DOJ report on racism and shakedown-artistry in the Ferguson PD

[iiandyiiii]

@Shodan

Then by all means show that the arrest was motivated by the person screaming profanities at the cops, rather than because he made it clear by his conduct that he was not likely to stop doing what he was originally stopped for.

The report makes it clear that the arrest was motivated by the person cursing at the cops.

[Deeg]

I really don’t know what to think.

On the one hand the DOJ report seems pretty damning and it appears that at least a few people need to be investigated and/or prosecuted.

On the other hand the Gannet link provided by astorian seems to indicate (if assume the source is trust-worthy) that Ferguson’s arrest record is pretty similar to everywhere else.

Is every single police department in the US horribly racist? I just find that hard to believe. Is there any reasonably sized PD in the US that has a “good” arrest record? If so, is there anything they’re doing different that can be applied elsewhere?

[Shodan]

@iiandyiiii

The report makes it clear that the arrest was motivated by the person cursing at the cops.

Could you prove it in a court of law?

And I repeat - de minimis non curat lex. That is to say - some mouthy asshole got what he was begging for and richly deserved. Gosh-a-mighty, the Constitution is in rags.

Thank God Holder is here to waste millions on a study complaining about drunken shitheads swinging from the rafters in their jail cells, and lending a sympathetic ear to people whining because it costs too much to ignore your court dates.

The Republic is saved!

Regards,
Shodan

[monstro]

@Deeg

Is every single police department in the US horribly racist? I just find that hard to believe. Is there any reasonably sized PD in the US that has a “good” arrest record? If so, is there anything they’re doing different that can be applied elsewhere?

I’m not trying to be argumentative for the sake of it, and I’m not trying to jump all over you. But can I ask why it’s so hard for you to believe?

If it was the year 1965, would you find it hard to believe that the US could be so horribly racist?

I think most people, particularly people my age (40 and younger) could accept 1965 as being a horribly racist time since we’ve heard all the horror stories and have no reason to doubt their veracity, not having been first-hand witnesses.

Do you know anyone who was alive in 1965? Were your parents or grandparents alive in 1965? Any coworkers, supervisors, friends, and associates? What proportion of voters, taxpayers, and jury members were alive in 1965?

The fact that most people I know were not only alive in 1965, but were functioning as adults or almost-adults keeps me from being too doe-eyed about stuff like this. My parents are old enough to remember when their second-class citizenship was a daily reminder. Surely the white people who are the same age remember when their first class citizenship made them “better than”. You don’t forget the programming you received in your formative years, not unless you’re consciously trying to counteract those “lies”. Which requires you to recognize them as lies in the first place.

The only thing different between now and 1965 is that we are much better at saying the right things. But we’re the same people. Fifty years is not long enough for a species to evolve.

[DrCube]

@Deeg

Is every single police department in the US horribly racist?

Yes.

@Deeg

I just find that hard to believe.

Why?

Quoting Wikipedia:

A black male born in 1991 has a 29% chance of spending time in prison at some point in his life.[6]
Nearly one in three African American males aged 20–29 are under some form of criminal justice supervision whether imprisoned, jailed, on parole or probation.
One out of nine African American men will be incarcerated between the ages of 20 and 34.
Black males ages 30 to 34 have the highest incarceration rate of any race/ethnicity.

(According to America Community Survey.)

African-American men comprise a mere 6% of the American population, but according to the Department of Justice, they make up nearly half of the 2 million inmates in U.S. jails or prisons. These men are largely imprisoned for non-violent offenses. According to the U.S. census, nearly half of America’s 19 million black men are under the age of 35 years old, and the ratio for young black male imprisonment is around 10 percent, or 10,000 prisoners per 100,000. (Note: This is not counting the additional numbers on parole, or on probation, which add significantly to these numbers.) Placing this ratio in context, as of today, India, a country of 1 billion people, only has about 300,000 prisoners, a ratio of 30 prisoners per 100,000 people. During South African apartheid, the prison rate for black male South Africans, under immensely unfair laws, was 851 per 100,000. In America today, young black men face a rate of imprisonment effectively ten times that number.

Seriously, have you not seen enough evidence of this? This report is par for the course. In fact, I’m surprised how “normal” Ferguson PD is. I expected them to be far more racist than most departments. Turns out, they’re about the same. Ergo, the vast majority of police departments in the US are horribly racist. The fact that Ferguson isn’t an outlier should piss people off. This isn’t some podunk hillbilly village run by a few bad apples. Ferguson is representative of police culture across the country. “Other PDs do it too” is not a good defense. It’s a good start at identifying the problem though.

I should mention the police aren’t the only drivers of institutional racism in our justice system. But they are on the front lines, and fixing their departments should be a top priority. Nor are all (or even a majority of) cops racist, but by defending their comrades and protecting this system, they are all, knowingly or not, preserving the culture of racism that pervades their profession.

[Richard_Parker]

@Shodan

And I repeat - de minimis non curat lex.

A retaliatory arrest for swearing at an officer during an encounter is not a de minimis violation of rights. You’re obviously free to think it is a minor matter, and maybe you would even nullify a jury you sat on. But you’re wrong as a matter of the law of our country–thankfully.

[BrainGlutton]

@Shodan

And I repeat - de minimis non curat lex.

That would be a reason not to arrest a mouthy dude.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@Shodan

And I repeat - de minimis non curat lex. That is to say - some mouthy asshole got what he was begging for and richly deserved. Gosh-a-mighty, the Constitution is in rags.

Others have called you on this, but really, I wonder–can you cite any court case in any nation’s history in which this principle was applied in the way you’re suggesting, i.e., sure, a cop broke the law in his arrest, but the law the cop broke was too trivial to care about?

[elucidator]

Yeah, but tres partes omnia Gallia divisa est, which means if you have the gall to mouth off to a cop, he can break you into three pieces and its not against the law.

[Snowboarder_Bo]

@astorian

Gannett News Service is making things easy for us. Click below and you can find out how often your local police force arrests black citizens, and whether that number corresponds to the percentage of blacks in the general population:

http://www.gannett-cdn.com/experiments/usatoday/2014/11/arrests-interactive/
Look up Ferguson, Missouri, and what do we find? That police arrest 186 black residents per 1,000 and only 66 whites. That means black residents are almost 3 times as likely to be arrested in Ferguson as their white neighbors.

Looks bad, doesn’t it? Prima facie evidence of bias among the police, you say?

Okay, let’s see how liberal Portland, Oregon compares. In liberal Portland, police arrest a mere 258.7 blacks per 1,000, while arresting a whopping 63.3 whites. Wait… that’s actually a lot WORSE than in Ferguson, MO.

Oh well, that’s just an outlier, I’m sure. Let’s look as San Francisco, where the politicians are so liberal they feel free to condemn the bishop for telling Catholic schools to teach actual Catholic doctrine (that theocratic fascist!). In Frisco, the police arrest just 312 blacks per 1,000 and an astounding 28 whites!

Uh… say Mr. Holder? Are you really sure FERGUSON is the city whose police department most needs to be taken over by the federal government?

Well, moving along, surely things are MUCH different in majority black cities with black mayors and black police chiefs. The stats in Atlanta must be much better. Let’s see… 265 blacks arrested per 1,000 and just 25.8 whites.

Yeah, looks like the Justice Department has a LOT of racist city police departments to take over before getting around to poor little Ferguson, MO.

Where did they get their data? According to them, the Las Vegas Metro PD arrests 886.9 black people per 1000. I find it hard to believe that 90% of the black population is being arrested in Las Vegas.

[Shodan]

@Richard_Parker

A retaliatory arrest for swearing at an officer during an encounter is not a de minimis violation of rights.

Again, he was not arrested for swearing at an officer.

You’re obviously free to think it is a minor matter, and maybe you would even nullify a jury you sat on. But you’re wrong as a matter of the law of our country–thankfully.

Then why was the cop not arrested and charged with civil rights violations? Since the law is so clear and all.

Unless there is such a thing as discretion, which there is.

Regards,
Shodan

[Shodan]

@Left_Hand_of_Dorkness

Others have called you on this, but really, I wonder–can you cite any court case in any nation’s history in which this principle was applied in the way you’re suggesting, i.e., sure, a cop broke the law in his arrest, but the law the cop broke was too trivial to care about?

That’s not a correct characterization of my position.

What I am saying is that it is OK to arrest a person even if there is an additional law enforcement objective behind it. See Whren v. United States.

Additionally, you don’t need a cite about trivialities - that’s why de minimis non curat lex is a legal principle.

Regards,
Shodan

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@Shodan

That’s not a correct characterization of my position.

What I am saying is that it is OK to arrest a person even if there is an additional law enforcement objective behind it. See Whren v. United States.

Additionally, you don’t need a cite about trivialities - that’s why de minimis non curat lex is a legal principle.

Regards,
Shodan

I don’t think that case applies. In that case:

1. Cops really wanted to check Whren for drugs, so
2. They stopped him for not signalling a turn.

In this case:

1. They just wanted to fine him for illegal dancing, but
2. When he cussed them out, they arrested him.

Those two cases are not relevantly similar.

As for citing trivialities, of course you need a cite for that, because de minimis isn’t just a generic feel-good rule of thumb; it’s a principle with specific application, to the best of my knowledge, and you’re claiming its specific applicability to a situation in which the police decide to arrest someone based in part on that person’s use of naughty language, suggesting that while such a decision might be illegal, its illegality isn’t worth pursuing.

[Bricker]

@Left_Hand_of_Dorkness

Others have called you on this, but really, I wonder–can you cite any court case in any nation’s history in which this principle was applied in the way you’re suggesting, i.e., sure, a cop broke the law in his arrest, but the law the cop broke was too trivial to care about?

I can.

State v. Mapp, 170 Ohio 427 (1960).

Police officers broke into the home of Dollree Mapp, the girlfriend of a mobster involved in a numbers racket. Mapp demanded to see their warrant; they handed her a piece of paper which she tried to retain. They overpowered her and took the supposed warrant back.

As the Supreme Court of Ohio dryly observed:

There is, in the record, considerable doubt as to whether there ever was any warrant for the search of defendant’s home. No warrant was offered in evidence, there was no testimony as to who issued any warrant or as to what any warrant contained, and the absence from evidence of any such warrant is not explained or otherwise accounted for in the record.

In short: the cops had no warrant.

Nonetheless, Mapp’s conviction for possession of the “lewd and lascivious books” the officers found was upheld by the Ohio Supreme Court. As they explained:

However, this court has held that evidence obtained by an unlawful search and seizure is admissible in a criminal prosecution. (internal citation omitted) . . . and the Supreme Court of the United States has held that the Constitution of the United States does not usually prevent a state court from so holding.
.
.
.
Hence, we conclude that, if the portion of Section 2905.34, Revised Code, applied in the instant case is valid, the due process clause of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States was not violated by defendant’s conviction, although that conviction was based primarily upon the introduction in evidence of books and pictures unlawfully seized during an unlawful search of defendant’s home.

Ms. Mapp’s case was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court: Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961). The U.S. Supreme Court overturned her conviction, ruling for the first time that the exclusionary rule applied to state prosecutions that used evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment. This landmark case incorporated the Fourth Amendment against the states via operation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

Thanks, Bricker! Not only did I learn about an important case, I also learned that there’s a mobster’s moll named Doll.

[Richard_Parker]

@Shodan

Again, he was not arrested for swearing at an officer.
Then why was the cop not arrested and charged with civil rights violations? Since the law is so clear and all.

Unless there is such a thing as discretion, which there is.

Regards,
Shodan

It’s remarkable to me that you adopt this cocksure style even in areas about which you are clearly ignorant. Such an officer would not be arrested because, generally speaking, it is not a crime to improperly arrest someone as a police officer.

And, in any event, my point is limited to clarifying the law for you, not quibbling about the facts of any particular instance. The law is that even if a police officer has valid probable cause to arrest, if they nevertheless choose to arrest out of a motivation of retaliating against constitutionally protected speech, that arrest constitutes a First Amendment violation.

[Shodan]

@Left_Hand_of_Dorkness

I don’t think that case applies. In that case:

1. Cops really wanted to check Whren for drugs, so
2. They stopped him for not signalling a turn.

In this case:

1. They just wanted to fine him for illegal dancing, but
2. When he cussed them out, they arrested him.

Those two cases are not relevantly similar.

Of course they’re similar. The cops at first decided not to arrest him, then he screamed profanities at them, and they arrested him for dancing in the street. IOW the arrest was legitimate even they had a law enforcement objective other than simply preventing street dancing.

As for citing trivialities, of course you need a cite for that, because de minimis isn’t just a generic feel-good rule of thumb; it’s a principle with specific application, to the best of my knowledge, and you’re claiming its specific applicability to a situation in which the police decide to arrest someone based in part on that person’s use of naughty language, suggesting that while such a decision might be illegal, its illegality isn’t worth pursuing.

You already have such an example, since the Justice Department did not indict the officers in question. IOW it is now too trivial to bother with. Like I said, discretion means the ability to decide not to pursue if it is trivial enough. Holder claims the arrest was a violation of the First Amendment. But he is not pursuing indictment against the officers. IOW it is too trivial to pursue.

This should be obvious, but if one is determined not to understand, nothing ever is.

Regards,
Shodan

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@Shodan

Of course they’re similar. The cops at first decided not to arrest him, then he screamed profanities at them, and they arrested him for dancing in the street. IOW the arrest was legitimate even they had a law enforcement objective other than simply preventing street dancing.

What legitimate law enforcement objective other than preventing street dancing are you imagining?

This should be obvious, but if one is determined not to understand, nothing ever is.

Indeed. On the one hand we have attorneys discussing how the law actually works; on the other hand we have your speculations. It is indeed obvious what’s going on, and indeed if “one” is determined not to understand, “one” will likely succeed.

[Bricker]

@Left_Hand_of_Dorkness

Thanks, Bricker! Not only did I learn about an important case, I also learned that there’s a mobster’s moll named Doll.

LOL - well done.

Not to hijack the thread, but I am amazed they haven’t made a movie out of this event.

Doll Mapp was the ex-wife of heavyweight boxer Jimmy Bivins and ex-girlfriend of light heavyweight champ Archie Moore. She was employed by “Public Enemy #1” rackets man Shondor “Alex” Birns. The reason the police targeted Doll’s place was that Virgil Ogletree, another employee of Birns and sometime paramour of Doll, was suspected of hiding out in her home to avoid being brought in for questioning about the recent bombing of a rival numbers racketeer’s home. That rival was Don King, who would later rise to fame as a boxing promoter.

[Richard_Parker]

[Legal nuance]I should note that the issue of the proper test for retaliatory arrest is an active one in some circuits. There are fact-laden complexities in some circuits involving the severity of the offense for which there is probable cause, and burden-shifting frameworks for proving motivation. But the weight of authority is that if it is proven that the officer had a retaliatory motive, then it does not matter if there was objective probable cause.[/legal nuance]