D.C. don’t need no stinking First Amendment.
Arkansas state house passes an exceptionally stupid underage drinking bill.
The science behind March Madness upsets. North Dakota State FTW!
Insert your own “Blowin’ in the Wind” joke here.
Were U.S. Army soldiers patrolling an Alabama town after last week’s shooting spree?
I briefly mentioned this troubling police shooting in Louisiana a couple of weeks ago. It’s now starting to attract national attention. And get a load of this quote, from the town’s (white) police chief: “If I see three or four young black men walking down the street, I have to stop them and check their names. I want them to be afraid every time they see the police that they might get arrested.”
This entry was posted
on Tuesday, March 17th, 2009 at 9:45 am by Radley Balko
and is filed under Alcohol, General Criminal Justice, Police Professionalism.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
TheAgitator.com
These stories about US Army being slowly worked into domestic use gives me the feeling of being mugged while the mugger keeps telling me, “It’s ok. It’s ok.”
I live in the Bible Belt of North Carolina and have gone to weddings where alcohol came out of every corner and large pocketbook as soon as the baptist preacher left the reception for his car but after numerous trips to Arkansas, they make us look like sophisticates on the topic.
I don’t get it. Despite all the discussion we have here, you folks stubbornly keep referring to Amendments as if they’re still used.
From the Louisiana story:
“If I see three or four young black men walking down the street, I have to stop them and check their names,” said Mills, who is white. “I want them to be afraid every time they see the police that they might get arrested.
“We’re not out there trying to abuse and harass people — we’re trying to protect the law-abiding citizens locked behind their doors in fear.”
Yeah, that’s not racist at all! I can’t imagine what this guy would do if he was TRYING to abuse and harass people, probably gun them down in their home and then plant evidence on them.
Ditto what Dave Krueger said. You have NO POWER to stop the sate. None.
DC law: Why do the cops need this law? They can disperse anyone they want right now with any of a hundred commonly used arrest scare tactics. You’re just lucky they don’t shoot you for getting uppity.
RIP Posse Comitatus Act (except that it died 50 years ago). And there ain’t a whole lot you can do about it.
Joe Badgelicker sees nothing wrong with the Weezy Anna sheriff’s quote and I believe that sheriff’s mission is fully accomplished.
I always thought that Sheriff Buford T. Justice was made up. Guess not.
One could write a book about the stupidity that occurs in state legislatures. The reason they don’t get more news coverage is because they’re so embarrassing that no one wants to hear about them, unless it’s just plain unavoidable. If you ever need an example of how the country’s education system is churning out morons, state legislators could be cited as convincing evidence.
I find it astounding that anyone even aspires to a state legislative office. It’s like being a proud member of a fraternity of dumb shits.
Every time we see these blatant violations of Posse Comitatus we have military or former military who vehemently assure us that American soldier would never do anything to violate a citizen’s Constitutional rights. Unfortunately history (Katrina etc) tells us they will do exactly as ordered with no questions asked even if that means brutalizing citizens.
On the other hand those could be regular police. It’s hard to tell the difference between peace officers and military troops these days. They’re essentially a standing, occupying army in our midst.
Seriously, if you’re not an anarchist, why not?
From the picture I can’t tell if they are active duty, or National Guard.
It’s possible they are Military Police cross training with local police. The article doesn’t go into detail about what they were doing, and I have to say the captions that said “guarding” and “patrolling” didn’t seem accurate to me. The military often sends personnel to work with civilian counterparts, on the theory that they are the subject matter experts in the field.
If the soldiers were not enforcing laws, and were observing and training, would that still be a posse violation?
Wow. Police chief Russell Mills is a piece of shit.
“If the soldiers were not enforcing laws, and were observing and training, would that still be a posse violation?”
I don’t know the answer to this, but I will say that soldiers on the street make us look like a banana republic.
Dave, you said, “I don’t get it. Despite all the discussion we have here, you folks stubbornly keep referring to Amendments as if they’re still used.”
Well, our troubles are over, at least for those who live in Washington, DC. Didn’t you read the article on the anti-loitering bill?
Quoting from the article:
“The new bill would give the mayor authority to create rules to protect ‘persons who are engaged in assembly protected by the Constitution.’”
See? All we have to do is pass laws that permit our officials to follow the Constitution, should they, you know, feel like it.
If that asshole sherrif still has a job in 2 days….
F$#k it, who am I kidding. His superiors are going to be lavishing him with praise and promoting his racist ass. Just awful.
I think it’s official that we are no longer a nation of laws.
Radley, it looks like Newsweek is channelling you:
http://www.newsweek.com/id/189294
The anti-loitering bill was withdrawn yesterday by Graham. I disagree with him on a lot of issues and especially this legislation, but at least he had this to say in withdrawing it:
I care deeply about civil liberties. I am also concerned about giving government power that can be abused, through unfairly targeting people on the basis of race or background. After a lot of effort, there are still critical ambiguities (e.g. the definition of what constitutes “loitering”). Thus, the opportunity for abuse is too great. Very recent events have reinforced that conclusion.
Thus I have withdrawn the bill.
Not to set the bar too low but it’s better than the usual “if you’re not doing anything wrong what do you have to fear?” line.
http://dcist.com/2009/03/graham_withdraws_anti-loitering_bil.php
and while snarking on Bob Dylan is all well and good, the Emminger family complaining about the outhouse are anti-fluoridation activists and seem to whine about everything- the last line of the story has them whinging about the smell from the guards using the heater on chilly nights. Going to have to go with Idiot Wind instead.
After reading an in-depth article in the Topanga Messenger, activist and Malibu local Valerie Sklarevsky became concerned. She pointed out that 95 percent of toothpaste not only contains fluoride, but a warning label with instructions to call a poison control center should accidental ingestion by children occur. She said she feels it’s a contradiction for the government to tell us fluoride is safe if products containing it are deemed poisonous.
Malibu resident Cindy Emminger agrees. She would like to see the fluoridation process stopped altogether. Emminger questions the safety of the fluoride additive, hydrofluosilicic acid, itself. “People with diabetes, kidney problems or AIDS, and especially babies and children are at risk for side effects” from the use of fluoride, Emminger said. “Water consumers cannot be expected to know the risks.
“What makes me mad is that they are putting something in the water that doesn’t have FDA approval for cavities. No manufacturer of the hydrofluosilicic acid will state that their product is safe and effective for preventing tooth decay.”
Emminger said she is concerned because the studies that the fluoride supporters stand on were performed in the ’50s and ’60s, and in light of the 2006 NRC and Harvard studies, she said fluoridation bears closer scrutiny. She fears children will pay the price. “In the last fifty years, we’ve seen our children struggle with an increase in bipolar, cancer, behavior issues and learning disabilities.”
I think it’s official that we are no longer a nation of laws.
I have to disagree with you wholeheartedly. We are a nation of too many laws and not enough rules.
the south is working overtime this week- Alabama calling in the military, Arkansas passing (more) stupid drinking laws, and LA (really?) being racists fucks. I know DC isn’t in the south, but I’m willing to give it up…
WTF is going on here?!! are we really this inbred to allow this stupid shit?
All of us need to be writing to legislators and police departments, forwarding these stories to everyone, and speaking out. Or, kick someone’s ass…
How about this quote from the Reuters article linked from the Alabama shooting story:
“Mass shootings have become more frequent in recent years in the United States, where guns are widely available for purchase and the right to own weapons for self defense and hunting is defended by many.”
Biased much?
I feel like there is a lot missing in this Bob Dylan story. Porta-potties smell bad and all, but this one is making people vomit? If it’s that bad then I’m sure Dylan would be puking all over is his house as well and would have done something about this already…
[...] were U.S. Army troops doing on the scene of the mass shooting in Alabama last week? (link: Balko) Mar 17, 09 | 12:29 pm AxeBitesVarious guitars I see floating by, mostly Gibson and mostly eBay. [...]
Here’s the quote I was looking for. It’s by Daniel Quinn in My Ishmael, page 39 here.
“Even more important than all these things are tribal laws, which have only one thing in common: They’re not lists of things that are prohibited but rather procedures for handling problems that inevitably arise in communal life. What do you do when someone is constantly disrupting the peace with his or her bad temper? What do you do when a spouse has been unfaithful? What do you do then someone has injured or killed another tribal member? Unlike the laws you know, Julie, these laws were never formulated by any committee. Rather, they grew up among the tribal members the way strategies for competition grew up — by a steady winnowing out of what didn’t work, of what didn’t accomplish what people wanted — over tens of thousands of years. In a very real sense, the Ells are the laws of the Ells. Or even better, the laws of each tribe represent the will of the tribe. Their laws make utter sense to them in the context of their entire culture. The laws of the Ells wouldn’t make sense to the Emms, but what difference does that make? The Emms have their own laws, which make utter sense to them, though they’re clearly very different from those of the Ells or anyone else.
It’s an interesting indictment of how strangly we make laws in this country. Very interesting read if you like that kind of thing. (hopefully my html all works)
If I were a black male in that Louisiana town arrested following an involuntary, streetside search, I’m wondering if those statements by that police chief would be of any use to me in having evidence suppressed. I would seem to me that that kind of statement would raise pretty substantial doubt about the integrity of the force and the (supposed) probably cause they often probably claim to have in those kind of situations.
On the Dylan story, see also this comment:
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2009/03/how-sweet-is-li.html?cid=151312857#comment-151312857
But, to set the record straight, the Emmingers appear to be the only neighbors who talked to the Times. They live across the street and are slightly upwind of the prevailing N to NW breeze .. we live directly nest door and directly down- wind and have never even picked up a whiff of Porta-Potty odor. Neither have the other neighbors that we, unlike the LA Times, have talked with.
The first person had it right. There are no rules or laws when they are inconsistently applied, thus making them “enforce when it justifies your goals”, thus making them non-existent. It’s a smoke and mirrors to fool the idiots into thinking there are rules, because the idiots of the world don’t want to see the inconsistency. Then you argue the immorality of the rules and laws. Then you argue that it’s all about control, power, and FORCE; too many laws follow this pattern.
Let me get this straight.
Bob Dylan, who can afford to own a giant property in Malibu that even has 24 hour guard facilities where his hired guards stay…
The same Bob Dylan who made a career out of writing ballads espousing the merits of the little guy and the downtrodden…
This same Bob Dylan can’t even provide a heated guardshack and proper bathroom facilities for his full time employees?
What an asshole!
I could understand this if it was for a month or so while the actual facilities were being built, but this is the ‘permanent solution’!
#8
You’re right about one thing, Katrina happened. I’d like to see whatever evidence you’d like to point out about troops acting illegally during katrina btw.
The overblown reaction to the handling of katrina killed the Posse Comitatus Act. There is no way the elected head of the federal gov’t is going to look like they aren’t acting quickly enough to any/every state emergency again. That means having troops at the ready. You can add it to the long list of “unintended consequences” people get when they flip out instead of dealing with reality.
For those who have read Article I, Section 8 , Paragraph 17, the answer to the DC Council is explicitly clear.
Sorry boys, the DC Council is unconstitutional.
Dominus providebit!
My favorite part of the Dylan story is that the guard shack does not meet building codes for the handicapped, but the loophole he uses for approval is that he promises not to hire the handicapped. Genius!
#9 | billy-jay “Seriously, if you’re not an anarchist, why not?”
It’s telling that you got no responses to that question, billy-jay.
A buddy of mine who’s a contractor once told me that there’s two types of concrete — concrete that’s cracked, and concrete that’s about to crack.
It’s the same with anarchists. There are anarchists, and people who are about to become anarchists. Just gotta give ‘em time.
BamBam: The first person had it right.
Read my second comment. I explained the difference between laws and rules. Very few of our laws are commonly agreed upon by society as a whole (mostly because there’s too many people in our soceity to do so) and when they are agreed upon, they are applied in unequal ways.
I read your response. I stick by my statement: when laws are applied unequally, they are not laws, they are an aberration whose motive is to control and FORCE, based on the whims of those in power. A law is something that is enforced equally to everyone at every moment in time. Anything else is smoke and mirrors.
It’s the same with anarchists. There are anarchists, and people who are about to become anarchists. Just gotta give ‘em time.
Anarchy is impossible. Any society must, and inevitably will, create some commonly-agreeable mechanism for forcibly settling disputes between people who cannot reach a mutually agreeable settlement. That mechanism and the people who implement it are by definition a government. The trick is to keep those people from doing anything more than what they ought to be doing; we can’t and people simply won’t do without them altogether. A culture without any such accepted system of conflict resolution would not be one of liberty, but of violence and license.
“The trick is to keep those people from doing anything more than what they ought to be doing.”
You got your chocolate in my peanut butter.
“A culture without any such accepted system of conflict resolution would not be one of liberty, but of violence and license.”
Says you.
I sez that any culture that accepts violence in any form, even “some commonly-agreeable mechanism for forcibly settling disputes between people who cannot reach a mutually agreeable settlement” is one of violence and license.
Truth is, I don’t know what anarchy would look like. But I do know what your system looks like.
It’s ugly.
#17 | Mojotron |
from your quote…
“Water consumers cannot be expected to know the risks.”
The Wikipedia article from the future says:
Water consumers: One of the largest demographics in America. The water consumer demographic has significant overlap with the food eater demographic, masturbators and the commonair breather. Water consumers are at risk for many diseases including excessive urination, vomiting, parasitic worms, and every other disease known to man.
I’ve got family in the area of the Alabama shootings, and I thought about asking last week what you guys thought of the military being called in. I didn’t because I figured uninformed histrionics would outweigh rational discussion.
For those who care, this is what I know: Geneva and Sampson are about 45 minutes from Enterprise to the north and Dothan to the east. As there are no towns of any size in Coffee County, the Sheriff’s Department is very small. MP’s from Fort Rucker (10 minutes away) were called in to assist in traffic control because the local police and deputies were overwhelmed. None of the people I talked to said the MP’s were “patrolling” anything. I didn’t ask them specifically, but these are the type of people who wouldn’t take too kindly to the military “patrolling” their town.
Correction: I checked a map and Fort Rucker appears to be basically next to Enterprise, so that’s about 45 minutes to Geneva and Samson. This is weird to me because I’ve always heard people in Geneva talk about Fort Rucker like it’s much closer than that. Also, when I was in the Army, soldiers made it sound like Dothan was at least as close as Enterprise.
If I am certain of anything it is that at the height of human evolution there will no longer be a state. I just hope we don’t have to reach our fullest potential before we rid ourselves of this inefficiency.
I sez that any culture that accepts violence in any form, even “some commonly-agreeable mechanism for forcibly settling disputes between people who cannot reach a mutually agreeable settlement” is one of violence and license.
Suppose that Adam notices that (1) he is stronger than Bob, and (2) Bob has something he wants. Suppose further that Adam decides to kill Bob and take what he wants. Would it be acceptable for other people to take up arms against Adam because of his action against Bob, or would that be a sign of “violence and license”? Should Adam automatically be allowed to escape judgment by claiming he didn’t kill Bob, even when evidence says he did?
Fundamentally, a society must do one of three things:
-1- Declare to the world that anyone who wants is free to commit murder with impunity.
-2- Have people arbitrarily take action against others whom they believe to have committed murder.
-3- Have a system for determining whether individuals have committed murder, and punishing them if they have.
I see no other alternative. You may not like #3, but I would regard it as infinitely preferable to #1 or #2. Can you offer any other alternative?
Yes, let people commit murder. And demand that individuals take personal responsibility for their self-defense, either personally or by voluntary contract. Over a very short period of time, it will become clear just how ridiculous committing murder is, because it is economically unviable. Then individuals will evolve peaceful and cooperative means of preventing most, if not all, murders.
But heavens no, do not create an unaccountable superagency to rule over individuals. That leads to murder on industrial scales. History has demonstrated this to be true.
Today, the only thing likely to make the Supreme Court uphold the Constitution is an argument so powerful it would be publicly humiliating for them to ignore it. Aside from that, they have no incentive to support it. It’s not like they’re chosen from a list of heroic figures celebrated for their dedication to liberty and resistance to political pressures. The most important qualifiers to get on The Court are a commitment to government power and the lack of a criminal record.
The idea that the Bill of Rights means exactly what it says is definitely unpopular. The fact that all of us who think like that know each others’ names shows just how friggin’ few of us there are. But, we should count our blessings. It’s only because of our small numbers that they let us live.
Over a very short period of time, it will become clear just how ridiculous committing murder is, because it is economically unviable.
So you’d like to live in a society in which nobody could travel anywhere except in an armed posse? Because that’s the only scenario in which–absent government–there wouldn’t be ample opportunities for any malevolent person to rob, rape, and murder with impunity.
While I certainly agree that people should take primary responsibility for their own self-defense, there has to be some standard for determining when homicide in claimed “self-defense” is legitimate and when it is not. Absent such a standard, the only only determination of who’s “right” is who survives.
That situation exists in some countries. I wouldn’t want to live in any of them.
Yes, let people commit murder. And demand that individuals take personal responsibility for their self-defense, either personally or by voluntary contract. Over a very short period of time, it will become clear just how ridiculous committing murder is, because it is economically unviable. Then individuals will evolve peaceful and cooperative means of preventing most, if not all, murders.”
Eh? More likely you get lots of vendettas and feuds.
Most likely those unable to defend themselves or afford others to defend them will soon by controlled by the Adams of that society. The Adams, seeing themselves as benevolent leaders, will of course take up the defense of those poor, downtrodden souls. Of course, defense isn’t cheap, and Adam will expect some “help” in the “common defense”. If you can’t afford or are unwilling to pay, I’m sure an “arrangement” can be made. Next thing you know, you have a government.
So I believe anarchy as described by you would work just fine – for about 6 months, or until the first bad feud. Whichever came first.
The first thing people would start to do under anarchy would be to figure out who they want to be the boss. You only have to watch a few zombie movies to see that humans always pick a leader as their first order of business. And he’s always the one who gets to have the gun. In the movie he usually turns out to be the good guy (or girl in the case of Milla Jovovich) and the only survivor. But then, that’s why it’s fiction. Real life is different. In real life, the leader turns into a tyrant.
I don’t think a growth of knowledge on anarchy is happening here. Perhaps an agreement to take the discussion elsewhere would be more productive.
FWIW I am not an anarchist but I found it invaluable as a tool to learn libertarianism.
The reason why you want to live in the US, supercat, is because you are seldom directly exposed to the violence wrought by the US. Everything seems peaceful and orderly to you compared to some of the alleged hellholes you describe. But the violence is always there. It can strike randomly, or not so randomly, as this blog attests to daily. It is mainly directed at people unlike you, perhaps poorer, with darker skin, domestic or foreign, whatever. There is also the not-so-subtle threat of violence for anyone of any color or class not conforming to the system.
So you and I may for noq go through our daily routines without having to fear the myriad armed gangs that inhabit the anarchic Hobbesian nightmare world that is so cliche among statists, but you are not safe from the thugs with badges whether local, state or federal, even if you obey their commands. And foreigners are most definitely not safe from the thugs in military uniform.
So the price you and I pay to live in a falsely secure statist world is for the violence to be redistributed away towards the less fortunate. That’s some bargain for them. And statists predict a war of all-against-all from anarchy. Sheesh. Pure projection.
Statism is the war of all-against-all.
“Government is the great fiction, through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else.” –Frederic Bastiat
Now that I have posted my say, I agree with Boyd!
//Everything seems peaceful and orderly to you compared to some of the alleged hellholes you describe.//
Things are peaceful and orderly. Most of the problems you describe stem not from the Constitution, but rather from people’s failure to enforce it. The proper role of legitimate government is not for the government to act as a primary enforcer but rather to declare what is legitimate. If the government is a good one, when it declares that Adam should be arrested for murder he will find that he and his supporters will be outnumbered 100:1. If the government were a bad one, however, and declared that someone should be arrested, such declaration would likely be widely ignored.
Show me a good government.
to disperse two or more people gathered in areas known for illegal activity.
Sounds like the DC Police to could use this to keep Congress from meeting.