Inside a 20-Year Effort To Clean Up the Oakland Police Department
The Riders Come Out at Night frames it as a hopeful sign that police reform is possible.

The Riders Come Out at Night, by Ali Winston and Darwin BondGraham, Atria Books, 480 pages, $30
Oakland, California, is "the edge case in American policing," journalists Ali Winston and Darwin BondGraham declare in The Riders Come Out at Night. "More has been done to try to reform the Oakland Police Department than any other police force in the United States."
It's a bold claim, given the crowded field competing for the title. In Baltimore during 2016, a vice squad was essentially operating a criminal enterprise, using the police department as a front. The corruption and violence exposed in the Rampart scandal, which unfolded in the late 1990s and early 2000s, landed the Los Angeles Police Department under federal oversight for 12 years. Chicago is Chicago. But in their deeply reported and comprehensive book, Winston and BondGraham make a persuasive case that Oakland's entrenched police corruption best demonstrates "the still-unfulfilled promise of reforming law enforcement."
The eponymous Riders were a clique of four Oakland police officers known for terrorizing minority neighborhoods. The book opens in 2000, with an idealistic rookie, Keith Batt, being paired with a Rider for field training and quickly learning the grimy truth about urban policing. "Fuck all that shit you learned in the police academy," one Rider tells Batt. "Fuck probable cause. We're going to just go out and grab these motherfuckers."
After witnessing and participating in kidnappings, beatings, cover-ups, and frame-ups, Batt blew the whistle, setting off a legal saga that is still ongoing. The Riders Come Out at Night follows the ensuing two decades of attempts to clean up the Oakland Police Department (OPD).
The local district attorney filed criminal charges against the Riders, one of whom immediately fled the country and remains a fugitive. The prosecution of the remaining three Riders ended in two mistrials. The Riders' attorneys argued, with a fair amount of evidence, that the officers had been doing what police brass and other city officials demanded.
That was also the feeling of rank-and-file OPD officers and their union leaders, who rallied behind the Riders. As they portrayed it, this was a case of "noble cause corruption." If you wanted these men to do the dirty work of sweeping drug dealers off the corners in the dead of night, you couldn't cry every time they roughed someone up or fudged a report.
Although the Riders escaped criminal consequences, Oakland would not get off the hook that easily. John Burris and Jim Chanin, two Bay Area civil rights lawyers, had been routinely squeezing multimillion-dollar settlements out of Oakland on behalf of their clients. (In one case, Burris represented a member of the '80s R&B group Tony! Toni! Toné! who had been choked by one of the Riders.) Burris and Chanin were fed up with the lack of change.
After the criminal prosecution of the Riders collapsed, the two lawyers began putting together a giant civil suit against Oakland. They eventually collected 119 plaintiffs who alleged that they had been beaten or framed by the Riders. Burris and Chanin were holding the legal and fiscal equivalent of a nuclear bomb over the city's head. Oakland had no choice but to attempt a settlement—through reform rather than cash payouts.
In 2003, Oakland entered into an unusual settlement agreement. It agreed to 52 specific reforms, which would be overseen by an independent monitor who reported to a federal judge. Settlements like this are called consent decrees, and usually only the U.S. Justice Department has the juice to force a city into one. They may be the most powerful tool the federal government has to force change on rotten police departments.
The settlement agreement was supposed to expire after five years, but it was repeatedly extended as reform efforts sputtered and failed. Unnecessary shootings continued. An early warning system to flag officers with high numbers of use-of-force incidents and complaints was ignored. In fact, the most violent cops received glowing reviews for their "proactive" work. Internal affairs investigators chose not to investigate obvious discrepancies in officers' reports. In the rare instance where an officer was disciplined or fired, the punishment was usually overturned through union arbitration. The police union also clawed back power from Oakland's civilian police oversight board.
In 2015, a teenaged girl accused dozens of OPD officers of sexually exploiting her. OPD fired four cops and disciplined 12 others over the allegations. One officer committed suicide, and the police chief was forced to resign.
***
The ins and outs of the settlement agreement and the granular details of Oakland politics may be a bit much for general readers. But for anyone interested in the Bay Area or in policing, this book offers a deeply sourced and well-researched narrative. Both authors have years of experience reporting on policing in the Bay Area.
In fact, Winston and BondGraham's reporting became part of the story of reform in Oakland. California had been one of the most secretive states when it came to police personnel files, but the state legislature passed a bill that made those files public records beginning in 2019. Yet many police departments across the state, including Oakland's, stonewalled and slow-rolled records requests from reporters and civil liberties groups. Winston and BondGraham were plaintiffs in a lawsuit that forced the OPD to comply with the law.
It is only because of that suit that the authors were able to uncover never-before-revealed information about the long history of complaints and excessive force allegations against the Riders. Supervisors had either ignored or abetted the abuses.
Several chapters take detours into Oakland's history, describing how the OPD was an enthusiastic participant in repressing Chinese immigrants, union agitators, communists, and the Black Panther Party for Self-Defense. The last group, formed in Oakland in the 1960s, was a response to black residents' longstanding complaints about police beatings and harassment—complaints that one police chief had dismissed in 1949 as "a Communist plot to discredit and harass the OPD."
These chapters are not totally necessary, but they can be interesting. For example, we learn that during Prohibition, "Oakland cops were skimming so much of the lucrative alcohol trade's profits that local bootleggers formed a Bootlegger's Protective Association to collectively resist the extortion."
This history also shows how deep the roots of police corruption go and why it has been so hard to uproot. In 1949, an independent commission investigated complaints that Oakland police were brutalizing the city's black population, which had swelled considerably during the previous decade. "I found it hard to describe adequately the sense of monstrous beastliness, authority clothed in nighttime garb, that our investigation disclosed," one of the researchers wrote.
This problem is not unique to Oakland. Several police departments are currently being investigated for tolerating officer gangs and other groups of criminal cops. The nearby city of Vallejo recently was rocked by reports that a clique of police officers bent the tips of their badges to represent fatal shootings. Earlier this year, the Los Angeles County inspector general ordered more than three dozen sheriff's deputies to appear for interviews and show any tattoos connected to two deputy gangs, the Banditos and the Executioners.
The book ends on a positive note, arguing that real reforms have been accomplished in Oakland. Shootings and other use-of-force incidents have dramatically declined, as have brutality complaints and findings of unjustified force. Last year the federal judge overseeing the settlement agreement, William Orrick, found that Oakland had achieved "substantial compliance" with its terms. He agreed to a one-year probationary period, after which he could possibly terminate the longrunning settlement.
"It's possible to reform the police," Winston and BondGraham argue. "That's one lesson Oakland can offer the nation." But in April, after The Riders Came Out at Night was published, Orrick declared his decision "premature." He extended the probationary period for five more months after several new cases of internal corruption emerged.
Winston and BondGraham also concluded that "Oakland's ultimate lesson then is about vigilance." This was perhaps more prescient than they realized.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments 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 and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Look at the peaceful utopia that Oakland is today. Seriously, when your "success stories" look more like scenes from hell you might want to revisit your parameters for success. Unless of course the only point is to bash police in pursuit of your marxist revolution, then congrats comrade.
Yeah, Oakland is a godsdamned mess.
Oakland doesn't have police, they have zoo keepers
Oakland is a shithole, who the fuck cares what goes on there
Yes, Oakland is sooooo much safer now, than when the Raiders were on the streets.
Well, safer for the criminals, that is.
Saying police should be expected to actually follow the law isn't "bashing". And you clearly have no idea what the hell Marxist means, as you demonstrate on a regular basis.
Are you seriously arguing that the city would somehow be safer if we just let the cops be a little more brutal? History pretty clearly shows that letting cops degenerate into little more than one more gang doesn't actually reduce crime. It just lets the "right" people ignore it.
I'd be more impressed if there was evidence of improved police performance, rather than simply less policing.
I mean, it's trivially easy to eliminate all police brutality complaints and use-of-force incidents; you just have your officers not actually confront any criminal suspects.
And in 2000, Oakland had 80 homicides all year, while this year they've had 104 as of October 17th, with the rest of the year to go.
WE hold these Truths to be self-evident: that all Men are created equal; that they are endowed by their creator with inherent and [certain] inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, & the pursuit of happiness: that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, & to institute new government, laying it’s foundation on such principles, & organizing it’s powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety & happiness.
-T. Jefferson
“I’m gonna get shitfaced, then go to work, burn some people’s steaks, and buy some drugs from the busboy.”
- sarcasmic
So you think the Declaration of Independence is rubbish. Good to know.
No.
Liar. I bring it up and you attack me. That means you oppose what I said and despise the work of Jefferson. You hate America. Just be honest for once.
Lol, no. I was just mocking you, nothing more.
Nope. You were mocking the Declaration by calling me a drunk for bringing it up. You hate Jefferson, freedom, and America.
Pour sarc.
Yeah, pour yourself another one.
A bit early in the day for me, personally. But you do you. I’ll probably join you during Oregon Utah.
Don't lie. You're the one who keeps bringing up drinking. It's obviously projection.
Pour sarc.
Why do you hate puppies sarc?
Having a bad day already. Pour sarc. Always the victim.
It was a good day until you showed up to shit up the comments.
Self-awareness isn't a sarcasmic superpower.
Youw ant me to respond to your other comments. Will do.
Your constant cries of being a victim as you offer no intelligent discussion is noted.
On to point out your hypocrisy below.
"Liar. I bring it up and you attack me. That means you oppose what I said and despise the work of Jefferson. You hate America. Just be honest for once."
Tulpa! You stop this right now!
I know that you're not sarcasmic because sarckles swears he never puts words into anybody's mouth and that everyone does it to him!
Sarcasmic has many times loudly proclaimed that lying about what he said is the worst thing ever, and that's how I know that you're Tulpa spoofing him again.
Why, if you weren't that would mean sarcasmic is a hypocrite, and he swears he isn't one of those either.
The average IQ of the comments section just dropped ten points.
Ideas!
The drunk homeless drug user who is now a tier 2 IT person talking about the IQs of others always amuses me. But then again he took an online IQ test.
The guy who literally doesn't understand the definitions to hundreds of words even if you provide the definition to him.
BOTHSIDES!
"The average IQ of the comments section just dropped ten points."
Oh? Did you just crack another bottle?
That sounds insurrectiony.
From what the article says, the only solution to Oakland's policing is to jettison the current government and start over.
You’d overthrow the will of the people?
Bad nazi!
I somehow kinda doubt the current mess represents the will of the people.
Now that we have a new Speaker of the House, it's time to the ball back rolling on impeachment once again.
Arrest and indict "Doctor" Anthony Fauci, impeach Garland, impeach Mayorkas, and last but most certainly not least, impeach the so-called president, Sleepy Joe Biden.
After all, the guy is the most genuinely impeachment-worthy president in American history. This motherfucker commits bribery and treason on virtually a daily basis, selling out America to hostile foreign adversaries to enrich himself and worthless family, while routing and laundering the wealth through a vast number of shell companies and overseas bank accounts.
Mccarthy was working angles to get the speeker ship back he is a traitor
He and every other republican who voted to give this jackass a blank check to spend as much as he wants for the rest of his tem deserved an old school tar and feathering.
When your DA and then Attorney General is Kamala Harris, you don't have to worry about too much managerial oversight.
"John Burris and Jim Chanin, two Bay Area civil rights lawyers, had been routinely squeezing multimillion-dollar settlements out of Oakland on behalf of their clients." "Burris and Chanin were fed up with the lack of change."
If the work was pro-bono then they probably were. If they were getting a cut or paid by the hour, fed up might be a but much to believe.
https://twitter.com/DolioJ/status/1718280063097987252?t=rhCona4gaAl0TR2YleEfLw&s=19
Never Forget what they did.
As soon as we take power, Floyd statues must be melted down.
[Pic]
Replace them with statues of Pink Floyd. Or Floyd the barber.
Okay, some brief reading on issues with Oakland.
Oakland has a civilian oversight police Commission after voting its establishment in November 2016, and began operation in 2018. Its role is to review policy changes to OPD, to act as oversight of the Chief of Police, to investigate police misconduct and recommend discipline for officers. As you'd expect from a newly formed oversight board, they struggled to actually establish any policies regarding investigations, oversights, and failed to keep proper records. They did at least push through a few policy changes.
Now, in 2017, in order to push police reforms, the mayor appointed Anne Kirkpatrick as the new chief of police. She had zero ties to California, which might be viewed as a positive since it means she had zero connection to whatever entrenched corruption might exist in the department. She was supposedly reform minded. One of the commissioners on the Civilian Police Commission, in late 2019, was trying to demand reimbursement because her car had been towed. She refused to give anyone in the Commission special treatment.
She was fired from her job in early 2020. A jury later found that it was in retaliation for her attempts to expose corruption within the Civilian Police Commission.
The problem with Oakland PD is a problem with Oakland. They appointed a civilian committee to oversee police, and that civilian committee almost immediately began corruptly exploiting their authority.
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
TL;DR, but "police reform" has got to be so intractable a problem that, paradoxically, I can't see it as a worthwhile object of libertarian activism. Think about it: Every other goal we pursue is at least largely ideologic and has open opposition. But this one has literally no open opposition; everyone is avowedly on our side in it! Is there anybody out there who says they want corrupt, brutal, and/or shirking police?! The opposition is entirely covert, insincere, disingenuous, etc. So no political points can be scored by being pro-reform, although it is possible to earn covert and powerful opposition by being so. and these defects continue in the face of public policy's always being uncontroversially against them.
Since we're fighting a disingeuous opposition, we always have to seem to be making the case of wanting law enforcement to be weaker, less efficient, and less reputable. Structural reforms will always seem that way.
I think we need to stop making any explicit case against police corruption, etc., and just hope the problem will be somewhat reduced as a byproduct of our other goals — just as our covert opposition wants to loot and shoot us while making it seem they're pursuing more beneficent goals.
The problem is incentives.
Currently the cops have every incentive to enforce victimless crimes, because there's profit to be made. The result is cops becoming criminals who assault, kidnap and rob people who haven't harmed anyone else.
There is no incentive at all to enforce crimes with victims. There's nothing to steal and it requires actual work. There's no pleasure to be had from hurting innocent people and ruining lives.
The only way to fix it is to change the laws. Remove victimless crimes from the books and cops will have little choice but to protect the life, liberty and property of the citizenry, rather than take life, liberty and property from the citizenry as they do now.
Right, but the arguments against victimless crime laws have to put reducing corruption way, way down the list of reasons. So this is an example of making gains in that regard as mere byproducts of our other goals.
And if you want to incentivize enforcement of victimful crime laws, how you gonna do that? I can't think of a way that wouldn't be gamed by having police create sham crime cases to benefit from them.
And if you want to incentivize enforcement of victimful crime laws, how you gonna do that?
The only thing I can think of is to eliminate the incentives to do anything else.
When current laws give police the opportunity to abuse their power and to be criminals themselves, that's what they're going to do. It's human nature. The only way to prevent or mitigate that kind of corruption is to eliminate the opportunity. Because if the opportunity exists, people are going to take it.
Which means campaigning against such opportunities for corruption on the basis of their being opportunities for corruption is going to be very unrewarding. Can't you think of more pressing and significant reasons for doing away with such laws?
It's like being against a war because it will lead to noncombatants being killed or injured. That's true, but everyone who's in favor of that war accepts that as a cost. There are always better reasons to oppose a war.
That is exactly what is happening. People who have their lives ruined by police over victimless crimes are casualties of the war on drugs. Why isn't that a good reason to oppose the war?
but the arguments against victimless crime laws have to put reducing corruption way, way down the list of reasons.
Why is that? Maybe someone should put it up near the top and point to the lessons of Prohibition (that everyone seems to ignore).
People rightly ignore them because those "lessons" about police corruption are fairly trivial ones compared to other reasons for having liquor legal.
Why are the lessons of organized crime and police corruption, much of which disappeared after the war on alcohol ended, trivial?
It didn't disappear, at least not to the degree you think. Organized crime and police corruption have been largely byproducts of other sociologic phenomena such as urbanization and immigration. It became associated with liquor prohibition, but has taken other forms in countries that didn't adopt such a policy.
What are some examples of organized crime and police corruption that do not involve victimless crimes such as drugs, prostitution or gambling?
Gee, just look at theft rings and police involvement in them!
I haven't heard much about police involvement in those rings, other than them not doing much about it because they're too busy busting people for victimless crimes.
Consider: Who do we need to convince that police (or public officials generally — or actually really anyone) should not be crooks?
OK, then who do we need to convince that reducing public corruption should be more of a priority over other goals they may have in mind? And how do we convince them? It would seem that, as with most things needing reform, we'd need to show them that the problem is more widespread and/or severe than they think. But how to do that? The major cases are all already either notorious or still secret. Uncontroversial corruption — cases where everybody except the crook hirself agrees it was something bad, not a matter of opinion — have always been the stuff of journalism. (No, the coverups you're thinking are exceptions all involve at least somebody's thinking it was not something bad.) On the other hand, if they're still secret, what are we all, Dick Tracy?
If criminal law were limited to acts that harm the life, liberty or property of others through force or fraud, there would be little room for corruption within police departments.
Right, but many years of democracy show victimless crime laws to be popular for other reasons. It's those reasons that need to be undercut, not the attendant corruption, which most people view as a small price to pay.
Another example is taxation. Tax collectors' skimming off the top is not a major reason people want tax cuts.
many years of democracy show victimless crime laws to be popular for other reasons. It’s those reasons that need to be undercut,
That would require tolerance, which is in short supply these days.
Then how are we getting legal marijuana? Hint: It ain't from some increase in tolerance!
The main reason is that marijuana sold itself. People tried it, liked it (some even as a remedy for ailments), and decided they shouldn't need criminals to supply it. A major reason for the timing of it is that old people, who were the main opposition to it, died. And those still alive who didn't like it figured its users could be taxed rather than themselves.
Hint: It ain’t from some increase in tolerance! ... A major reason for the timing of it is that old people, who were the main opposition to it, died.
I think you just contradicted yourself and accidentally agreed with me. Tolerance increased as a result of a decrease in intolerance.
Well, yeah, if you count opposition literally dying off as a decrease in intolerance! It’s not like the rest of the population tolerated it any more as a bad thing they’d have to put up with; they actually came to like it more, and considered benefits from it.
Tolerance is a process that happens over time, largely as a result of intolerant people dying and being replaced by more tolerant people. So yeah I do count opposition dying as a decrease in intolerance. Why shouldn't I? Fewer intolerant people means less intolerance.
Who are you to choose what tolerance means? Right now tolerance is forcing people to accept beliefs they don’t agree with. Tolerance is a cudgel to attack individuals. Which is why you support cries of tolerance to silence disagreements from those you hate.
Libertarians dont give a fuck about tolerance. They care about harming others. Tolerance is a social costume out over that fact by left libertarians like you and Mike. In order to attack arguments against false beliefs such as transgenderism and open borders.
Yes, in current leftist double-speak tolerance means conforming to progressive doctrine. It fits with their current usage of diversity and inclusion, by which they mean quotas and black-listing, and with anti-racism, which is as racist as any Jim Crow program.
To give some liberals a break, they might not intend harm but they end up promoting it when others "resist".
Victimless crimes Sarc has openly supported.
80% of J6 protestors who committed no violence or vandalism.
Mackey over online memes.
Trump for fully repaying his loans.
Trumps lawyers for giving him legal advice.
5 years for someone putting feet on Pelosi desk.
As usual, his principles are selective based on politics.
Well, two main reasons police corruption is still worth talking about.
1) The government has an ongoing and persistent interest in hiding its own corruption, and it has a power imbalance between itself and its constituents. It is important to, with equal persistence and resoluteness, continue to highlight instances of police corruption in order to keep them from being hidden. You need to remind people that it IS a problem or else the government will simply convince them that the complainants are the ones who are lying.
2) Everyone can agree on a problem without agreeing on a solution. Saying that there's no open opposition to police corruption is like saying there's no open opposition to reducing crime, or no open opposition to inflation. The reason libertarians have to keep their voices being heard is because people think there are other solutions to a corrupt government-such as adding another layer of government. As Oakland demonstrated, that extra layer of oversight just immediately became corrupt as well because the problem is too much government power and involvement in people's daily lives.
I'm sure the people of Oakland whole-heartedly agree that police corruption is an issue, but they think they're solving it when they're continually making the same choices that exacerbate the issue year after year. We highlight this, as libertarians, because our answer is different from the most popular and "easiest" answers of just creating a new oversight committee with more government powers, and then continually voting more power to that committee until it becomes too bureaucratically entrenched to easily dismantle.
Another reason to put police corruption down the list is because it is endemic almost entirely in big city police departments, where the big cities themselves are deeply corrupt. It is my opinion that this is not coincidence - all big cities in America are circling the drain because they are dinosaurs from a prehistoric age when people had to live near the factories where they worked, and the factories had to be near transportation and communications hubs. Factories and jobs can be almost anywhere these days, so cramming hundreds of thousands of people into a few square miles is not only unnecessary but downright counterproductive. Anyone who can leave the cities has left except for a few fabulously wealthy people who can afford private security and to helicopter in and back out of town. The rest are hopelessly poor people and the corrupt officials who are feeding off the carcasses.
https://twitter.com/BIPOCracism/status/1717940418271195624?t=01VwwrYZHqAjgdZGnJ4fuA&s=19
Progressive Jews mock and denigrate White Americans for supporting gun rights in America after a mass shooting
In the same breath they demand we protect their motherland
I don’t think so. That’s not how this is going to work going forward. We are not the boomers
[Link]
I love the "ad colem" argument.
Better Americans are going to stomp both domestic gun nuts and foreign wingnuts (such as those in Israel).
Aligning with the losing side of the modern American culture war will have consequences for those who have aligned with Republican bigots, superstitious slack-jaws, and other culture war casualties.
When is this stomping of gun nuts going to happen, and by whom?
What he meant was that he's looking forward to gun people stomping on his nuts.
Don't ask Kirkland for predictions. Well, unless you want to laugh at his tendency to substitute childish fantasy for serious analysis.
This is, after all, the clown who embarrassed himself by predicting Biden would need just 6 months to expand the Supreme Court to 13 justices.
I just can’t understand why adjective Artie and the betters are still permitting the clingers to carry on! Why Artie, why? Stop the madness!
"foreign wingnuts (such as those in Israel)."
Heil Kirkland!
Go back to your basement and polish your Commissar badges.
That you, a bigoted wishcasting ideologue, would count himself among better Americans is beyond farcical, Reverend. Who in the hell would take seriously your suggestion that you even remotely occupy those spaces reserved for real American men? Or real men in general? Or even real women? An invertebrate Trotskyite wuss like you?
Keep crying and LARPing, Rambo; victory is just a few more tantrums away.
I didn't take you for an anti-semite, though I should have known given your overt bigotry and other proclivities.
https://twitter.com/upstatefederlst/status/1718124402015920201?t=79laEGnrtxXMlUW76r5aOA&s=19
All these "I didn't notice how much they hated white people until they started hating certain white people" takes are really something.
"If they just kept only hating White Christians and dismantling White European education norms, they could have just kept doing it forever."
[Link]
"White people" is the clerisy's code for the working/middle class.
The people paying to push this are billionaire oligarchs who are some of the whitest people you've ever seen.
Sound like there might have been one feel-good moment in this story.
I am making money from home with facebook. i received $15000 in this month for doing easily home job. I work in my part time only 3 to 4 hours a day on facebook. Everyone can earn more cash easily from home. For more information visit below this website…….
This Website➤———–➤ https://www.dailypro7.com
"Hey Mom! I posted it again."
https://twitter.com/Babygravy9/status/1718298354386399348?t=VQxyNxUSOLSwPuqT8JPyGA&s=19
The idea that the people in charge were simply "doing their best" during the pandemic, that they didn't know their lockdown policies would be a tremendous disaster both economically and socially, is a stinking lie that must not be allowed to stand.
[Link]
Police reform in 5 easy steps:
1) End qualified immunity entirely.
2) End civil asset forfeiture (it is inherently morally corrupting).
3) Make it a crime for police to lie (also morally corrupting).
4) End the drug war. It has corrupted every police department, courthouse and prosecutor’s office in the country.
5) End prosecutorial discretion if the accused is a cop, and if a prosecutor/judge hinders, delays or torpedoes a case, the prosecutor/judge becomes a co-conspirator and it becomes a RICO case.
1) End qualified immunity entirely.
Will never happen. Qualified Immunity is the third rail of DNC politics. Qualified Immunity is falsely equated with a "police" issue, but it's not, it's a Public Sector Union issue, and that is too big a knot to effectively tackle.
Secondly, "Qualified Immunity" is not the barrier to justice and accountability-- as we've seen where this or that random municipality or political district tried to reform it, it ended up with officer indemnification and other blanket protections.
In the end, the key to police accountability is not the ability to file civil suits in court, it's the ability of the system to hold its officers criminally and/or administratively accountable when there's clear instances of wrong-doing.
2) End civil asset forfeiture (it is inherently morally corrupting).
Civil asset forfeiture is certainly a travesty of justice and needs to be eliminated, but is not central to the kind of police brutality and abortions of due process occurring in places like Oakland.
3) Make it a crime for police to lie (also morally corrupting).
This seems obvious, but a clever union can play with the definition of a lie until 2 + 2 = 5. (starting to see a pattern here)
4) End the drug war. It has corrupted every police department, courthouse and prosecutor’s office in the country.
End the drug war... how? This has become an eye-rolling platitude that is meaningless without providing step-by-step details on how and what that would look like.
It was all fun and games when David Simon wishcasted a version of it in The Wire, but we've literally tried Wire-style drug reform in cities, just like the one I live in, and as it moved from lofty think-tank ideology and became policy on the ground, the results were so alarmingly fucked up that the most avid, progressive end-the-drug-war ideologues are reversing course.
5) End prosecutorial discretion if the accused is a cop, and if a prosecutor/judge hinders, delays or torpedoes a case, the prosecutor/judge becomes a co-conspirator and it becomes a RICO case.
This is an interesting idea... lofty, with lots of high-ideal baked in, but if you think that "the system" is going to effectively hold its own members accountable-- especially since post 2016 you're mistaken. When we've seen an alarming rise in justice system skull-duggery, which part of the system is going to hold the OTHER part of the system accountable? Which nut and bolt in the system do you identify as capable of holding another set of nuts and bolts to account?
I wish I wasn't as cynical as you. But I'm afraid I am.
I disagree with your take on the drug war. Seattle has certainly seen a tremendous rise in bullshit with their local slight detensioning of the drug war, but it’s literally impossible for them to truly end it on their own, since they can’t change federal behavior.
“Ending the drug war” means legalizing everything and not just by saying no more criminal penalties, but by actually striking the laws that made them illegal. That leads to a massive drop in price for them that would cut down on the gang violence, and the theft to support habits.
The other side of ending the drug war is actually punishing terrible public behavior. It can’t be a single thread of policy change, it has to be the whole set of them, just like you can’t have a one spoke bicycle wheel. It’s like other libertarian policy combos, where you can’t have open borders without also eliminating welfare, etc. Trying to do just one part of it will lead to the disaster that Seattle is seeing.
Though I agree that from a practical standpoint that's never going to actually happen.
“it’s literally impossible for them to truly end it on their own, since they can’t change federal behavior.”
Not completely true. If local mayors legalized all drugs within their city limits and ordered their police officers to stop enforcing laws against possession and sale of drugs, the war would almost completely end. Local jurisdictions are not required to assist Federal law enforcement of Federal laws and regulations and, although the price might not drop as much, most of the harm done by the failed War on Drugs at the local level would go away. The problems of what to do with the hopelessly addicted and mentally incompetent “homeless” would still be there, but the police could then focus on actual criminal behavior instead of enjoying Rambo-wannabe no-knock drug raids on low-level drug dealers and innocent people at the wrong address with their high-tech war surplus toys using fraudulent boilerplate search warrant affidavits.
Libertarians need to stick to arguing that drugs should be legal from a moral perspective, not these utilitarian arguments.
Utilitarianism is just one step removed from progressivism. Whereas the benefits of liberty have a lot of hidden upsides that are secondary to the fact that you have liberty.
Except, moral perspectives can't convince anybody. You have either one opinion or another. What person A thinks is moral, person B thinks immoral. Why do you have that opinion? Turns out it's always because of hidden utilitarian reasons. You have the morals you have because you think they lead to better outcomes.
No, we don't need to.
No, you have NOT tried ending the war on drugs anywhere in America. Possession of drugs for your own personal use and to sell to others without limitation under the law would not result in the same disaster "catch and release" of drug addicts who commit other crimes has caused. Also you seem to be referring to deep blue cities and ignoring the rest of America where the drug war is still total.
End the drug war… how?
Repeal the statues that enable it, just like alcohol prohibition.
-jcr
Or just diminish in general the scope and authority of the state.
As long as people feel (and perhaps even believe) that they are subservient to the state, then abuses of power at all levels will continue. I know this is fantasy, but we need a major reset of perception about liberty.
I'm not convinced that people think they're subservient to the state. I think the vast majority of the people still think, in spite of massive evidence to the contrary, that America is the land of the free and that the government, as bad as it is, is organized to protect them from the bad guys. People in high population density urban zones still think that corruption in city government is a problem with a few bad apples and they vote for anyone who promises to make sure the garbage is collected and the rats don't get out of control - over and over again regardless of how that turns out.
https://twitter.com/Oilfield_Rando/status/1718328312307540216?t=V2bKoUM314BaxdQoewpVdA&s=19
When the people reject your insanity, just go get the courts to impose your insanity on them by force.
Healthy society we have here.
[Link]
All cool. He/she is on puberty blockers. At age 13. Wait what?
Such bullshit. If, as the article tries to claim, it was just about participating in sports, there's nothing stopping "her" from joining the boys' team. The notion of using Title IX to claim that a dude has to be allowed on the chicks' team or it's "sex discrimination" is utter fucking madness.
You're not now and never will be a girl, kid. If your parents told you otherwise, they were lying to you and coddling a delusion of yours that they should have instead punctured.
Actually, no, it isn't. Title IX literally says:
No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.
And if you read the list of exceptions and exclusions, sports teams aren't on the list.
Every sports team that excludes males from participation on the basis of their sex, at every school that receives Federal financial assistance, is a Title IX violation. Sports teams exclusive to women/girls are not mandated by Title IX, they are prohibited by it.
Now, this is, of course, entirely independent of "gender identity". If a ultra-masculine boy wants to try out for the "girls'" team in any sport at any school in the country that accepts Federal dollars, the plain and obvious wording of Title IX says it's entirely illegal to exclude him on the basis of his sex. Reserving any team or any spots on any team for girls is illegal, and has been illegal for half a century.
The actual madness here is that the courts and Federal bureaucrats have "interpreted" Title IX to mean the exact opposite of what it quite literally says.
(Mind, I am not saying that having women/girls-only teams is a bad idea -- I am merely pointing out that it's blatantly illegal, and has been for five decades.)
Hmm
https://twitter.com/disclosetv/status/1718327823721550017?t=s9JebH_EFM2_LX_TdgJdaQ&s=19
NOW - Netanyahu: "This is our second war of liberation... We're going to fight... It will be the good over evil, light over darkness."
[Video]
Jingoism is okay as long as it's recognized as such by the general public. I think in this case it is.
https://twitter.com/17cShyteposter/status/1718198170994520271?t=pOUiBWeFSlQ_HwELN6pE0g&s=19
Reminder that none of these ideas were supposed to be things we had a choice in. They were long ago "decided" by "experts"
They tried to undo the 2016 election, and did undo the 2020 election, to make sure these issues weren't up to a vote
We, and Trump, made it happen anyway
Trumpism is the simple idea that the American state should benefit the American people.
The people's vote has become so hateful to the American "state" that they abandoned their own pretense of democracy to stop it. We no longer have to pretend, either. It's purge or be purged.
If for some reason this sounds extreme, you should ask why, when a democratic state rejects the vote of its own people, and no longer pretends to serve them—and acts in favor of outsiders instead—it still deserves to exist.
Our ancestors rebelled for much less.
[Link]
https://twitter.com/The_Real_Fly/status/1718338723861901422?t=tQu-RqWa-czhGXb64LCD0g&s=19
WE ARE GOING TO CRASH
Looking at the situation in Israel, it appears Turkey and Israel are on the verge of cutting relations with one another. The war on Gaza has escalated to a ground invasion and all of the Arab neighbors seem to be quite upset by this. None of then, up until this point, have done anything kinetic to help the Gazans, most likely due to their aversion to taking on the US who looms right off the coast of Israel. I am once again shocked by the blood clamoring by people in America, conjuring up post 9/11 sentiments to justify ethnic cleansing.
For Israel, they probably have to take extraordinary measures in order to ensure the survival of their state. As time goes by, the chasm of technological innovation is shortening between them and their neighbors and the demographics of them versus a billion or two muslims looks very very grim.
For Americans, our interests should be completely focused on an internal agenda. The fucking country is falling apart. The debt is unsustainable and the borders, or lack thereof, has turned many parts of this once great nation into a 3rd world cesspool.
Alas, nothing I say matters and the path we’re taking is the one we’ll stay on. Both parties are pro war and it seems this is their best way to keep the domestic problems off the menu and out of the headlines.
The market is going to fucking crash, not because Americans suck, but because Americans are led by an evil regime who is intentionally leading us into a fucking maelstrom that will undoubtedly lead to the deaths of thousands.
This is what we’re dealing with.
These people do not work for the glory of America. Their agenda is foreign and their interests are to hurt the populous and the elections can never do anything to remedy this deeply embedded cancer.
Have a pleasant weekend.
Vote everyone out, every time.
The worst offenders aren't in elected positions. At the very least I have never had the chance to vote for the head of the EPA or the FBI or CIA, etc.
"These people do not work for the glory of America. Their agenda is foreign"
Their agenda isn't really foreign and much of it is homegrown and incubated in various NGOs, think tanks and legacy funds like the Rockefeller Foundation, Council on Foreign Relations, Ford Foundation, Trilateral Commission, WEF, Fabian Society, etc. Their conspiracy is to do what they can to amass wealth and power for their members regardless of national boundaries and what they might ruin in the process.
It's not because Americans are LED by an evil regime, it's because Americans choose to FOLLOW and evil regime. Using the passive voice doesn't change reality, it just deepens the cognitive disconnect for clueless, mindless followers. You're right that our voices will not make any difference as long as the two-party system maintains the status quo.
★I am making a real GOOD MONEY (123$ / hr ) online from my laptop. Last month I GOT check of nearly $30k, this online work is simple and straight forward, don’t have to go OFFICE, Its home online job. You become independent after joining this JOB. I really thanks to my FRIEND who refer me this SITE. I hope you also got what I…go to home media tech tab for more detail reinforce your heart…
══════HERE► http://Www.Smartcareer1.com
sd
★I am making a real GOOD MONEY (123$ / hr ) online from my laptop. Last month I GOT check of nearly $30k, this online work is simple and straight forward, don’t have to go OFFICE, Its home online job. You become independent after joining this JOB. I really thanks to my FRIEND who refer me this SITE. I hope you also got what I…go to home media tech tab for more detail reinforce your heart…
══════HERE►
lfkjdsnbfikjdsnfk
sdad
So, when are you buying property there, CJ?
"Settlements like this are called consent decrees, and usually only the U.S. Justice Department has the juice to force a city into one. They may be the most powerful tool the federal government has to force change on rotten police departments."
From what I've read, "consent decrees" by the DOJ against police departments have been mostly ineffective when it comes to producing meaningful reform.
Consent degrees are a wet noodle. If that's the most powerful tool the feds have, they should just give up.
Just let the people of Oakland fight back against their corrupt officials and police and see how fast the Feds stop being limp noodles. Consent decrees are window dressing to make people feel like something is being done.
the answer is simple. either nuke oakland or unincorporate it. just shut it down.
Oakland has become a total shitshow. It's gotham city and they need a batman asap. no joke.
You get the police you vote for.
LOLOLOL. In other news:
Multiple sources confirm Alameda County District Attorney Pam Price’s laptop was stolen in an auto burglary at 28th and Telegraph this afternoon around 3pm.
(I’m told she was instructed to go online & file a report if she didn’t want to wait for an officer to arrive.) #Oakland
https://abc7news.com/pamela-price-work-laptop-stolen-oakland-crime-car-burglary/13983264/
What valuable materials can humanity afford to extract outside the Earth? https://orbitaltoday.com/2023/10/17/asteroid-mining-corporation-introduces-the-scar-e-robot-for-space-exploration/ The solar system is rich in different types of cosmic objects, part from which to subject to research on suitability for resource production.