Michael Maiello's picture

    Keep the Police Away From the Public

    I'm having a hard time believing Darren Wilson's story, particularly where he says that Michael Brown, while struggling for the cop's weapon in a confrontation that lasted less than a minute, said, "you're too much of a pussy to shoot me."  This brings to mind the words that George Zimmerman put into the mouth of Trayvon Martin -- all bluster and villainy, the street thug equivalent of Dr. Doom telling Mr. Fantastic that "You'll crumble before the power of my atomic nullifier!" rather than just using the damned thing.  But, I was not on the grand jury and I am not true crime blogger enough to pore through all the evidence so I have only my gut to go on here. I don't believe Wilson.  But when it comes to the problem of police violence against citizens, I look at things a little differently than most.

    I believe that every interaction between a citizen and the police has the potential to become a tragedy for one or both parties, most usually for the citizen.   This does not just mean that somebody gets shot or hurt.  Tragedy is proportional.  If somebody gets a fine they can't pay, that can be life ruining.  A minor citation for drug possession can become a child custody issue if the crime, such as it is, is reported to the family services branch of local government.  An arrest could mean a lost job even if the suspect is vindicated in court or never prosecuted.  You can't show up at work from jail, after all.

    Those who tend to side with police in violence cases will usually argue that officers are provoked and threatened and react proportionately.  This is probably close to true much of the time.  I have to wonder why, though.  People aren't generally violent animals.  I can only conclude that the consequences of certain arrests or citations are sometimes so severe that people feel the need to fight what is ultimately a futile battle.

    Oh, and everybody knows it's futile.  The police can shoot you.  The police can call more police to gang up on you.  If you somehow escape, the police can maintain a manhunt forever.  The only guy I know who ever won was Marc Rich and he was, well, very, very rich.

    Maybe the problem is that the police have too much interaction with citizens.  Basically, there are too many petty laws and police have too much leeway to hassle ordinary people. Stop and frisk, now on the wane, is a great example.  But maybe police shouldn't be ordering people to "walk on the sidewalk" in the absence of some major disruption of traffic.  

    Maybe we could do without so many laws.  We've empowered the police to confront citizens about a whole host of crimes, many of them victimless and many of them petty by any definition.  We could reduce the number of tragic police encounters just by getting rid of a lot of those laws. 

    Topics: 

    Comments

    Officer Wilson asked the Grand Jury the (rhetorical?) question: "What do I do to keep from being beaten in my car?"

    Apparently the answer is "Get out of the car and shoot the guy who beat you."

    It is a sad day for reasonable people.


    Even if his totally nonsensical and unbelievable story is true, yeah... he didn't drive away and radio for help?  Right.

    And why was he in a confrontation with Brown to begin with?  Because he told him not to walk on the street.  Again, absent some actual obstruction of traffic, why are we paying people with guns to tell other people to get on the side walk?  It seems like a totally unnecessary police/citizen interaction.


    It is all about the revenue.  When it is down for a month then the police are told to beef up their patrolling. It is always presented in terms of Law and Order and you have to crack down on these lawless people to keep everyone safe from lower classes of people. 


    Myself, I think it's perfectly ok to tell people not to walk on the street. And I recognize the practical advantages of having "paper" on people who commit crimes. (Daughter of cop.)

    But if they refuse to comply, and they outweigh you by 60 lb., you don't force a confrontation that you have to shoot your way out of, and then say you were following procedure. It is absurd. Even if they have also stolen cigarillos from a convenience store.

    And as I said in Doc's thread, the idea that the grand jury couldn't even offer up an indictment for 3rd degree manslaughter, is just sad.


    I take issue with the value of "having paper" on criminals which, to me, amounts to putting people through the system for minor offenses just because they haven't committed a major crime.  That kind of thinking leads to the current national security policy of spying on everything, taking note of everything and generally just enforcing conformity where ever possible.


    We might not see eye to eye on the question of paper, and I'm ok with that. In neighborhoods where a few people are causing trouble and making life difficult for everybody else, it's good to charge people because then you can really keep track of who's just a general asshole and who's on an upward trajectory of actual criminal behavior. 

    But overall, I agree with your point. The war on drugs, in particular, has been really stupid.


    I hear what you're saying, but the flip side of that is the Pygmalion effect. (See also the Stanford Prison Experiment.)


    You sound like you have lived in a community like mine, where we get "farmed" or "mined" for revenue. That the wealthier sections of people refuse to pay in taxes in the state or county.  To find revenue the county over polices the poor sections.  To help them over police, they hire private companies to hang cameras on stop lights, operate jails, and operate parole counseling. Those companies share the revenue with the county so the county don't have to spend the money to collect them.  The abuse is out of control in some states.  The war on drugs needs to go.  


    McCulloch chose to present his case for a probable cause indictment to the Grand Jury in a highly unique way. By laying out the possible defense alongside the case for prosecution, he placed the decision of guilt or innocence in their hands. Essentially, he conducted a pre-trial. All done before any charges were ever filed or anyone being arrested. Perhaps that's a good way to avoid life altering, unnecessary and baseless prosecutions from ever taking place.

    But in the real world, we don't get that kind of consideration -- that "fairness". After all, what would happen to the revenue stream? Prisons don't make money if they're empty.


    NYC is definitely like that.  I'd say the subway is a great example.  If you pay for it with fares, as we do, then you have to police fare beaters, a nice minor crime committed mostly by poor people, who you can charge $100 a pop when you catch them.  If, instead, you just made the subway "free" and funded it with a general tax, you wouldn't have to expend the time and effort on those $100 tickets.  You could actually get rid of a lot of laws just by changing how things are paid for to begin with.

     


    Hey Hey Michael...

    TPM Prime Hive

    How NOT to Handle a Crime Scene and Chain of Custody Evidence

    ~OGD~


     

    Good post, Michael. I would point out that there are societies that police minor offenses like this, with generally good results. Great Britain can do it. so can Japan. It can be done. We just stunk at it.

    One problem is that to do this kind of broken-windows lifestyle policing, you need your police to be genial and neighborly. Cops reminding teenagers to use the sidewalk is not a problem. Cops confronting teenagers over using the sidewalk is crazy

    More importantly, you can't do this with a police force, and a population, armed to the teeth. Don't-walk-on-the-grass policing works fine when the police are unarmed, and haven't been mistrained to treat every interaction like a mortal threat. 

     

     

    mis-trained spt

     


    I wish we could have generally unarmed police in America.  I suppose that would mean also having fewer citizens brandishing external death penises, though.


    as opposed to internal?


    "Detached" would have been a better word.


    Latest Comments