Police Abuse

7 Race-Neutral Solutions to Racially Skewed Law Enforcement

These reforms would protect all Americans while reducing racial disparities in policing.

|

The other day, my 14-year-old daughter, who was born in Ethiopia, asked me why some people object to the slogan "Black Lives Matter." I said many well-intentioned Americans, including people who recognize police abuse as a serious problem, view the phrase as divisive. Some of them prefer to say "All Lives Matter," meaning that we should aspire to fair treatment of all citizens, regardless of their complexions or ethnicity. Yet that formulation glosses over stark, persistent, and widely documented racial disparities in law enforcement, which contradict the principle of equal treatment under the law and cannot be explained by racial differences in the propensity to commit crimes.

Many conservatives and Republicans are reluctant to acknowledge that reality, fearing that doing so would endorse the proposition that American society is irredeemably racist. But that does not necessarily follow, since many of these disparities are caused by race-neutral policies that impose disproportionate burdens on black people or give too much power and discretion to police officers, some of whom may be influenced, consciously or not, by racial prejudice. By the same token, racial disparities can be reduced by race-neutral reforms that would benefit everyone. Here are some examples.

1. Eliminate Unconstitutional Pedestrian Stops

In principle, stop-and-frisk programs, whether or not they are actually effective at reducing crime, can be constitutional. But according to the Supreme Court's decision in the 1968 case Terry v. Ohio, that means every stop has to be based on reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, and every frisk has to be based on reasonable suspicion that the subject is armed. Stop-and-frisk data from New York City suggest that police officers commonly flouted those requirements, which is one reason a federal judge deemed the program unconstitutional.

Enforcing the constitutional requirements for pedestrian stops would not eliminate racial disparities, which are unavoidable when police focus their resources on high-crime, low-income neighborhoods—a decision that makes sense for reasons that have nothing to do with race. But requiring police to respect the Fourth Amendment as it applies to pedestrian stops would address the understandable grievances of innocent black people who are hassled by cops for no good reason and who recognize that white people are much less likely to go through that degrading experience.

2. Curtail Pretextual Traffic Stops

In the 1996 case Whren v. United States, the Supreme Court said the Fourth Amendment allows police to stop a driver whenever they have probable cause to believe he has violated the law, no matter how trivial the offense, even when that violation is merely a pretext for investigating other matters. If an officer stops a car for a traffic violation in the hope of finding illegal drugs or seizable cash, according to the Court, that is perfectly constitutional, even without any evidence of criminal conduct.

State vehicle codes include hundreds of rules governing the maintenance and operation of automobiles, many of which are picayune or open to interpretation. It is difficult, if not impossible, to drive for any length of time without violating one of them. Whren therefore gives police vast discretion to stop drivers they deem suspicious, which opens the door to decisions affected by racial bias.

One study after another has found that black drivers are much more likely than white drivers to be searched during routine traffic stops, and that those searches are less likely to discover contraband. A study by Charles Epp and two other researchers at the University of Kansas is particularly revealing.

After surveying drivers in the Kansas City area in 2003 and 2004, Epp and his colleagues classified police encounters based on the legal justification (or lack thereof) and the amount of discretion involved. They found that black drivers were no more likely than white drivers to report clear-cut "traffic safety stops" (e.g., for running a red light or stop sign, driving at night with headlights off, or exceeding the speed limit by seven or more miles an hour) but were nearly three times as likely to report seemingly pretextual "investigatory stops" (e.g., for an unilluminated license plate, driving too slowly, or no reason mentioned by the officer).

During investigatory stops, Epp and his colleagues reported, black drivers were five times as likely as white drivers to be searched. They were also more likely to be handcuffed and threatened with arrest, and more likely to describe the officer's demeanor as rude, hostile, or insulting. Blacks perceived investigatory stops as less legitimate than traffic safety stops, while whites made no such distinction. The more stops black drivers had experienced, the less they trusted the police, an effect that was not apparent among white drivers.

Even if the Supreme Court never reconsiders Whren, that does not have to be the end of the matter. State courts can curtail pretextual stops by applying the search-and-seizure limits imposed by state constitutions, which in many cases have been interpreted as providing broader protection than the Fourth Amendment.

Last year, for instance, the Oregon Supreme Court said that state's constitution bars police from routinely fishing for evidence of a crime when they stop drivers for minor traffic offenses. "All investigative activities, including investigative inquiries, conducted during a traffic stop are part of an ongoing seizure and are subject to both subject-matter and durational limitations," it said. "Accordingly, an officer is limited to investigatory inquiries that are reasonably related to the purpose of the traffic stop or that have an independent constitutional justification."

Legislators also have a role to play. The Fourth Amendment, as interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court, creates a floor that can be raised by legislation. Regardless of what state courts say, legislators could impose a rule similar to the one that now applies in Oregon.

3. Abolish Civil Asset Forfeiture

Civil asset forfeiture allows police to seize cash they come across during routine traffic stops based on a bare allegation that it is somehow connected to criminal activity, typically drug trafficking. Once the cash is seized, the owner bears the burden of challenging the forfeiture, a process that often costs more money than the cops took. This financial motive is a major driver of pretextual traffic stops, as illustrated by the 2013 case in which Iowa state troopers stole $100,000 in poker winnings from two men they had pulled over for failing to properly signal a lane change.

While the victims in that case were white, there are many examples of outrageous seizures involving black or Hispanic travelers whose only crime was carrying an amount of cash that police deemed suspicious. A 1992 investigation by The Orlando Sentinel found that nine out 10 drivers whose cash was seized in Volusia County, Florida, were black or Hispanic; three-quarters of them were never charged with a crime. Under Philadelphia's asset forfeiture program, according to a 2015 report from the American Civil Liberties Union, African Americans, who represent 44 percent of the city's population, accounted for 71 percent of cash seizures that did not involve a criminal conviction. Abolishing civil asset forfeiture, as several states have effectively done, would address disparities like these while simultaneously protecting everyone's due process and property rights.

4. Narrow the Authority to Arrest People

In the 2001 case Atwater v. City of Lago Vista, the Supreme Court approved arrests for minor traffic violations like failing to buckle your seat belt, meaning you can go to jail for offenses that are not punishable by jail. States such as Texas and Georgia authorize arrests for a wide range of traffic offenses.

The reform group Just Liberty estimates that more than 45,000 Texas drivers were arrested during traffic stops in 2016 for Class C misdemeanors—traffic and city ordinance violations that are typically handled with citations. That happens less than 1 percent of the time, which raises the question of how police decide that an arrest is warranted. Broad arrest authority gives police dangerous discretion that can be used to punish drivers they consider insufficiently respectful or do not like for arbitrary reasons.

As last week's shooting of Rayshard Brooks during an arrest for driving under the influence in Atlanta illustrates, taking a driver into custody not only involves additional anxiety, humiliation, and inconvenience; it creates the potential for violence that otherwise could be avoided. A breath test put Brooks' blood alcohol concentration at 0.1 percent, slightly above the current legal limit of 0.08 percent and right on the line under the standard that most states used before the 1990s. The offense he was charged with is a low-level misdemeanor that is theoretically punishable by up to 10 days in jail but is typically handled by sanctions such as probation, fines, community service, and license restrictions.

Instead of routinely arresting drivers in such cases, police could issue citations, accompanied by precautions, such as taking away the car keys or towing or booting the car, aimed at preventing them from getting back behind the wheel while they are intoxicated. But that approach is forbidden by the Atlanta Police Department's current policy, which requires arrests of drivers with a blood alcohol concentration of 0.08 percent or more.

5. Stop Trusting Police Dogs

The Supreme Court has approved the use of drug-sniffing dogs during routine traffic stops, provided it does not "unreasonably" prolong the driver's detention. And the Court has said an alert by a properly trained dog is enough to provide probable cause for a search, notwithstanding substantial evidence that such alerts are often erroneous, imagined, invented, or triggered by the handler's subconscious cues. In practice, these rulings mean that when a driver declines to allow a search, an officer can still get permission from a dog.

Even if police properly use a well-trained dog, false positives can far outnumber true positives when the animal is used during routine traffic stops, because a small percentage of cars are actually carrying illegal drugs. In a 2006 George Mason Law Review article, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill law professor Richard E. Myers calculated that a dog who performs well in controlled conditions could still erroneously alert to cars 84 percent of the time in the real world. Is a 16 percent chance of finding drugs enough for probable cause? It's not exactly clear based on the case law, but Myers persuasively argues that the probability should be substantially higher.

Dog-authorized searches mean that many innocent drivers will be detained for far longer than was necessary to address the original reason for the stop as the cops go through their personal possessions. Even if police do not find evidence to support a drug arrest or cash they have a license to steal, that experience is embarrassing and time-consuming. Americans should not have to live in fear of canine narcs simply because judges have an unjustified faith in dogs' ability to reliably identify drug offenders. And given the racial disparities in car searches, African Americans have special grounds for concern on that score.

6. End the War on Drugs

As long as the government insists on trying to forcibly prevent people from consuming arbitrarily proscribed intoxicants, Americans will continue to encounter police for no good reason, and those encounters will be invasive, humiliating, destructive, injurious, and sometimes deadly. As the shooting of Breonna Taylor during a drug raid in Louisville, Kentucky, last March shows, people can end up dead even when they are not drug dealers, simply because they exercise their basic rights by defending their homes against armed invaders.

"No-knock warrants have proven to be lethal to citizens and police officers, for an obvious reason," Rep. Tom McClintock (R–Calif.) observed last week. "The invasion of a person's home is one of the most terrifying powers government possesses. Every person in a free society has the right to take arms against an intruder in their homes, and the authority of the police to make such an intrusion has to be announced before it takes place. To do otherwise places every one of us in mortal peril."

Although restricting no-knock raids is a good idea, it is not an adequate response to this danger. Even when police knock and announce themselves while serving a search warrant, that notification can easily be missed by slumbering residents during middle-of-the-night raids, especially when the cops breach the door immediately after knocking, which is common. The basic problem is not the techniques that police use when they break down our doors but the lack of a moral justification for such assaults. Drug prohibition is based on the premise that violence is an appropriate response to peaceful conduct that violates no one's rights. It isn't.

The drug war's origins were explicitly racist, and it continues to have a disproportionate impact on racial minorities, no matter the intent of the people who wage it. Three-quarters of drug offenders in federal prison and two-fifths of drug offenders in state prison are black or Hispanic. Black people are nearly four times as likely as white people to be arrested for marijuana possession, even though they are only slightly more likely to be cannabis consumers. When African Americans are caught with cocaine, they are apt to receive especially severe penalties under federal law, even now that the sentencing gap between the smoked and snorted forms of the drug has been narrowed.

Those disparities should trouble anyone who cares about equality under the law, and they help explain the anger expressed in recent protests against police brutality. But drug prohibition would be unjust, ineffective, costly, counterproductive, and morally bankrupt even if it victimized everyone equally. It is the main driver of pretextual traffic stops, car and home searches, asset forfeiture, no-knock raids, and the court-blessed erosion of our Fourth Amendment rights. It fuels violence, corruption, and theft; makes drug use more dangerous by creating a black market in which quality and potency are unpredictable; and diverts police resources from predatory crimes. Ending the war on drugs would be a victory for all Americans, whatever their skin color or pharmacological tastes.

7. Abolish Qualified Immunity

Despite hopes that the Supreme Court would reconsider this doctrine, which protects police officers from liability when they violate rights that were not "clearly established" at the time, the justices seem to be passing up that opportunity for now. Meanwhile, Republicans in Congress seem to consider legislative efforts to abolish the doctrine beyond the pale. That attitude is puzzling, since critics across the political spectrum have been pointing out for years that qualified immunity amounts to a license for outrageous police conduct whenever the victims cannot identify a sufficiently specific precedent.

Derek Chauvin, the now-former Minneapolis police officer who killed George Floyd by kneeling on his neck for nearly nine minutes, has been charged with murder. But would he be liable under 42 USC 1983, the federal law that allows people to sue government officials for violating their constitutional rights? Although decisions by various federal appeals courts suggest he would be, the issue is surprisingly unclear in the 8th Circuit, which includes Minnesota.

In a 2020 case with similar facts—a handcuffed arrestee named Nicholas Gilbert who suffocated while restrained by St. Louis police officers in a prone position for 15 minutes—the 8th Circuit granted qualified immunity to the cops. "We find that the Officers' actions did not amount to constitutionally excessive force," the appeals court said. "The undisputed facts…show that the Officers held Gilbert in the prone position only until he stopped actively fighting against his restraints."

In Floyd's case, he was not resisting, except by repeatedly complaining that he could not breathe. Presumably those facts would make a difference in the court's analysis. But I am not completely sure about that, and the fact that I felt a need to look it up speaks volumes about the extent to which qualified immunity prevents victims of police abuse from holding cops accountable for it.

If stealing cash and property worth more than $225,000 while executing a search warrant, siccing a police dog on a suspect who had already surrendered, shooting a 10-year-old while trying to kill his dog after chasing a suspect into their yard, and wrecking a woman's home by bombarding it with tear gas grenades after she agreed to let cops enter to arrest her ex-boyfriend do not qualify as violations of "clearly established" rights, maybe Chauvin's appalling behavior doesn't either. Something has gone terribly wrong when we have to ask that question.

NEXT: A Labor Council Has Expelled Seattle's Police Union. Good.

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. So did anyone else see that NYPD is talking about going on strike on the 4th of July? Should be some interesting fireworks this year.

    1. I have my face mask, jogging boots (w/ steel toes) and Hanukkah list prepared!

      1. Lol. But seriously, the jewish population up there should be taking to the streets against Deblasio

        1. Warren Wilhelm Jr. is certainly living up to a post-war German ethnic stereotype.

          1. My last pay check was $8750 just ecom working 12 hours for every week. My neighbor have found the estimation of $15k for a long time and she works around 20 hours for seven days. OPt I can not trust how direct it was once I tried it information…… Click here

    1. I don’t disagree with any of the headlined points Sullum had in this article. Certainly disagree with some of the examples he used to buttress those points though, mentioning Brooks as an example of a crime not requiring an arrest being the most egregious in my quick scan of the article.

      I think implementing all of those points Sullum mentioned would improve relations between law enforcement and the citizenry.

      1. Yea, the prescription is good.
        My comment above was a reaction to the header and pimping of race as primary

      2. Brooks was only 3/5ths of a percent over the legal limit.
        Isn’t driving drunk a victimless crime?

        1. 20 percent over, Rabbi. Not to mention that the BAC figure is just for DUI per se. As in, you definitely are driving under the influence with a BAC over 0.08 percent, but you could be driving under the influence with a lesser BAC. Falling asleep in the Wendy’s drive through is pretty conclusive evidence that he shouldn’t have been driving.

          I wonder what else he had in his system? Maybe he’d just been up for a lot of hours, enough to where .10 meant sleepytime.

          1. 25% over. Math is hard.

            1. You’re right. Additive vs Multiplicative has tripped me up in the past, and no doubt will do so in the future.

              Still per se DUI.

              1. Yes, I was just being snarky. But I have my doubts about how precise and repeatable those breath machines are; it would be interesting to compare a random dozen.

                1. First thing a defense lawyer asks is when the breathalyzer was calibrated.
                  They do it regularly.

          2. But does it need to be a handcuff/squad card/booking incident. Couldn’t the drunk driving result in an arrest, a cab ride home, and a ticket with a court date? Why risk the opportunity for a resist of arrest?

            1. If he comes back, later, drives his car and causes a death or serious injury the cop is on the hook.
              The ticket is proof of the contact, the BAC and how long ago it happened.
              The old days of getting the drunk home are long gone.

              1. cop shot him in the back which means he was not aiming the empty taser at him. also one bullet hit a car with 3 people in it. THAT IS WHY YOU DO NOT OPEN UP IN A PUBLIC PARKING LOT

          3. Also if he was at 0.10 when they tested him, it was almost certainly higher when he was actually driving.

        2. He was over the pre-MADD standard of .10

      3. I disagree with striking down Qualified Immunity all together. As a brother to a cop in smaller, he often butted heads with privileged residents who simply didn’t think the laws applied to them. They were constantly pushing the limits. He was careful to ensure he had the right paper trails but there was no doubt they wanted him gone. They often claimed abuse when it was obvious they were upset for being busted for legitimately breaking the law. I can’t imagine a cop in any city having to cover the legal fees of a frivilous lawsuit perpetrated by some scum bag and his/her “step and fall” lawyer. That said there are abuses but I would argue with the right oversight these could be minimized. So I am not sure how the so-called libertarians on this site reconcile issues like this. I would imagine for the author abolishing the police all together is the answer.

        1. I can’t imagine a cop in any city having to cover the legal fees of a frivilous lawsuit perpetrated by some scum bag and his/her “step and fall” lawyer.

          All judges have the option to have a plaintiff pay the defendants fees when the lawsuit is frivolous. That they don’t do this more often is a travesty.

      4. “Mentioning Brooks as an example of a crime not requiring an arrest….” It wasn’t being used as an example of not needing an arrest. It was an example of what can go wrong when you make an arrest.

        1. It wasn’t being used as an example of not needing an arrest. It was an example of what can go wrong when you make an arrest.

          This doesn’t justify it. Of course arrests of people who need arresting are going to sometimes go sideways. The relevant question for this argument is how often arrests of people who don’t need arresting go sideways.

      5. Totally agree. While I also would like to see some of these implemented it certainly has nothing to do with their being racist, it’s just because they’re wrong. I think asset forfeiture is largely unconstitutional and some of the others are just bad policing, but he certainly didn’t make me believe that they’re mainly tools of racists, especially when he gives an example and then says “While the victims in that case were white, there are many examples of outrageous seizures involving black or Hispanic travelers” and then gives examples of higher rates of black people it happens to in majority black areas and Hispanics in predominantly Hispanic areas. Why would you think more black people being be pulled over in an area where the population is mostly black has to be because of racism?

        And I have suspicions about people who go all the way to Ethiopia to adopt a child when there are millions of children of every race right here in America who need adopting, especially when they climb on the “I see racism everywhere” horse.

        1. But why not sugar coat some libertarian reforms in combating systematic racism? Libertarians have been pushing police reforms for decades with little success. This is a chance to make change.

  2. How often do cops pull over elderly black women drivers on their way to Bingo night? Or are we supposed to pretend the cops aren’t biased toward young males, because it doesn’t fit the narrative.

    1. When I was a young white male I would get pulled over a lot for dumb shit like the license plate light or expired inspection sticker. Hey, I had no money at the time. Almost every time I’d get the “do you have any guns, knives, drugs or anything else in your car that I should know about” spiel followed by the inevitable “you wouldn’t mind if I take a quick look, would you?” If I said yes I mind, they would threaten to impound the car for the stupid infraction or to make me sit out in the heat while we all wait on a drug dog to arrive. Anyway, now that I’m an old black woman I never even get pulled over.

      1. Snort.

        But yeah, my getting pulled over decreased a ton with me getting older, and driving less clapped out pieces of crap. Still nothing even back then though, compared to what a young black male goes through, if Philando Castile and his 41 traffic stops before his demise is any indication.

        1. Philando Castile and his 41 traffic stops before his demise is any indication

          41? No shit. I did not know that. Which is complete bullshit.

          1. Go look at the wiki for his shooting. He got pulled over a lot. Which could mean he was one of those guys who was a trouble magnet when it came to cars—though nothing serious enough to deny him a LTC—or it could mean that he lived in an area where, a la Ferguson, MO, the cops lived to try and fine the people who lived there. I couldn’t tell you which.

            1. Most cities use traffic violations to pad their coffers. Plano cops LOVE to do that shit.

          2. So is advocating for importing pedophile sexual predators from other countries. Yet somehow you manage.

        2. Friend of mine talks about being pulled over 38 times (he, like me, is in his mid 30s now).
          It got me thinking, and I’ve probably been pulled over around 20 times.
          So there’s a disparity there, I guess.
          Haven’t been pulled over nearly as much as I’ve gotten older and my car has gotten better.
          Though I’ve been pulled over fewer times, I have been handcuffed, put in the back of a cruiser, and locked up in jail 2 more times than him (he’s at 0). And both times were bs miniscule possession. One time I had a headlight out, so that was legitimate pull over. They brought a dog and found a tiny, little roach (the end of a blunt that’s been smoked down until it’s too small to hold, but has a little bit of weed left). The other time the cop claimed “failure to maintain lane”, which was a lie, then claimed to see a flake of weed giving him cause to search the car, and i did have a bowl. Went to jail twice for a total amount of possession that wouldn’t be enough to get a first time smoker high.
          Race is just one factor a cop uses to determine whether or not he can fuck you

          1. When I was a young and greasy punk with purple hair I must have been pulled over at least 30 times, but since I graduated and started wearing a tie and obeying traffic rules I haven’t been stopped since.

            However, two years ago I was a passenger with my boss who happens to be Nigerian and we were stopped for speeding.
            I’d say it was racism but he was doing 98mph in a 60 zone.

            1. 98 in a 60 will get you pulled over

            2. Remember when they sued in NJ because cops were pulling too many black people over for traffic violations so it HAD to be racism, then when it was investigated it turned out that blacks actually violated traffic laws more than whites did?

              1. then when it was investigated it turned out that blacks actually violated traffic laws more than whites did?

                Actually violated or were actually cited? I’d like to know how they did that study.

        3. Ok, I didn’t get pulled over 41 times, but it was probably like 21 within about a 5 year stretch.

        4. Same. But I also don’t drive like a shithead much anymore and I’m not constantly running late. Hard to separate how much was from being a young punk and how much from looking like a young punk.

          1. Here’s a question: what percent of the time you see a car get pulled over are you confident in saying the stop was pretextual? Nearly every time I’ve seen someone pulled over it’s either a flagrant violation or a speed trap.

    2. In my experience, the traffic stops tend to be more based on age and perceived class. If a person is young, or has a “poor person car”, that person gets pulled over more often. Sometimes justifiably, but oftentimes not.

      1. You know what isn’t justified? Bringing pedophiles from other countries to rape A,Eric am children. But you’re totally for that.

  3. Unless you are attempting to sell these polices to wary blacks, why even bring race into the discussion? Are blacks too stupid to figure out how these polices might affect them? Are these things whites will only support reluctantly at the needling of blacks?

    Granted the current discussion about police reform is largely a dumpster fire (at least in some segments).

    But this soft bigotry of low expectations that blacks can’t effectively weigh policy ideas (or advocate their own) is just as demeaning as supposed allies thinking they know what is best.

    Let the polices stand on their own merits.

    1. Are you a racist? If you are using the phrase “soft bigotry of low expectation” or “all lives matter” you are a racist.

      1. I genuinely can’t tell if you’re being ironic or serious.

        1. He’s being serious (unless tulpa grabbed his name).
          It’s that progressive defense mechanism to deny their own racism

          1. Hi Guys…… Did you know Most of the People lose their Jobs because of the pandemic and many people facing difficulty to live and to feed their family without a proper job in these days. But here is a hope i prefer you a good online job which surely gave you enough income to feed your family in these days. So if you want this then just you need to do is open this website and follow next instructions to get an easy home based job right now…………. Good Luck…………… ReadMore here

      2. or just trying to be inclusive. I heard the T and Q blacks wanted to be sure their lives matter too, so I say “all lives matter”. It seems more inclusive and less racist.

      3. I disagree somewhat with the notion that the phrase “All Lives Matter” indicates an attitude of people who are racist. Here’s why:
        While it’s true that darker skinned people (i. e. black and brown) are more likely to be stopped, followed around in stores, and be the victims of police brutality, it’s also true, however that sometimes, even whites on the lower end of the socioeconomic spectrum here in the United States are the victims of police brutality, as well.

        A 75 year old white man in Minneapolis, MN, who was participating in a Black Lives Matter protest was recently brutalized and seriously injured by policemen.

        I’ve also known whites who’ve looked more hippie-like, and even look somewhat tougher who’ve been pulled over by and abused by cops as well. It doesn’t happen as often to whites, but it happens, especially to poorer whites.

      4. All lives matter.

        1. This is the land of the free.

          You’re not allowed to say that. /commie-derp

      5. I just have plain old low expectations. Is that racism?

      6. The large majority of people calling other people racist are actually flaming racists themselves.

    2. why even bring race into the discussion

      Good question. Who’s doing that again?

        1. Not *just* Sullum, but he and all of his media brethren.
          + pretty much everyone else on the left

        2. cannot be explained by racial differences in the propensity to commit crimes.

          Um, never heard of black on black shootings ( far more common than inter-racial shootings)?

          Race may have little or nothing to do with it, but the numbers don’t lie. Crowding, poverty, single parent families, unemployment, relatives in jail for petty crimes, etc are all contributing to an environment that makes crime common, attractive, and easy.

          1. numbers don’t lie. Crowding, poverty, single parent families, unemployment, relatives in jail for petty crimes, etc are all contributing to an environment that makes crime common, attractive, and easy.

            The numbers don’t tell you the causal direction.

      1. I thought it went without saying that redirecting to race instead of the inherent problem with the state’s legal monopoly on the use of violence meant that the state and it’s allies in the media could continually use the problem as a political cudgel without ever having to sacrifice any power or authority.

        This is a libertarian site right? We all know the state needs perpetual problems that it can never actually solve for the purpose of controlling and fleecing taxpayers.

        As an overly simplistic slogan or as an informal political party, I don’t take black lives matter as sincere or genuine because there is no clearly defined endgame. It’s akin to arguments for reparations, no dollar amount would ever be enough to wipe the stain of original sin away from this country. This is a religion. You can’t debate it. If you don’t buy in, you’re a heretic. This is another iteration of moral scolds in the tradition of old New England puritans, prohibitionists and other pro state enthusiasts.

  4. Intel report warns that far-right extremists may target Washington, D.C.

    The assessment, dated June 15 and obtained by Politico, reported that “recent events indicate violent adherents of the boogaloo ideology likely reside in the National Capital Region, and others may be willing to travel far distances to incite civil unrest or conduct violence encouraged in online forums associated with the movement.”
    The note, dated June 19 and obtained by Politico, aims to “provides information regarding some domestic terrorists’ exploitation of heightened tensions during recent First Amendment-protected activities in order to threaten or incite violence to start the ‘boogaloo’—a colloquial term referring to a coming civil war or the fall of civilization.”

    Participants in the boogaloo movement generally identify as anarchist, pro-Second Amendment members of citizen-militias who are preparing for a second Civil War or American revolution, extremism experts say. Several boogaloo adherents have been charged in recent weeks for acts ranging from felony murder to terrorism, and police last month seized military-style assault rifles from so-called “boogaloo bois” in Denver.

    https://www.politico.com/news/2020/06/19/intel-report-warns-far-right-extremists-target-washington-dc-329771

    1. How are anarchists right wing?
      Oh, because they’re pro 2nd amendment and then a bunch of projected traits leftist have declared “right wing” because leftists have no real arguments

      1. Think more Rothbard, less Korpotkin/Chomsky.

      2. Anarchists are closer to minarchists and small government types than they are to socialists in political philosophy, but are closer to leftists in preferred tactics.

      3. For your edification, anarchists could be either leftwing or rightwing. But in either case, they are voluntaryist. Meaning, whatever they end up doing, it must result from the voluntary consent of the governed, rather than from the arbitrary force of the state.

        1. Except for the anarchists that historically either become communists themselves, or help the communists gain power.
          I understand the theory of anarchism.
          The reality of anarchists as political actors is almost exclusively leftist and collectivist

          1. The reality of anarchists as political actors is almost exclusively leftist and collectivist

            As long as it is voluntary, who cares?

            1. That is the null set. Voluntary communism lasts about two minutes. All collectivism requires involuntary coercion.

              1. All collectivism requires involuntary coercion.

                No it doesn’t. People willingly join clubs and groups all the time without any coercion whatsoever.

                In a libertarian world, how would social problems be solved? By individuals freely acting collectively to solve those problems. That is the dreaded collectivism, but completely voluntary.

                “Collectivism” is not the issue per se. The issue is the involuntary part.

                1. Those are associations that you can leave, not governments that rule entire countries that you can only leave by moving out.

                  Fail.

                  1. You restated what chemjeff just said.

            2. “As long as it is voluntary, who cares?”

              If it ever was, you’d have a point.

              1. Well, Sevo, I can completely believe that you are not a voluntary member of any club or group whatsoever, so in your particular case, I think you are absolutely correct.

    2. “far-right extremists”–so, Antifa LARPing as militia?

    3. it’s funny the new boogeyman is called boogaloo, but the Antifa resistance organization we’ve heard so much about in the media for the past 4 years is suddenly the figment of right wing conspiracy theory fed imaginations.

      1. the Antifa resistance organization we’ve heard so much about in the media for the past 4 years

        From Fox News and OANN and Breitbart, sure

        1. Or their own website some rose city. Their graffiti. Their videos.

          But keep being dumb and ignorant. Seattle Sounders even allow antifa flags but no other political statements.

          You’re dumb jeff.

          1. “Seattle Sounders even allow antifa flags but no other political statements.”

            Wow. I had no idea. No wonder my family got the hell out.

          2. Sure, like some graffiti in Portland is “stuff we’ve heard so much about for the past 4 years”.

            Right-wing media play up the worst elements of the left in order to sow fear and drive votes into the arms of LAW AND ORDER Team Red. Period.

            There are about as many real Antifa members as there are white supremacists.

            1. “Sure, like some graffiti in Portland is “stuff we’ve heard so much about for the past 4 years”…”

              It’s little wonder you’re despised as a fucking lefty ignoramus here:
              “Black-clad antifa members attack peaceful right-wing demonstrators in Berkeley”
              From that right-wing publication:
              https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/08/28/black-clad-antifa-attack-right-wing-demonstrators-in-berkeley/

              1. He’s clearly a libertarian not a lefty, and it betrays the complete lack of faithful debate on your side that you don’t acknowledge it.

                1. He, and you, can call yourselves whatever the fuck you want – doesn’t change the fact that your positions are leftist, and you serve their ends.
                  If you lack faithful debate it’s because you’re fundamentally dishonest

            2. Sure, that’s why the UN came out in support of them.

            3. You’re such a disingenuous asshole. Antifa members are in countless recent videos destroying public property, rioting, inciting rioting, beating in cops heads with skateboards… Show us oh Chemjeff all of these ‘white supremacists.’ Educate us with your progjection.

              1. Unidentified rioters are in countless recent videos destroying public property, rioting, inciting rioting, beating in cops heads with skateboards…

                Unless someone was out there at the time asking them their affiliation it’s not know who all the rioters are or what groups they hang with.

                There are certainly Antifa and boogaloos mixed up in the protests and rioting, but anybody who claims to know how many is pulling facts out of their butt.

                1. The White Knight, apologist for Marxism.
                  Eat a bullet

                  1. He thinks he’s a white knight when he’s actually a black pawn.

          3. He is dumb. He is also a booster and enthusiast for the rape of children.

      2. They can start fretting about the boogaloo, and Hawaiian shirt-clad fat white men with Gucci ARs, when some of Kurt Schlicter’s lurid fantasies actually begin to happen.

        Dickhead confused Air Force sergeants don’t count.

      3. From the same link:

        there have been 27 homicides connected to far-right extremists in the U.S. since 2019, with none connected to the far-left since at least 2016. White supremacists, he added, continue to pose the “most ascendent and prominent threat,” Levin said.

        Other think tanks have compiled similar data. The Center for Strategic and International Studies released a report on Wednesday that found that “right-wing extremists perpetrated two thirds of the attacks and plots in the United States in 2019 and over 90 percent between January 1 and May 8, 2020,” defining such extremists as “white supremacists, anti-government extremists, and incels.”

        Unlike the right Antifa has had no armed attacks – just some pushing and shoving. Big deal.

        When the right talks about “2nd Amendment remedies” they mean shooting your ass like Dylan Roof or bombing like McVeigh to note two of the more prominent right wing terrorists.

        1. Try finding a believeable source turd. No one here is one of your kiddies/

          1. Kiddies? Are you talking about the ones he rapes?

        2. None of them were right wing. Roof wasn’t. McVeigh wasn’t.

          Unless you define right wing as everything unsavory, which you undoubtedly do – as does all the media you will quote.

          I’ve seen wikipedia’s list. Its false.
          I’ve seen what lefty publications do when mass shootings happen. They are all invariably right wing and every statement, writing, or voting pattern discovered otherwise is ignored… so the only “valid” source wikipedia will allow has everyone “right wing”.

          Convenient.

  5. “Every Individual Matters.”
    Now that the public has been woken to cop abuses of black people, maybe the time is right to get up just as much outrage against cop abuses of all the other members of the human race. Reason has done a commendable job over the years of reporting police abuse of innocent citizens. But these cases don’t go viral on social media, don’t lead to massive protests, don’t lead to reforms. There’s got to be a bunch of libertarians who understand and can conduct social media campaigns. Get with it, please,
    before everyone thinks the cops only need to be reined in where they are abusing minorities.

  6. Now place these 7 recommendations in your preferred order.

    7 6 3 4 1 2 5

    1. That would be (from most desired to least desired):
      6 (by far)
      3 (because civil asset forfeiture is just evil)
      7 (because QI has been shown to be an unmitigated failure)
      5 (because dogs can’t testify in court)

      Then it’s more or less a tie between the rest. I like them all, just can’t choose which I like more.

    2. 6 7 3 4 2 1 … turn the mutts over to the pound

  7. All seven are good and needed reforms, and by being race neutral they acknowledge the neglected more than 2/3 of police victims that are not black.

    We still need to acknowledge that the most basic nature of police and policing is that they / it like the rest of government is, at best a necessary evil and fundamentally collectivist and oppressive instrument of exploitation.

    It all began with three hungry cavemen determined to more often get meat for their all too often empty cook fires and bellies.

    The first was smart and hardworking, and studied animals and hunting weapons and was soon quite often bagging game for his cook fire. He was the first entrepreneur.

    The second was big and had a menacing club and soon he was robbing the first of some of his game. He was the first policeman.

    The third was too old and fat to hunt or fight, but he knew how to evoke envy. He was the first politician and had the whole tribe cheering him and calling for the stealing of some of the first’s game for him, as long as he threw them his scraps.

    While the first was busy hunting the second and third had time to conspire on how to steal, even, more of his game and to further whip up the collective rest of the tribe against the successful hunter and for the theft from him to redistribute. They became the first government.

    “The convoluted wording of legalisms grew up around the necessity to hide from ourselves the violence we intend toward each other. Between depriving a man of one hour from his life and depriving him of his life there exists only a difference of degree. You have done violence to him, consumed his energy.”
    ~ Frank Herbert

    1. 2/3 of police victims are not Black, but in terms of proportion of the populace, Blacks are more likely to be victims of the police. Don’t play games with statistics.

      https://www.statista.com/chart/21872/map-of-police-violence-against-black-americans/

      1. The one playing games here is you. Per FBI statistics, Black Americans, as a group, commit murder at a rate nearly 6x that of white Americans. They commit other violent crimes at rates that are also significantly disproportionate to their share of the population. You can debate the socioeconomic reasons for this phenomenon, but it takes a very special brand of weapons-grade stupidity to not conclude that any demographic group that disproportionately engages in criminal activity is also going to experience a disproportionate share of run-ins with law enforcement.

      2. Anything else blacks are more likely to be?

        1. Financially Poor. It’d be interesting to see what happens to the numbers after compensating for poverty and local governments.

  8. The American criminal justice system holds more than 2.3 million people in 1,719 state prisons, 102 federal prisons, 942 juvenile correctional facilities, 3,283 local jails, and 79 Indian Country jails as well as in military prisons, immigration detention facilities, civil commitment centers, and prisons in the U.S. territories.

    When constabulary duty’s to be done, to be done,
    A policeman’s lot is not a gentle one, gentle one.

    1. Damn, we need to fill those up!

      Fortunately there is a fresh batch of looters.

      1. Fortunately, a little looting goes a long way. It got your attention, didn’t it?

        1. Your stupidity and sophistry also gets attention, since it’s all you got, asshole.

          1. Looting has a quality that your candle light vigil can’t hope to match. Nation wide coverage for weeks on end. But you already knew that, didn’t you.

            1. In the past, police were instructed to shoot looters on sight. Trump was right to refer to that as a means of restoring order.

              1. Trump is too much of a coward to order anything decisive like that. It would only strengthen the resolve of the black and leftist coalition that has taken to the streets.

                I’m not sure that restoring order is best for Trump. Commenters here tell us that burning buildings improve GOP chances for the election in November, assuming it takes place. Trump talking about shooting looters and restoring order is good for his image. Actually doing something to restore order is bad for his re-election chances.

                1. It’s not Trump’s call at this point.

                  Police don’t work for Trump. Police are the skirmishers; the minor incident guys.

                  I have seen nothing yet that even remotely warrants a federal response. This isn’t rioting. It’s riot theater.
                  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BqytWm36kD4

                  Laughing at photos of Hillary supporters screaming at the sky and weeping over the election was starting to get old. Trump’s tweets making dems go nutso and parade around like a bunch of clowns with their hair on fire are just the icing on the cake.

                  MAGA one pinko dumpster at a time if need be but MAGA all the same.

                  1. “It’s not Trump’s call at this point.”

                    That won’t stop him from speaking out on issues that are close to his base.

                    “Laughing at photos …”

                    You see, that’s your problem. The left and the blacks have taken the streets and you’re sitting in your basement in a dirty t-shirt laughing at photos. You’re not going to win anything if you don’t play the game.

  9. It’s cute that Sullum thinks the current zeitgeist isn’t centered around anything other than “get whitey.”

    1. There’s more to it than that…
      Totalitarian collectivism

      1. Yes we know. The Stalinists are right around the corner.

        1. Well they seem to show up in every thread, even on a libertarian website….

          1. Stalinists. Sure.

            1. Well, there’s you! AmSoc! mrtrueman! etc.

              1. There are no Stalinists who post here.

                1. “There are no Stalinists who post here.”

                  Jeff posted that.

                  1. If you think I am a fucking Stalinist then you should get checked for Alzheimer’s.

                  2. I wondered what had become of you, Baghdad Bob.

        2. Fonzie even had a No True Scotsman Stalin Commie apology story here just a few months back

    2. more like, how can we use the new awareness around police brutality to blame systemic racism, get rid of conservatives in the media, on television and in sports, and push for all the socialist programs that never got anywhere in the past several decades.

      1. Neve let the chance to manufacture a crisis go to waste!

    3. With Police killings at a 30 year low, and an all-time low per capita

  10. So basically enforce the NAP.

    1. No, quite a bit more complex than can be reduced to a simple referencr to a principle.

  11. So riddle me this Batdouche , How does this guy and his 103 arrests since 2005 skew the race numbers in NYC? His latest, on camera, pushing a 92 year old white woman into the pavement. Do the criminals in NYC enjoy qualified immunity too?

    1. You’ve heard of bail reform, right?

      Though this guy’s been a sex offending shithead long before NY bail reform shenanigans. A litany of theft, theft, assault, theft, indecent exposure, trespassing, theft, unlawful touching (which should have gotten the book thrown at him, but hey, prison overcrowding.) Basically, he’s crazy enough the jail doesn’t want him, yet not crazy enough to get and stay committed in a state hospital.

  12. I think we also need to add stiffer penalties for violent crime, particular rape, and child molestation.

    That’s one of the weirder things about our justice system, stupid crap often has worse sentences than crimes that seriously hurt people

    1. 3 strikes and you’re out??

      1. It worked. Whether it was worth locking up people who couldn’t stay out of trouble is another question.

        Jesus, if you’ve got two felonies on you already, does a Greyhound ticket to get to another state cost that much?

        Also in the ‘worked too well’ set for law enforcement was Project Exile: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Exile

        Yes, it’s so awful to throw felons trying to own deadly weapons into federal prison. It had ancillary beneficial effects for law enforcement, as guys really, really didn’t want to do 8.5 years of federal time, often in a prison well away from their stomping grounds, and so got amazingly cooperative if the prospect of serving a lesser sentence, closer, was dangled in front of them.

    2. This is the hippie part of me speaking, but we really do need less incarceration and more rehabilitation, as well as more of addressing the root causes of crime. Sure there are some evil people out there who can’t be rehabilitated, but I can’t imagine there are so incredibly many of them, certainly not the millions who are currently incarcerated. Get rid of the bullshit laws that penalize innocuous behavior, and then, take a serious look at why certain crimes are committed by certain people in certain areas under certain circumstances, and let’s try to address that with voluntary action.

      1. You should really do a stint volunteering at a prison.

        While many there are just bad circumstance and overzealous law enforcement, more than anyone would care to admit are pert’near irredeemable. In a different time, they would have been in state hospitals, driving their families to alcoholism, or just dead, but now they are wards of the state and honestly no one has any idea of what to do with them beyond warehousing.

        Not even that they are violent or evil, just so far out of the lines of socialization they might as well be from another planet.

        1. send em to Australia!

  13. Items 6 and 7 are a good start. End Drug Prohibition and end qualified immunity. Here are a few more:

    8. Stop Police Unions from donating to politicians.

    9. Put disciplinary action against problem police officers out of union purview, vesting power to remove from street duty or remove from service in an independent citizen review board.

    10. Prosecute cops under federal law when they violate the civil rights of citizens (regardless of race).

    1. You can’t keep unions from donating.
      Citizens United and all that.
      But you can certainly prohibit collective bargaining, which takes away a good bit of their power

      1. Citizens United has nothing to do with donating to politicians. There are restrictions on such donations. It has to do with speaking out on political issues.

        1. Donations are political speech.
          Limits can be placed on them so far as amount and international donations are prohibited, but im unaware of any others.
          But how do you regulate donations to a PAC, instead of directly to the candidate, without violating the constitution?

  14. Many conservatives and Republicans are reluctant to acknowledge that reality, fearing that doing so would endorse the proposition that American society is irredeemably racist.

    This is, of course, nonsense. Many people resist defining the problem of police brutality and mistreatment in racial terms because it limits remedies to race driven solutions. This is why while libertarians have opposed police militarization for over 50 years progressives have recommended race preferences in police hiring and diversity training by their activists. In both cases the ideologically driven mis-diagnosis led to “solutions” which had no impact on the problem.

    But gain we see the priorities of even many so-called libertarian writers: it’s more important to call your opponents racist than it is to advance solutions.

    1. You get more by manufacturing a remedy for the symptoms than by curing the disease.

  15. listening to the Atlanta zone 6 police scanner, some maniac that’s a part of the ongoing protest was shooting at non-protesters. Cops have the guy on tape and are now trying to figure out how to get him without any manpower

    1. I take it just killing him with a patrol rifle-armed officer is out?

      Sheesh, maybe there is a real use for SWAT.

    2. Where?
      As in streets

  16. Stepmother of the cop who shot Rayshard Brooks was fired for “Creating an uncomfortable working environment.”

    https://tinyurl.com/yavw8m7z

    So racially sensitive solutions mean we must fire any relatives of accused police officers because they’re scary to be around.

    1. Yeah, this sounds like fake news.

      This is what Ms. Rolfe’s company wrote:

      https://twitter.com/Equity_Prime/status/1273817345979559936/photo/1

      Sure sounds like they fired her for more than just being Garrett Rolfe’s stepmom.

      Besides, they would be instantly on the hook for a lawsuit if they fired Ms. Rolfe for such a flimsy reason.

      1. It’s entirely possible that she’s absolutely hateful bitch that is miserable to be around. I’m willing to accept that as possible. But you’re citing their very nebulous “Violated company policy by creating an uncomfortable working environment” as a reason for termination.

        “We respect Melissa’s personal views and the views of all employees, but when those views create a hostile work environment…” It’s not even saying that she was being an activist on company time, their problem is that her views themselves were wrong and disruptive.

        I can’t know exactly what happened but I have to wonder if they were reading her tweets and some Karen at her office threw a fit until they fired her.

        1. Atlanta is majority black, and they feared losing business because she posted support for her stepson. That is it

          1. If you say so, Mr. Mindreader

        2. The evidence seems to suggest that she was fired because she *did* something, not for just *being* Garrett Rolfe’s stepmom.

          1. Saying “evidence” is really stretching that word to its breaking point, isn’t it? There’s really not much. The timing is awfully sketchy, though.

            Maybe she was constantly refusing to shut up about “those people” in the office and how they ruined her son. Or maybe people kept bringing it up with her and she consistently voiced support for her son. I can’t know for sure but it’s a really bad look to fire her at this point.

          2. Your mindreading skills outshine NashTiger’s.

            1. I don’t see where chemjeff claimed to know exactly what happened nor anyone’s thoughts.

      2. We have such weak labor laws that they could have fired her for no reason at all and it would have been legal. Being a relative to a cop is not a protected class.

        1. Well sure it is possible. But it would also expose them to a lawsuit if they had tried something like that.

          1. Yeah, I’m sure it’s just a coincidence.

        2. And I’m completely fine with that as a legal principle. Fire people for whatever reason you want. Fire them because their hair color fucks with the ambience at the company picnic.

          But if you’re firing people for reasons that make you look bad, you’d better be prepared for the public backlash.

    1. “”None of the detectives nor their vehicles were equipped with cameras, but investigators are trying to recover footage from Ring cameras and other home video systems in the area,” the newspaper said. ”

      In fucking LOS ANGELES COUNTY? Seriously, how they can have they police cars that don’t have cameras on them? What the fuck, California.

  17. The proposals are mostly reasonable.

    The idea that these have anything to do with “racial disparities” is ludicrous.

    1. Yes, these are race neutral. Did you miss that?

      1. Did you miss the entire piece, which was a diatribe on how “irredeemably racist America is”?

      2. Did you miss the part where it said these are “Solutions to Racially Skewed Law Enforcement”?

        The problem with Sullum’s article is that he is conceding the leftist premise, namely that systemic racism is a thing in the US. That premise is wrong.

        Dressing up his concession by attaching some otherwise reasonable policy proposals doesn’t change that.

  18. This article tells us about the Naxalite policies of America. No such policy should be done in any constitution. This affects the unity of the country. By the way, I am a citizen of India and live in Vaishali city of Jaipur.

  19. This article tells us about the Naxalite policies of America. No such policy should be done in any constitution. This affects the unity of the country. By the way, I am a citizen of India and live in Vaishali city of Jaipur.

  20. Why not tell her the truth about bigots and bigotry, rather than wallow in politically correct parenting and appeasing bigots?

    1. Nah, I’ll just continue to enjoy watching your cities burn. Make sure to tell your pets not to get out into the hinterlands, though, unless you want to see them get made into good bois.

    2. Why not tell her the truth about bigots and bigotry

      We don’t need him to do that; we have you to give us an object lesson about bigots and bigotry every day.

  21. “All Lives Matter” is true. The problem is that it got quickly owned by the far right racist fringe. (And they are a fringe). Here’s the conversation:

    A: “Black Lives Matter”
    B: “No you’re wrong! All life matter”
    A: “You just said Black lives don’t matter”
    B: “No I didn’t”
    A: “So Black lives do matter”
    B: “NO! All lives matter!”

    See what’s going on? B is explicitly saying that Black lives don’t matter! He’s just masking it. Now of course, the opposite conversation does take place. Activists asserting that ONLY Black lives matter. They’re as fringe as the other, but they still exist.

    This week on FB a friend posted a story about a white guy that got killed by the police. One of his Black friends chimes in to say that it doesn’t matter because Blacks get killed by the police all the time. Essentially saying White lives don’t matter because Black lives matter. Exclusive. The conversation that the police should not be killing anyone IS NOT HAPPENING!

    The result is a racist dog whistle. And it’s because once again the radical Left has let the radical Right define the rules of the game. The radical Left make “Black lives matter” an exclusivist slogan. Because the radical Right declared that “All lives matter” to be exclusive of Blacks.

    A pox on both their houses.

    1. You incredibly stupid moron. OMG, white supremacists are taking over the country! You idiot. The only dog whistle here is when people say Black Lives Matter, what they really mean is ONLY Black Lives Matter.

      1. Yea, that shit is straight delusional

    2. You appear to not know what the word “all” means.

    3. “All Lives Matter” is true. The problem is that it got quickly owned by the far right racist fringe.

      So true, if by “the far right racist fringe” you “mean everybody to the right of Marcuse and Adorno”, i.e., about 99% of the US population.

    4. Most blacks are murdered by other blacks, not whites. So BLM is actually a protest against blacks.

  22. Well things just got worse, cause a state appeals court just ruled that police can conduct a “Terry stop” inside a person’s home.

    http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/2/2020/2020-Ohio-3390.pdf

  23. “Race-Neutral Solutions”

    Why does Reason like Hitler so much?

  24. These are all great ideas. Ending the War on Drugs is the number one solution that yield the greatest results. Local and State governments need to make it easier to start small businesses so that selling drugs is not necessary to survive. I would add a couple more. SWAT teams were initially created for hostage rescue. Now they are routinely used even in Mulberry and their tactics and equipment are used by other cop teams for mundane items like child support or unpaid traffic ticket warrants. Deswatify/Demilitarize the police. These tactics only lead to escalation. Same with high speed pursuits. You have the license number. Most of the time, these pursuits are unnecessary, put citizens at risk, and again escalate what are usually minor offenses.

  25. As God as my witness, I thought we had a million people coming!

    1. That rally was YUGE!!!

  26. “cannot be explained by racial differences in the propensity to commit crimes.”
    Unless all of the victims of violent crime keep lying about the race of their attacker(s), FBI crime stats show a huge disparity of blacks committing violent crime as compared to whites.
    And, after claims of racism when there was a huge racial disparity in the number of blacks pulled over for speeding by the New Jersey State Police, they found that blacks did, in fact, exceed the speed limit far more regularly than whites and the disparity had nothing to do with racism.

  27. Easy(?) solutions:

    1. Stop and frisk: enforce constitutional limits and end random or “preventive” searches.
    2. Escalation of traffic infractions: separate traffic rule enforcers from police (or replace them with automation).
    3. Civil forfeiture: simply end it. And redirect any lingering windfalls into public accounts other than the immediate agencies. (A similar redirection goes for plaintiffs and attorneys with criminal damage lawsuit windfalls.)
    4. Authority for arrest: see number 2 and my bonus.
    5. Animal narcs: expose this for the fraud that it is. See “Clever Hans”.
    6. The “War on Drugs”: legalize all drugs and other things. Something like “my body my choice”?
    7. Qualified immunity: abolish this for cops. And prosecutors. And defense attorneys. And politicians. And pretty much everyone. Any screwup by an individual that leads to harm has to be answerable by that individual.

    Bonus: drastically reduce the number of things that are illegal, and embrace a more open, less moralistic and nanny society.

  28. All good reasons which will have absolutely no effect on the boogeyman, racism.

    ‘Racism’ is a superfluous distinction if coercion involved.

  29. Why bother with doing any of this again?

    These types of things have been tried various times–usually received as a list of demands.

    And each time they do nothing.

    The new rules for policing never seem to be able to get away from that old devil, disparate impact, and soon the new rules are just as racist as the old ones were.

    And for the exact same reason.

  30. “…cannot be explained by racial differences in the propensity to commit crimes…”

    Horseshit, they are all explained by racial differences in the propensity to commit crimes. But the suggested reforms are otherwise good.

    Remember:

    1) “Systemic” racism as defined by “activists” is not racism at all.
    2) White privilege is largely a myth, and used as a cudgel to suppress speech and punish wrongthink.

  31. Let the owner of the property decide what to do when trespassed upon. No trespass = no crime.

  32. as i read the best article which is passed under from my eyes

  33. Of course black lives matter. But I disagree with Black Lives Matter, the organization. Because it’s founded by and run my marxists and communists. Visit their website and compare the “What we believe” section with the platform of the Communist Party USA. The former paraphrases the later and inserts “black” in certain strategic places.

    Consider the open letter on the occasion of the death of Cuba’s long-term Communist dictator, Fidel Castro, if you wonder what BLM would like to see happen, read along as they celebrate the life of Fidel Castro: “Revolution transcends borders; the freedom of oppressed people and people of color is all bound up together wherever we are. In Cuba, South Africa, Palestine, Angola, Tanzania, Mozambique, Grenada, Venezuela, Haiti, African America,”

    What they want for America is what they saw in Cuba, Palestine, Haiti, Venezuala! I’m stunned frankly that Zimbabwe was not included in this list. Remember in Zimbabwe white farmers were murdered by the hundreds and their farms were confiscated and doled out to “the people”. These actions predicated a famine in Zimbambwe, a nation that had been one of the leading exporters of food in Africa. Seems that none of “the people” knew how to or cared about farming, so no food was grown. This was, of course, the fault of racist colonizers, somehow even though they had all fled the country or been murdered.

    —————-

    We are feeling many things as we awaken to a world without Fidel Castro. There is an overwhelming sense of loss, complicated by fear and anxiety. Although no leader is without their flaws, we must push back against the rhetoric of the right and come to the defense of El Comandante. And there are lessons that we must revisit and heed as we pick up the mantle in changing our world, as we aspire to build a world rooted in a vision of freedom and the peace that only comes with justice. It is the lessons that we take from Fidel.

    From Fidel, we know that revolution is sparked by an idea, by radical imaginings, which sometimes take root first among just a few dozen people coming together in the mountains. It can be a tattered group of meager resources, like in Sierra Maestro in 1956 or St. Elmo Village in 2013.

    Revolution is continuous and is won first in the hearts and minds of the people and is continually shaped and reshaped by the collective. No single revolutionary ever wins or even begins the revolution. The revolution begins only when the whole is fully bought in and committed to it. And it is never over.

    Revolution transcends borders; the freedom of oppressed people and people of color is all bound up together wherever we are. In Cuba, South Africa, Palestine, Angola, Tanzania, Mozambique, Grenada, Venezuela, Haiti, African America, and North Dakota. We must not only root for each other but invest in each other’s struggles, lending our voices, bodies, and resources to liberation efforts which may seem distant from the immediacy of our daily existence.

    Revolution is rooted in the recognition that there are certain fundamentals to which every being has a right, just by virtue of one’s birth: healthy food, clean water, decent housing, safe communities, quality healthcare, mental health services, free and quality education, community spaces, art, democratic engagement, regular vacations, sports, and places for spiritual expression are not questions of resources, but questions of political will and they are requirements of any humane society.

Please to post comments