Monthly Archives: August 2008

Barr Weighs in on No-Knock Raids

I didn’t see the press release from the Bob Barr campaign when I wrote yesterday’s post so I thought I would pass along some of his thoughts on the issue today. The case Barr is specifically referring to is the recent raid in Berwyn Heights, Maryland. Here are a few excerpts:

“Absent exigent circumstances, not present here, so-called no-knock raids are an affront to the Constitution,” explains Barr. “So is a shoot first, ask questions later philosophy by the police. Yet the Prince George’s police have done this before—last fall they invaded a house at the wrong address and shot the family dog. All Americans are at risk when the police behave this way. Just ask yourself what might happen if a suspicious package is delivered to your home and the cops bust in,” says Barr.

“But there is an even larger point. Law enforcement agencies have become more arrogant and less accountable in cases other than those involving drugs. Most people are aware of well-publicized examples like Waco and Ruby Ridge, but similar abuses are common across the country, though they usually receive little or no public notice,” notes Barr. “We all want police to do their jobs well, but part of doing their job well is respecting the people’s constitutional liberties.”

“As president I will ensure that federal law enforcement agencies set a good example for the rest of the country,” says Barr. “In a Barr administration, government officials will never forget that it is a free people they are protecting.”

It’s nice to see a presidential candidate address this issue. Clearly, the phenomenon of no-knock raids isn’t on John McCain’s or Barack Obama’s radar at this time.

Forgot Your ID? Welcome To The Watch List

Back in June, the TSA decided that you were no longer allowed to fly without ID, even if you submit to a more strenuous search process. At the time, though, there was a loophole. Assuming you had lost or forgotten your ID, and were “cooperative” in assisting screeners to assess your identity, you would still be allowed to fly.

Many of us thought this was a gaping loophole, because it wouldn’t be very hard to tell the screener that you’d forgotten your ID, show him a Blockbuster Video rental card, and be on your merry way.

I guess not, though. They went even farther than the old program:

Fliers without ID placed on TSA list

The Transportation Security Administration has collected records on thousands of passengers who went to airport checkpoints without identification, adding them to a database of people who violated security laws or were questioned for suspicious behavior.

The TSA began storing the information in late June, tracking many people who said they had forgotten their driver’s license or passport at home. The database has 16,500 records of such people and is open to law enforcement agencies, according to the TSA.

Asked about the program, TSA chief Kip Hawley told USA TODAY in an interview Tuesday that the information helps track potential terrorists who may be “probing the system” by trying to get though checkpoints at various airports.

The article goes on to say that the TSA has apparently reconsidered, and will be expunging those who “simply” have forgotten their ID from the list. Those who are acting “suspiciously”— ominously undefined— will remain on the list, of course, so if you’ve forgotten your ID, you’d better hope that you find a screener who isn’t having a bad day.

One wonders how a list, such as the terrorist watch list, can reach a million names. When they can add 16,500 merely forgetful people over the course of a month and a half, though, it ceases to be a mystery. You’re doin’ a heckuva job, Kip, you idiot

The Olympics And Nationalism… Plus Doug Stanhope

There’s a lot of hoopla and hullabaloo over the politicization of the Olympics, including the fact that it’s held in a country that is horrendously restrictive of social freedoms.

But there’s another aspect that’s largely ignored. There is a certain nationalism that follows the Olympics, which is wholly unjustified. As Americans, we are expected to celebrate the accomplishments of American athletes as if they are our own– as if their accomplishments bring glory to America rather than to the athletes themselves. The whole nation-glorification aspect reminds me more of a McCain campaign rally.

Tonight, the American women’s gymnastics team was bested by the Chinese in the team competition, while the American men’s relay swimming team absolutely destroyed a world record on the way to their own gold medal in that competition. Should I feel pride, as an American, that our men’s swimming team did so well? Should I feel shame, as an American, that our gymnastics team was beaten by the athletes of a nation whose government is deplorable on a level that we Americans are nearly unable to comprehend?

No. All of this faux-nationalistic-pride is bullshit. I don’t share in any of the wins, nor in any of the defeats, of the American Olympic athletes. I celebrate those Americans who have excelled in these Games, just as I also celebrate those non-Americans who have excelled in these games.

The Olympics is a competition that pits the best of the best, from around the world, in feats that the rest of us can simply ogle as if they’re super-human. We should celebrate the athletes that medal in these games, whether they’re American, Chinese, Russian, Kenyan, Indian, Chilean, or from any other nation in the world. This is a competition of the best of the best, and we should be celebrating the best, not some faux nationalism of athletes who we have no connection with outside of an arbitrary accident of sharing borders.

Celebrate those Americans and non-Americans who medal at the games, but understand that their accomplishments are not your accomplishments. As Doug Stanhope said:

You didn’t medal anywhere. Why should you care if some American who you have never met– and will never meet– beats some foreign athlete who you will never meet?

A Tale of Two Drug Raids

It was the best of times, it was the worst of times. For those who wore the badge, they could do no wrong. For the “badge-nots,” they could do no right.

I only wish this was a work of fiction but it is not. When it comes to drug raids (often no-knock raids), suspects (whether guilty or innocent) are treated with a different standard when a life is taken by mistake. Cory Maye was convicted for defending his home whenever the slain intruder turned out to be Officer Ron Jones who was serving a warrant.

But what happens when the police shoot the wrong person?

The AP reported on August 5, 2008 that Sgt. Joseph Chavalia was found “not guilty” on counts of negligent homicide and negligent assault which resulted in the death of Tarika Wilson and the loss of a finger of her year-old son. Wilson was carrying her son and was unarmed. The death of Tarika Wilson would have meant that a wrongful death claim against Sgt. Joseph Chavalia could have happened. A wrongful death claim is when a law firm is told that this person is liable for another person’s death. However, in this instance, as started about Sgt. Joseph Chavalia was foudn “not guilty”.

Wilson’s boyfriend was the target of the raid as he was a suspected drug dealer.

The AP article Officers cheer police shooting verdict in Lima* demonstrates this double standard and is ripe for a thorough fisking.

A jury verdict that cleared a police officer in the drug-raid shooting death of an unarmed woman will allow other officers to do their job without hesitation, police union officials said.

Is the police union advocating a “shoot now, ask questions later” policy? If this is the lesson the Lima Police Department is getting from this verdict, then I am very frightened for the residents of Lima (or residents anywhere in the U.S. for that matter). I thought that the police were supposed to identify their target before shooting; this would necessarily require some hesitation.

Officers throughout the state closely watched the trial, fearing that a guilty judgment would have changed how they react in the line of fire.

If police officers are afraid of being in this situation here’s an idea: how about not raiding a person’s home whenever there is no immediate threat of danger to others? (such as a hostage situation). Also, before police officers “react in the line of fire” there ought to be “a line of fire.” In this instance, no shots were ever fired by anyone other than the police.

Jurors on Monday acquitted Sgt. Joseph Chavalia on charges of negligent homicide and negligent assault in the death of Tarika Wilson seven months ago. Her year-old son also was injured.

Compare the charges against Sgt. Joseph Chavalia versus the charges against Cory Maye**. For the police officer, the death penalty or life in prison wasn’t even on the table. Had Chavalia been convicted on both counts, he would have served a maximum of eight months in jail. For Cory Maye (a civilian), a person who just as Sgt. Chavalia did, shot someone who he thought was a threat when he pulled the trigger, received the death penalty!***

According to the prosecution in Maye’s case, an individual cannot claim self defense unless s/he has identified the target. Here’s an excerpt from the State’s closing argument in the case:

“If you take everything he [Cory Maye] said as being true, he’s at least guilty of murder. He just shoots in the direction of the noise without looking, without calling out, without doing anything. I submit to you that’s totally unreasonable. But if you take what he says to be true, he’s at the very least guilty of murder.”

When a citizen “just shoots” “without looking” its murder but when a police officer shoots because s/he is “reacting in the line of fire” its “Oh well, shit happens” (as his/her fellow police officer cheer when the verdict reads “not guilty.”)

The article continues:

Chavalia had testified that he thought his life was in danger when he fired the shots. He said he saw a shadow coming from behind the partially open bedroom door and heard gunshots that he thought were aimed at him.

It turned out that Wilson didn’t have a weapon and that the gunfire Chavalia heard was coming from downstairs, where officers shot two charging pit bulls.

I wonder what would happen if a citizen shot a police dog if s/he were threatened?

Prosecutor Jeffrey Strausbaugh repeatedly pointed out during the trial that Wilson was shot even though she didn’t have a gun.

But jurors were told by visiting Judge Richard Knepper during jury instructions that they could not consider the fact that she was unarmed because that was known only after the shooting.

Citing a 1985 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that set guidelines for use of force by police, the jurors were told they could only judge Chavalia’s actions based on what he was aware of when he fired into the bedroom where Wilson was with her six children.

Once again: one standard for the police and one for the citizen. If the Judge in Cory Maye’s case had given similar instructions to that jury, we probably wouldn’t even know Cory Maye’s name.

“It was an important distinction and one that had to be upheld,” said Michael Watkins, president of the Fraternal Order of Police in Lima.

“If the rules are changed, officers are going to react later,” Watkins said. “You’re going to have them hesitating, and there are more who are going to be injured or killed.”

Ugh. What can I say that I haven’t already? All I am asking is that the rules are the same for the citizen as the police. Is that really too much to ask?

During the trial, a Columbus SWAT officer and a retired FBI agent both testified that Chavalia had no choice but to shoot because he thought his life was in danger. They also said Chavalia should have fired sooner.

“Thank God it wasn’t me there and every officer feels the same way,” said James Scanlon, who has been with the Columbus police since 1978.

Watkins, who joined the Lima department a year before Chavalia in 1976, said he understands why Chavalia shot after hearing the gunfire.

“I knew there had to be more to it,” he said. “Joe isn’t a trigger happy officer.”

And I am sure that those who shoot police officers attempting to defend their homes aren’t trigger happy either. It seems to me that it doesn’t much matter if the intruder is a police officer or a violent criminal busting down your door. Either way, your life is in grave danger.

The verdict further angered Wilson’s family and others in Lima’s black community.

“The message I got out of all this is that it’s OK for police to go and kill in a drug raid,” said Arnold Manley, pastor of Pilgrim Rescue Missionary Baptist Church.

That message couldn’t be clearer if it was up in neon lights in Times Square.

In the lawsuit filed in federal court in Toledo, Wilson’s mother said police could have waited until the woman and her children were out of the house to try and arrest Wilson’s boyfriend, Anthony Terry, the target of the raid.

No they couldn’t. That would make too much sense. If they would have chosen a more peaceful method, they wouldn’t have been able to wear their spiffy paramilitary SWAT gear.

The shooting on Jan. 4 led to protests about how police treat minorities in the city where one in four residents is black. Chavalia is white and Wilson was black.

Chavalia’s lead attorney, Bill Kluge, said he thinks the only reason the officer was charged was because of the reaction within the community.

I’m not quite sure what to do with that. I’m not one to play the race card but how in the hell did Chavalia get a jury in 2008 without a single black person serving?

“Had this case waited two or three months going to the grand jury, it might have been different,” he said.

I know that the public has a short attention span but this is insulting. The citizens of Lima are outraged because of this double standard I’ve described here.

Chavalia’s career with the city’s police department is essentially over despite the verdict, Kluge said. He would not say what the officer planned to do next.

I should hope so! Whatever Chavalia decides to do next, it shouldn’t have anything at all to do with law enforcement.

Related by others:

Reason TV’s Drew Carey Project “Mississippi Drug War Blues

The Agitator “Police Militarization

» Read more

Mindless Rule-Driven Bureaucracy In Action

Blogger Megan McArdle has a problem. 16 years ago, in college at the age of 19, she was caught drinking underage in a bar in Pennsylvania, arrested, and convicted. At the time, she was a college student, without a driver’s license, and thus had no license to suspend. Since then, she’s gone on to live a productive and meaningful life.

But her past has caught up with her…

While consuming my one (1) beer, I was apprehended by agents of the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board. They called my parents, fined me, and made me attend a class on the horrors of underaged drinking (did you realize that drinking can lead to uncontrollable vomiting?), some of my friends got away with it because they had a scannable fake id! I am very jealous of them. It was during that class, with the errors of my ways now readily apparent, that I made a pledge to myself to quit underaged drinking with all due speed. And on January 29th, 1994, I honored that pledge.

I thought I had put all this behind me. Indeed, I was so informed, when I completed my State of Pennsylvania Mandatory Alcohol Education Class; provided I didn’t reoffend, they said, the record would be expunged. We might consider the matter closed, and never speak of it again. With time, and perhaps a name change and a relocation to a town across the country, I might hope to live down my shame and become a contributing member of society once again.

Alas, they never told the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation that it was over. And thus, it is not over. I went to apply for a District of Columbia driver’s license this morning, only to be informed that I cannot, because the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania wants to suspend my driver’s license.

The problem, you see, is that at the time of my conviction, I did not have a Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Driver’s License. Indeed, I had no driver’s license at all, being one of those benighted city people who get their first driver’s license at the age of 23. The laws of the State of Pennsylvania, however, say that the Department of Transportation is entitled to suspend the driver’s license of anyone arrested for underaged drinking. And the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Department of Transportation is, apparently, determined to exercise this privilege. Thus, the spectacle of a 35 year old woman being informed that she is about to have her driver’s license suspended for underaged drinking.

I’d love to offer some witty, snarky barb on this, but having knowledge of the soul-sucking bureaucracy that is the DMV, I can only offer my condolences.

A few months ago, I ordered personalized license plates for my wife. She’s starting a new business, and the plates have the name of the business. The ordering process was pretty simple, a small fee, and the knowledge that we’d have to wait 6-8 weeks for them to be delivered to the local DMV office for pick-up.

Then the fun began. We received the notice that the plates had arrived. My wife went to go pick them up. This should be a simple swap, as they’re already paid for and all she needs to do is remove the old plates (which I’d done for her the evening before), and hand them to a clerk for the new ones, which I planned to affix that evening when I got home from the office. So she grabbed our toddler son, stood in line, got her number, waited for her number to be called, and was then informed that she couldn’t pick up the plates… The owner of the car (me) had to be the one to do that. Well, some pleading [and crying] later, the lady behind the counter relented and was willing to offer the plates.

That’s when it got bad. My wife, unbeknownst to me, had allowed the insurance on her car to lapse. That puts us in violation of California law. Okay, mea culpa on that one— not that I care about violations of California law, as I could give two shits about their laws— because I don’t want the risk of my wife and child driving around uninsured. So they give my wife the plates (without registration sticker), along with a piece of paper saying the registration is suspended.

Now it’s crunch time. Given that my wife has a business to create, I decided I had better take over the insurance. So I immediately (within minutes of getting off the phone with her) add her car to my policy, obtain the proof of insurance document, and realize I’m going to need to burn my lunch hour the next day to straighten this out.

I have the documentation from the insurance company, picked up the documents my wife received from the DMV, I’m the owner of the car, and although I’ll have personal issues with paying any fees due to reinstating the registration, the fee is low enough that I’m not going to get worked up over it. Given that the DMV is the responsible organization, and they’re absolutely useless to deal with online, I figure that the best place to get this fixed is at the DMV itself. I have all my ducks in a row, they’re the party I must grovel before to appease the bureaucrats, and so over there I head…

After waiting in line, getting a claim check, waiting in a seat for my number in called, then waiting in line again at the window that was supposedly open, I’m informed that I cannot straighten this out at the DMV. Why would I think that I could do something like this at the DMV office? After all, it says clearly on the paperwork that my wife gave me that I should be calling the “California Vehicle Registration Financial Responsibility Program” to handle this.

I guess the DMV isn’t capable of conducting DMV work; they need an additional bureaucracy that is only available by phone in order to do their jobs. So I have to call them on the phone, only to find out that my insurance company has already informed them of my new insurance. Yet, I need to pay $14 over the phone to reinstate the registration, and then all is well.

Or not quite well. They can’t send me my tags through the mail. That would be too easy. Thus, I need to go back to the DMV (at least 72 hours after calling them, since apparently the DMV’s computer systems are 35 years old and just that slow) in order pick up the tags. Do I chance sending my wife to pick up the tags, since she doesn’t have a job requiring she be there from 8 to 5 every day? Not at all, because I’m the registered owner. Do I go to the CA DMV myself? Well, that’s difficult to do when I’m in the middle of three straight weeks of business travel, and typing this from a hotel room in Minneapolis.

So my wife has a properly-registered, properly-insured car, which is probably in violation of about 10 laws for her to be operating because it doesn’t have the pretty little sticker on the plates. I can only imagine what will happen if she’s pulled over in between now and the time I can get to the DMV, and the hell of hells that will cause.

Granted, I’m not facing the same license suspension as Megan McArdle. Her situation is both more ludicrous and more intrusive. But one must ask oneself– in exchange for all these hoops to jump through, all this paperwork one must compile, and the constant dealings with surly DMV employees who don’t give a crap whether they do their job well, has this made California’s roads any safer? No, it has not.

1 2 3 4 5