Eliot Spitzer: Abraham Lincoln would be ashamed of you for not wanting to pay more in taxes. The sneering condescension in that piece will raise your blood pressure about 10 points. Seems to be something about being born into money that makes people especially prone to lecture the rest of us about “shared sacrifice.”
This entry was posted
on Monday, June 7th, 2010 at 7:35 am by Radley Balko
and is filed under Forensics.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
Both comments and pings are currently closed.
“I think there’s some poetic justice to the sentence,” said Prosecutor Clarence Mock. “Ten months would be right about the amount of time that Mr. Livers and Mr. Sampson remained incarcerated before their cases were dismissed.”
No, Mr. Mock. There’s nothing poetic and there’s nothing just in that sentence. Wanna know why, Mr Mock? Because Livers and Sampson were innocent when they were imprisoned for ten months, Mr Mock, you dumb fuck.
Police commanders said privately that they were troubled by Saturday’s shooting, which took place near a rear door of Club Hippo. It raised numerous questions, they said, including whether the officer had been drinking and was impaired when he fired his gun, and why he did not call for help from the many on-duty officers stationed nearby.
Why can’t he just be a man about it and either accept the man’s apology or knock his lights out?
We’ve become such a sniveling, pathetic society that we can’t even settle something as basic as one man groping another man’s woman without bringing in the police because… oh noes… someone might throw a punch or two!
For my money, the best (worst) line in the Baltimore story is:
“Tshamba, who lives in Essex, could not be reached for comment. He is being represented by an attorney for the city’s Fraternal Order of Police, whose president on Saturday urged the public to “not rush to any judgment.”
From which we learn:
1. The FOP scumbags will represent someone drunk, off-duty, and who murders someone without identifying himself as a cop or following any laws.
2. It’s only OK to “rush to any judgment” when you’re the suspect and they show TV footage of you and put your mugshot up for the world to see. Or if the shoe had been on the other foot.
Soldier murdered by cop:
They’re not good for much, but this is when Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton are at their best. I hope they take the whole city down.
We’ve seen the blue line’s work before on these murders by off-duty cops. Here’s the Bingo version:
1. Police chief promises a full investigation with his most trusted fellow cops. Investigation finds: no wrong doing on part of hero officer.
2. Murdering cop claims he calmly identified himself, pulled his weapon only as a last resort, and only fired when he feared his own death was inevitable.
3. Cops at the scene don’t force a sobriety test (you know, like they take your blood by force if involved in a homicide). Cops at scene don’t even arrest or handcuff the murdering cop.
4. Murdering cop has well-rehersed plan: don’t say nothin’ to nobody until your union boss comes around with the lawyer to figure out the best possible statement. Guarantee that cops at the scene made sure the murderer didn’t say a damn thing.
5. Media, police, and prosecutors rush to protect murdering cop.
6. Murdering cop gets paid vacation while the heat settles down in the public.
7. In highly unlikely event murdering cop gets convicted, the sentence will be the bare min. But, he’s out of the union after that and has to live like a regular peasant (not a pleasant thought for a murdering cop).
8. Absolutely no politician will be critical of the cops.
Don’t know where Fox will stand on this. Cop vs. Soldier is their worst nightmare. They don’t know who to villify and who to go down on.
Please realize there is absolutely no scenario where I shoot 13 times into an unarmed man at a club and walk away. It doesn’t matter if it was Bin Laden and he was in the process of beating the shit out of me and my kids after raping my wife and yelling he’s going to kill us all. I still go to jail.
With so many of these stories, it is more proof that we are well beyond the tipping point.
If Spitzer thought he was going to turn anyone in the red states of the South into compliant tax payers by invoking the memory of Lincoln, he completely failed.
But hey, he gave Limbaugh and Fox all the canon fodder they need to re-establish the stereotype that all Democrats are tax and spend politicians. And in an election year no less. If only he could caught in a sex scandal with the help of the same wiring tapping legislation he helped to pass…
There are some AMAZING quotes in Spitzer’s piece. My favorite, which wins for being the most forced transition line ever:
“After reading the Gettysburg Address, does the idea of a carbon tax to finally move us away from an oil and old-energy dependence that is fouling not only the Gulf of Mexico but our entire climate, foreign policy, and economy seem so outrageous?”
WTF?! The article reminded me of a cheap, tacky sermon, where every little line of some sacred text is meant for “us” and is applied — according to the prejudices of the speaker/writer — to every little issue of the present day without any awareness of the original audience or context of the sacred text.
Kofoed’s story shows a great glimpse into how the state agents view themselves. Two teens are in custody for the double murder and the men Kofoed framed are now free.
But Kofoed thinks nothing of destroying two innocent men while allowing two killers to walk the streets. Instead, he whines that he’s lost his truck and has been embarassed and his daughter went to live with her mom.
Can’t wait for government to control and invade even more of our lives. UCMTSU!
Tshamba has been investigated multiple times by the department, including for a July 1998 incident in which he shot a man in the back. Police at the time said he responded to a shooting and an armed robbery of a man in East Baltimore.
The skeptical sort of man might suggest that there’s a pattern here. But that man would then be subject to a late night, no-knock raid in which his dogs are executed, his wife and children terrorized, and statements granted to the media by police which strongly suggest he’s an anti-patriotic, government hating fool.
“I’m gonna show you my law is right yours is wrong.”
The tirade from the officer in the original video provides a rare peek into
the deranged, paranoid mentality of a rogue officer; one has to wonder if he’s got a six pack in his belly.
” If you fail to comply with my orders, my lawful orders, you have the right to go to jail. Failure to comply with a police officer.”
Sounds like some perverted twist of the Miranda rights.
I guess the Club in Baltimore where the cop shot the marine didn’t have a surveillance camera? Or, did the cops already destroy that evidence?
I’m sure there are more than a few witnesses about what happened. After the idiot who pulled his gun on a biker, and now this other idiot shooting a Marine 13 times, I hope there is a huge, federal investigation going on in MD.
I keep reading the comments. ugh. The comments in the article about the MO kid harrassed at the dui checkpoint freaks me out. This kid did a textbook ‘am I free to go’ from flex your rights and the cop asserts his authoritah. Badge lickers insist the kid’s ‘causing trouble’ or whatever. Not one person commented that the dui checkpoints this cop runs has collected $278,000 in federal grants for the seat belt tickets they’ve written.
The only thing missing from this textbook bullshit abuse is the follow-up swat raid with computer confiscation and dog execution.
I can’t wait to read the headline: “Hayne and West Receive LWOP for Tampering and Creating False Evidence to Ensure Wrongful Convictions”
By the way, the sentence Kofoed received is not nearly enough.
RE: Cop Shoots Unarmed Man: Duh! Not that I advocate violence, but whatever happened to a good old fashioned ‘slug fest’ if you have a ‘beef’ with someone? Rule of thumb: You don’t shoot an UNARMED person…period and especially over this absurd reason.
What the hell is there to review? Yes, Radley, if it had been your average Joe Blow or Jane Doe, their ass would have already been under the jail.
While reading Spitzer’s article Im reminded of this priceless Ayn Rand quote:
” It only stands to reason that where there’s sacrifice, there’s someone collecting the sacrificial offerings. Where there’s service, there is someone being served. The man who speaks to you of sacrifice is speaking of slaves and masters, and intends to be the master.”
You said: Please realize there is absolutely no scenario where I shoot 13 times into an unarmed man at a club and walk away.
I wouldn’t even go that far… there is almost no scenario where I shoot 13 times into an unarmed man. 13 times? Into an unarmed man? That is cold-blooded murder, by any stretch of the imagination. 13 freaking shots! Were the first 12 not enough?
I’m sorry, but this cop story boils my blood. Did Brown break a law? Perhaps. Maybe he was guilty of some form of harassment or battery for putting his hands on the woman. But was the cop trying to arrest him? No, he was an angry boyfriend. And good for him. I wouldn’t be happy if someone touched my fiance that way. But you can’t start a fight with a guy, as an angry boyfriend, and halfway through try to change the rules and act all cop. You can’t say, “Stop resisting, I’m a cop!” when you’re duking it out with another guy over a woman. That’s horseshit, plain and simple. If you are an on-duty cop, behave like one. If you’re off-duty and playing the role of Joe Blow, then play by the rules the Joe Blows play by.
This shouldn’t even be a story about a cop. He was acting in no capacity of an officer. He was a drunk hothead who murdered another man. It’s as simple as that. If he was acting in some sort of official capacity, even off-duty, it’d be another story. Not necessarily clearing him. But at least we’d be talking about a cop. We are not talking about a cop. WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT A COP!
@#27 BSK: The article said he only hit him 6 times, from several feet away.
Oh, well that changes EVERYTHING. So he missed half his shots, meaning he’s either a HORRIBLE cop or was drunk. Regardless, shooting an unarmed man 6 times is like kicking a guy when he’s down. It demonstrates either cowardice or pure malice. It wasn’t self-defense. It was excessive by any definition of the word. Any change that this guy had of surviving this altercation flew out the window as soon as the 2nd trigger squeeze. 1st degree murder by a drunk man with a gun.
People who’ve read me here know I don’t share the same hatred of cops that others do here. I know a lot of good cops and recognize the difficult position they are put in (often by their higher ups and the stupid laws they are charged to enforce). Which is fine. We’re still on the same side of the debate, just different places along the spectrum. But this… there is no defense or excuse for this. None whatsoever.
The problem isn’t politicians saying we should pay more taxes, it’s average citizens saying they “wouldn’t mind” paying more taxes for Service X, Y or Z. I hear it all the time during “man on the street” interviews whenever there’s some kind of dire budgetary crisis.
@#30 BSK: I didn’t mean to say that it was inherently different that he only hit him 6 times. I considered the possibility that he missed him the first 7 and hit him with the last 6. Honestly, my first reaction when reading that was “What, this guy can’t hit a stationary, human sized target from 6 feet away with better than ~50% accuracy?” but I thought that sounded insensitive.
Simon Sebag Montefiore, while researching his great biography of Stalin “Stalin: The Court of the Red Tsar”, went to the Abkhazia region of Georgia, where Stalin grew up and spent much of his time ruling his empire. Stalin had lived in a series of mansions and bungalows during his reign, and after his death the houses were preserved.
Sebag Montefiore was taken on a tour of the houses, and asked his guide if anyone else had seen the mansions. He wanted to know if any other historians had beaten him to the houses (say, Richard Pipes or Anne Applebaum), and his guide said that no one researcher had seen them all, exceptan Arab V.I.P in the 70’s. Really? he asked. What was the name of the Arab gentleman? the reply came: Saddam Hussein.
Interestingly, if you look at the map, Stalin’s hometown of Gori, and Saddam’s hometown of Tikrit are only a few hundred miles apart.
The trial was fascinating. The special prosecutor (Clarence Mock) is one heck of a defense attorney (I watched him in action in a different case) and had to present the case with hostile witnesses (cops who loved Kofoed).
The maximum punishment possible was five years, so what he got was about the best sentence you could see in a case like this.
The only thing surprising about the Baltimore cop who shot the unarmed man is that this sort of thing doesn’t happen 10x more frequently, given that psychopaths are naturally attracted to that line of work.
Re: Baltimore, it’s interesting that the newspaper describes the victim as a “former Marine.” My impression is that dishonorable discharge is the only way to become a “former” Marine, and that otherwise Marines are Marines for life.
“Seems to be something about being born into money that makes people especially prone to lecture the rest of us about ‘shared sacrifice.’”
As I’m reminded why I stopped reading this blog… you do realize that he was extolling on the virtues of taxing the rich right? I also take issue with the idea that something that genuinely needs to be done(carbon-elimination) and has been held back so long that it should be done at all costs could offend you so deeply simply because the person who has the voice to say it was born under “fortunate circumstances”.
The spokesman did not have details on what detectives learned during their interviews. He did say they sought out surveillance video from private businesses in the area, but “unfortunately, it is not believed they were working.”
So, it looks like all the camera’s in that part of town just happened to simultaneously malfunction. Funny how that happens.
I think too much is being read into the ‘former Marine’ description. I think about 2/3 of the people who join the Marine Corps only serve one 4 or 5 year tour (like me), are released from active duty, and then honorably discharged after 8 years. And former Marine would be a common description for a lot of us. I don’t know if that is the case here, however in the end it seems irrelevant. Ass-grabbing == punch. Not shot to death by a cop.
Ah cops, you know seeing them interact with ex-military types is usually pretty funny. A friend of mine is a retired Army Ranger, now I’ll be the first to say, he has serious problems. Alcoholism mainly, but he was pulled over recently for a DWI was in complete compliance and never said anything even remotely threatening to the officer. When the cop pulled up his service records and saw what he had been and was capable of he called in back up. By the time I got there there was a helicopter circling the area. Seriously. A helicopter. Anyway the cops were terrified of him. They were literally shaking. Some fat, fat cop came over and started talking to me, and I thought he was going to cry. Literally start balling right there about how threatened they all were by him. He had no weapons, he was handcuffed. They were so afraid of him, I’m guessing because he was an actual killer, and not some fake coward that gets to play dress up with a gun. So the marine probably scared that small dicked cop to death, so he was literally fearing for his life. At least, that’s how I read it.
“There is NFW that firing 13 shots at an unarmed man can be construed as “self defense”.”
You never know if someone is unarmed until you are able to search their body. Even then some people are lethal without weapons because the human is always the weapon — some people train in hand to hand combat. However, in no way am I siding with the cop. My intention is to correct the myth of shooting an unarmed person and being unjustified.
“Nebraska crime scene investigator who manufactured evidence sentenced to “up to four years” in prison.
But, but, but … that’s not how it works on TV.”
Actually that’s exactly how it worked on CSI when Grissom proved that a fellow CSI was manufacturing evidence to collect his fat expert testimony fees and the ex-CSI was led out of the courtroom in handcuffs and the defendant convicted and sent off to justice.
It’s real life where it usually doesn’t happen…those guys on TV run a tight ship, have unlimited time and budgets, and the most upstanding ethics any human could have only concerned about the truth and damn whatever the costs finding it. There’s a reason they call it fiction…
Maryland cops don’t screw around if you annoy them. There was the PG County cop last year who offed a couple of guys who screwed upo his furniture delivery. Though IIRC he did get fired or forced to resign or something. Maybe he was suspended for a week.
BamBam, yeah those furniture deliverymen are known for showing up armed and are known to be violent! Shoot them dead if they annoy you then find out if there was a risk, who in their right mind would do it differently? Hell, even if they weren’t dangerous that day they might have been dangerous on another. Better safe than sorry!
“Maryland cops don’t screw around if you annoy them. There was the PG County cop last year who offed a couple of guys who screwed upo his furniture delivery. Though IIRC he did get fired or forced to resign or something. Maybe he was suspended for a week.”
Oh ok, my bad memory. But isn’t interesting that I jumped to the conclusion that a cop could kill his deliveryman and get a slap on the wrist since I couldn’t recall the details? Oh yeah, then there was the fact that it wasn’t the first time this guy had such an incident, and also wasn’t the last.
It’s interesting. I took the required class this past weekend to get a concealed carry permit. I found one taught by a police officer here in the area, and enjoyed it greatly.
Talking about the legality of shooting an attacker, he made it clear that there’s no “shoot to kill”, it’s only “shoot to neutralize the threat”.
His next statement was that, as an officer, after he’s done the minimum amount necessary to neutralize the threat, he’s then required by law to begin rendering first aid. He said this quite seriously.
I was thinking about that when I first read about 13 shots. But there’s a difference between a guy who seems to care about his work and some drunk idiot with a gun who also happens to be a police officer.
Anyone who gives me a minus is obviously not thinking about what I wrote and/or doesn’t have any experience with a fight, whether it be hand to hand, knife, or gun, or any shooting experience. You cannot know someone is unarmed by looking at or asking them. Even if 2 people were naked, one may be trained in hand to hand combat and thus more of a threat to the other person.
That being said, it is never ok to view anyone as a threat (scared of your shadow) and then take action. Educational moment: disparity of force can mean numbers (e.g. 1 vs 10), weapons (e.g. hands vs gun), or man vs woman.
Regarding the murderer Tshamba, Robert Cherry, the police union boss, says, “The refusal by him [Tshamba] to give a statement [or take a breath test] is not something that should raise people’s concerns that he is trying to hide something.”
What do you suppose the chigger Cherry would say and do in response to Brett Darrow’s, “I don’t want to answer any more questions. Am I free to go?”
Double standards between cops and those they consider to be little people are alive, well, and getting worse and more entrenched by the nanosecond.
Russian teaching guides, under the malign influence of President Vladimir Putin, nudge teachers into apologetics, advising them “to show that Stalin acted in a concrete historical situation” and acted “entirely rationally—as the guardian of a system, as a consistent supporter of reshaping the country into an industrialized state.”
Hold on a second. This is delivered with a sneer, and, you know, I know we all hate Stalin so he must’ve a bumbling incompetent who couldn’t do anything right and his feet smelled like milk that’s gone off and all that but…
What’s the problem with that quote, exactly?
If I was playing Stalin’s position in a strategy game, if it wasn’t actual people getting hurt–that is, if I was playing as the sociopath that Stalin actually was–I’d do things more or less the way he did. His strategy, while monstrous, was brilliant. And successful. Consider:
You’ve got a vast but desperately poor country. Despite abundant natural resources, your people are mostly occupied with subsistence farming and you’ve got little heavy industry. You share borders with hostile states, and your ideology makes you unpopular. What do you do:
Q. Can I adopt a more sensible ideology and maybe make friends with some rich countries?
A. No. Your position atop the junta is strong, but not unassailable. Any dramatic moves in that direction would quickly lead to your downfall.
Q. Can I conquer the troublesome neighbors?
A. With what, exactly? Sharpened sticks? No.
Q. Can I build a small army from my urban base, just strong enough to defeat poorly organized peasant rabble, and then use them to plunder the countryside come harvest time, sell the grain on the world market, and use the cash to buy some serious manufacturing capacity?
A. Yes. Several dozen millions will starve.
Q. Great. Do that.
A. New problem: A potent new ideology, Fascism, has arisen in Western Europe, and it’s an explicit rejection of your system. It’s making quite a splash. It’s taken over in several countries, and enjoys broad sympathy among ruling elites across the West.
Q. Shit. Everywhere?
A. Well, not quite everywhere. The American president hates them, and there’s this one cat in England who…
Q. Stop. You had me at “American president.” I can work with that. I’ll team up with him against the fascists, and once we’ve destroyed fascism I’ll worry about the free-market democracies.
A. You’re still not all that wealthy. Fighting the Wehrmacht will be a bloody affair. You’ll lose dozens of millions.
Q. We’ve been over this before. I’ve got plenty of people, and a general who knows how to spend them. Let’s do this already.
He was a monster, a savage–by far history’s greatest murderer. The motherfucking devil incarnate. Where his shadow fell, flowers wilted and the earth never bore fruit again. But did he “[act] rationally” as the “guardian of a system” and “[reshape his] country into an industrialized state.” Damn right he did.
Let’s not let our righteous hatred for the man and his blood-soaked legacy blind us to the fact that, by his lights, he was a smashing success. He crushed his enemies, reshaped a backwards nation into an modern state that beat the Wehrmacht and then turned right around and gave the Yankees a good run in a decades-long global struggle. He lived like a king for decades, and died in his bed. The dude won.
I use the same rational thought to explain why David Hasselhoff is both the greatest actor and singer in the history of the world (Brett Michaels is a close second).
But seriously, “success” is completely subjective and (of course) can/is declared by just about everybody to defend their actions.
You’ve got a vast but desperately poor country. Despite abundant natural resources, your people are mostly occupied with subsistence farming and you’ve got little heavy industry. You share borders with hostile states, and your ideology makes you unpopular. What do you do:
Not resort to fascism, murder, and central planning. SUCCESS! (By my lights)
“Not resort to fascism, murder, and central planning.”
Stalin was not a fascist. “Fascist” is often misused these days, as if it were a mere synonym for authoritarian. You get this goofiness from people all over the political spectrum, from clowns who cry “Fascist” every time they meet a cop to clowns who cry “Fascist” every time they meet a socialist.
Fascism arose as an explicit rejection of Marxism/Leninism/Bolshevism. From a distance they bear a superficial similarity, but so do dolphins and sharks, and if Jonah Goldberg wanted to, he could write a very long book about the similarities. “Fins! Teeth! Bony skulls! The list goes on!”
Jonah, dolphins breathe air. And give birth to live young.
Laertes: I agree that Stalinism is not fascism. I also agree that the term fascism is thrown about far too easily. I have argued with friends that some if the jihadist groups we are seeing around the world could be called fascist, and sometimes I am told that it is the US that is fascist. These people use fascism when their dads tell them to get a haircut.
Anyway. Fascism, nazism, and communism are in my view rightly collected under the umbrella term totalitarianism. When looked at that way the differences between fascism, nazism, and communism seem less important than their similarities.
Well, obviously, yes, that is the case. My point is that, this man was not operating in any way that would qualify him as a cop. It’d be one thing if he was an on-duty officer overzealous about an arrest. But this was nothing like that. This was a drunk, angry boyfriend who went too far. Plain and simple. Yes, he’s getting the cop treatment, but he’s even less deserving of it than most of the dirty ones.
Indeed, after the fact. My point is that, by emphasizing the “cop shoots man” idea, it gives the implication that was an altercation between a cop and some random dude. It wasn’t. It was two random dudes. The cops themselves are playing up the cop angle to protect him and justify his actions. We should not play into this. Remove the fact that he was a cop from the situation, which OUGHT to be irrelevant, and we begin to change the narrative and demonstrate just how wrong this situation is.
So, yes, this guy is enjoying all the privileges that come with being a cop, which typically includes a free pass on murder. So, let’s insist that we ignore the fact he was a cop because, as an off-duty drunk responding to a personal offense and not a law being broken, he wasn’t acting in that capacity.
People see the headline, “Cop shoots man,” and immediately assume it was in the line of duty and probably justified. Change the narrative to a more ACCURATE headline, “Man shoots man,” and suddenly we’re looking at a different interpretation of events, one far more likely to be handled justly.
If the sole justification being offered for his actions is that he was a cop, let’s just deny that. Because he wasn’t. And if the police continue to maintain that position, they’ll eventually have to acknowledge that simply holding a badge gives an individual carte blanche to murder. Use their own argument against them. Don’t accept that this is a function of being a cop and, thus, deserving of the protection of being a cop, because it was in no way, shape, or form, part of the function of being a cop.
It was an altercation between two random dudes, one of whom happened to know his gang brothers would cover for him were he to come completely unglued and do something horrifying. Do you think that the cops’ culture of entitled, paranoid chauvinism and general policy of covering each others’ asses never influences these guys when they’re making ordinary everyday decisions, like, “Should I handle this situation like a grownup or completely lose all sense of proportion and blow this guy away?”
So yes, he was acting in his capacity as a cop, because (in the real world) “cop” is a privileged warrior class you’re a part of all the time, not just some limited role you serve while you’re working your shift. If you’re a cop you’re one of the Chosen; if you’re one of the Chosen you can very often do pretty much whatever you want to anyone lower in the hierarchy than you are. To do so is act in one’s capacity as a cop.
Well, now you are getting into ACTUAL vs OFFICIAL. I doubt that anywhere in the police manual does it outline that. As such, we can say, officially, he was not acting as a cop. If he still wants to claim that he was, he’ll have to refer to the unofficial guide, which is what you outlined above. Once there, we have them twisting in the wind as they attempt to justify actions that are unjustifiable.
I think we’re a lot closer to agreeing then it might seem. I concur that this man’s experiences and association with the police informed his actions. Nonetheless, none of what he did fits the job description of the position he officially holds. If he wants to claim that actions outside of that are, in fact, the duties of a cop, then he’ll have to essentially sit there with a straight face and say, “Yes, murder is a cop’s job.”
Let’s use their own bullshit against them. Hold up the job description of an officer. Hold up this guy’s actions. Find out where their is a disconnect. Demonstrate how this shows that his actions were not those of a cop. If he continues to insist they were, ask for the job description he refers to. Either one does not exist, thus refuting his argument -OR- one does exist that will confirm, officially, that cops believe the murder, harassment, and general lawlessness we see from some of them is a part of their job. Bammo. The great thing is, any guy stupid enough to do what he did is likely stupid enough to walk into this trap, too