That’s because they’re hetero dudes. It doesn’t prove that clothing had no influence at the time.

  21. Ugandan court strikes down homosexuality law for lack of a quorum to pass it.

    http://m.apnews.com/ap/db_2687…..d=f68AR49q

    1. How do you “attempt homosexuality”? Seems to me that you either are gay or you aren’t.

  22. Unpermitted private road pops up to serve emergency demand.

    http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-eng…..t-28610943

    Local crats upset.

    1. Landslips are what you get for bldg. your country on limestone.

      1. Limeystone.

  23. Papal-Jesuit open-borders plot:

    http://www.bostonglobe.com/new…..nt=event12

    1. I invite American Catholic leaders to move to Honduras and end the poverty and crime and disease there, rather than supporting the importation of poverty and crime and disease. We have more than enough of our own, thank you.

    2. The Catholic Church needs to look at all the third world Catholic shitholes and re-evaluate the quality of their political advice.

      1. And maybe the preference for selecting those who aren’t interested in women for the role of ‘advising’ young guys.

        1. yea, that too

    3. I don’t think there’s much daylight between the Church bigwigs and many Reason staff commenters on this issue.

      Some commenters have gotten so kneejerk in their responses to anything Catholic that a bishop could say “have a nice day,” and these commenters would reply, “nice day? What about the Inquisition and the Crusader?”

      1. Reason staff *and* commenters.

  24. What I’d like to know is where is the “no justice, no peace” crowd in all of this? Maybe Reason can cover that as well.

  25. I do not see how this reflects “progressive” policy. First, there is a difference between what is being enforced, and how it is being enforced. I believe liberals and progressives can agree that there is a problem with excessive force, and that there is a racial component to it.

    Second, prior posts have criticized the enforcement of “minor crimes.” This is the broken windows approach, more of a conservative approach advocated by Wilson and Kelling. But again, just because you arrest people for “loosies” does not lead to a chokehold (which is apparently not allowed anyway). I hope De Blasio will take this on as time goes on, but it will take time.

    1. This is the broken windows approach

      The “broken windows” approach, to the extent that it’s been validated by data, has looked at the connection between minor property crimes and more serious crimes.

      That’s where it gets its name.

      There is a connection between enforcing laws against vandalism and overall crime rates, because vandalism leaves a visible trace – the broken window. Criminals see broken windows and assume that means that the area is blighted and beyond the law.

      I don’t see how failure to enforce the law against selling untaxed cigarettes can qualify for the “broken windows” scenario. The “crime” leaves no visible trace. And the “crime” is actually visually indistinguishable from other perfectly legal activities. If seeing people selling stuff created crime, then every Tiffany’s in the country should be the epicentre of a crime epidemic.

      1. then every Tiffany’s in the country should be the epicentre of a crime epidemic.

        The crime of PROFITZ, yes.

      2. In the original article from 1982, the authors discuss disorder at length, and in this example, refer to an unchecked panhandler:

        “That link is similar to the process whereby one broken window becomes many. The citizen who fears the ill-smelling drunk, the rowdy teenager, or the importuning beggar is not merely expressing his distaste for unseemly behavior; he is also giving voice to a bit of folk wisdom that happens to be a correct generalization?namely, that serious street crime flourishes in areas in which disorderly behavior goes unchecked. The unchecked panhandler is, in effect, the first broken window. Muggers and robbers, whether opportunistic or professional, believe they reduce their chances of being caught or even identified if they operate on streets where potential victims are already intimidated by prevailing conditions. If the neighborhood cannot keep a bothersome panhandler from annoying passersby, the thief may reason, it is even less likely to call the police to identify a potential mugger or to interfere if the mugging actually takes place.”

        I maintain the problem is police tactics as described in Radley Balko’s book; not enforcement per se of two-bit offenses. I think we should consider decriminalizing any matter we will not enforce, because otherwise it’s all arbitrary. If anyone is concerned about racial (in)justice, I believe the great flexibility of enforcement is an issue.

        1. That article expresses what I call the quantitative theory of gov’t: that it really is about how much gov’t, how much control, there is, rather than what the gov’t does or what is controlled. One apparent adherent I’ve noted of it is John Podhoretz, NY Post. Unfortunately in the current culture, that outlook is self-reinforcing; it really is true to some useful extent that repression of anything is positively correlated with suppression of crime, because people think that…because it is, because people think that. It’s a well worn groove that’ll be hard to break out of.

          The converse of what was written above also seems to be true: that you have a better chance of being left alone by the cops in high crime areas than in low crime areas. It’s like you need criminals and police to occupy each other and leave everyone else alone.

          But the current instance is, as you write, all about police tactics, not about 2-bit offense enforcement per se.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.