Afternoon Links

Wednesday, October 31st, 2012

Blogging will continue to be light over the next few weeks. I’m in the homestretch of finishing up by book manuscript.

Digg it |  reddit |  del.icio.us |  Fark

25 Responses to “Afternoon Links”

  1. #1 |  marco73 | 

    Wow, 100 dogs in 2 years?\

    Don’t any of these departments look at the suffering, the pain to the families, and the strain on their own officers?

    You would almost expect them to train to NOT use their weapons, just to keep people, including other cops, from being hit by stray shots.
    Anytime police pull out their gun and fire it, even if they hit nothing, there is a major paperwork drill involved.

    I don’t want to ignore the suffering for the animals and their families, but strictly from a financial standpoint the shoot first policy is a loser.

  2. #2 |  Mario | 

    From the Ars Technica article:

    But the police only have the resources to tail a small number of suspects at any one time, and a suspect is likely to notice a car following him 24/7. So allowing the installation of GPS tracking devices dramatically increases the government’s practical spying powers even if the formal law hasn’t changed. And that, in turn, can diminish the privacy protections that are the whole point of the Fourth Amendment.

    This is a subtle point that is lost on people who argue “what’s the difference.” When we form notions of what’s public or private, and what does or doesn’t constitute an oppressive government, we are doing so within a certain context. For almost the entire life of this country, it was inconceivable that police could surveil people without physically following them. For the last few decades, the reality of our situation was that some surveillance could be done without individual officers at the scene, but only by employing relatively expensive measures. Scarcity placed a low ceiling on the amount of surveillance a government could employ, and tended to reserve such actions only for the most serious cases.

    But now, all that has begun to change. Public and private doesn’t have the same sense it once did, because the context we live it—in other words, the facts of reality—have changed. Someday (and likely very soon) it will be relatively cheap to surveil nearly all public places, making what happens a matter of record. This is a very different kind of public space than we have lived with, and certainly very different from the public space in existence when the Fourth Amendment was written.

    Electronic surveillance is fundamentally different than having a police officer tail you.

  3. #3 |  Dana Gower | 

    On the same Web site as the Chicago police beating story were these two:

    http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2012/10/26/two-former-cops-charged-in-extortion-murder-plot/

    http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2012/10/29/cop-impersonator-abducts-woman-at-bus-stop-rapes-her/

    In the second case, the person was only impersonating a police officer, but that is exactly the point that is made about home invasions — that a person has virtually no time to decide whether the invaders really are police.

  4. #4 |  Yizmo Gizmo | 

    •Federal judge rules that police can install hidden cameras on private property without a warrant.

    IN a smiliar ruling the 8th Appeals Court has affirmed that police
    can do whatever the fuck the want whenever the fuck they
    feel like it, in any fucking manner they deem necessary.

  5. #5 |  The Late Andy Rooney | 

    Newsweek’s proud lack of skepticism extends beyond the War on Drugs. I recall a lurid cover story about sex addiction from a while back; it contained the dreaded statement that reliable dataare difficult to gather, but that a certain number of people “may” fit the criteria for sex addiction. Short on facts, but plenty sensational.

  6. #6 |  Deoxy | 

    The “private property” story.

    It’s pretty clear that you can look at property from the outside, and it’s pretty clear that you can look at property from the air. None of that is really up for review.

    The “open fields” doctrine makes sense in highly rural areas, at least at first blush.

    The issue the article makes is a good one, and it poses no good answer – cheap surveillance equipment does indeed change the nature of things very much.

    Personally, I’m not sure how I feel about the police leaving a camera… but if they do, and it’s on my property intentionally, then I now OWN it. To be able to both hide it on my property AND still claim ownership, that is a problem.

    Worse still would be if I found it and returned it to them, and they claimed it was “tampering” or some such. Not to say that the current situation is OK, but it’s at least arguable in some ways – what I just described, that would essentially be taking my property for public use without compensation.

  7. #7 |  MikeV | 

    On “Police allowed to install cameras on private property without warrant”

    The article says the government also briefly argues that there was no Fourth Amendment search because neither Mendoza nor Magana owned or leased the Property.

    If Mendoza and Magana were growing marijuana on someone else’s property without permission, it’s hard to see how they could claim they had a privacy right violated. I think the property owner could make that claim if the owner was involved.

  8. #8 |  Dave Krueger | 

    Speaking of which . . .

    Don’t your panties all in a wad. After all, they said there’s going to be an internal investigation, so they will determine the truth and justice will certainly follow. Cops are the good guys, remember? And, the guy should be glad they only knocked him down rather than shooting him. Clearly anyone who ignores a cop deserves to be knocked on his ass, regardless of the circumstances. The cops exercised great restraint in not shooting him for his own protection, or at least beating him into an unrecognizable pile of gelatinous meat and bone.

  9. #9 |  Burgers Allday | 

    Here is what the police think of the Omaha dog slaughter:

    http://www.policeone.com/Officer-Safety/articles/6024727-Video-Dog-shot-man-arrested-for-trespassing-by-Omaha-officer/

  10. #10 |  citalopram | 

    @MikeV – exactly. This is much ado about nothing, other than the fact that we’re talking about the drug war.

  11. #11 |  Dave Krueger | 

    It’s bad enough that cops piss all over the 4th Amendment, but they do it for something that shouldn’t even be a fucking crime to begin with.

  12. #12 |  Jack Dempsey | 

    In the Chicago police story, the reporter was asked what were the odds the cops would lose their job, and the reporter replied “It’s hard to say, it has to go through the review process.”

    I don’t think it’s hard to say at all, given this is Chicago. Their behavior will be found to be completely within policy and justifiable, and no punishment will befall them.

    I feel safe.

  13. #13 |  Frank Hummel | 

    Speaking of which . . .

    I’m waiting for the article that describes the outcome of the cops shooting the wrong guy’s dog… Someday.

  14. #14 |  Juice | 

    #8 – The comments are infuriating.

    “I Should have stopped and gone back, but I just kept going”. Yes it’s your fault the dog died.
    ————————–
    Looooky Lou lost him a doggie. It`s not that hard,,,do not go that way!!! (response)Ok. Problem solved.

    And then one from a guy who has an animated avatar of militarized cops in riot gear marching in formation:

    “I Should have stopped and gone back, but I just kept going” – That pretty much sums it up. And to those of you claiming that the officer didn’t HAVE to shoot the dog or that you would wait until being bitten because of PUBLIC PERCEPTION of all things I call bull&#*! on that. If you really feel that way and that’s the way you do business so be it. But you should keep your criticism to your ignorant selves. How you could judge what this officer should or should not have done based on a grainy video and the words of an obviously biased news story is beyond me.

    This situation, like many we as law enforcement officers are thrust into because of the actions of OTHERS, sucks all the way around for everyone involved. But to even insinuate that the officer involved had ANY blame for that dogs death is just plain stupid, coming from fellow law enforcement officers it is very much disrespectful.

    One cops thinks the dog did not absolutely need to be shot and killed.

    Don’t fall for jcolter’s garbage. He’s only here to troll these threads by defending criminal behavior and trying to goad other members into emotional responses. Read some of his nonsense on other threads and you’ll see what I’m talking about. He’s an LEO who hates his own and loves criminals. It’s as simple as that. And the sad part is, jcolter’s not the only LEO I’ve come across who thinks this way.

    Well, at least there’s more than one out there.

  15. #15 |  liberranter | 

    The notable takeaway is that only one police department in the entire Atlanta metro area gives cops any training on how to deal with dogs, and that department only started this year.

    They probably had a hard time finding cops as trainers who were smarter than the dogs.

    Federal judge rules that police can install hidden cameras on private property without a warrant.

    The good news is that the property owners can remove/destroy these things “without a warrant” too.

  16. #16 |  Cappy | 

    I worked in Animal Control for five years shortly after getting out of the military as an animal care specialist. I’ve been approached aggressively by numerous dogs and attacked once outright unprovoked (Siberian Husky). The only time I was bitten was by a dog I put hands on. I was surrounded by about a dozen dogs one time with the alpha being a huge Pit Bull/St. Bernard mix. I made all those dogs turn tail with one strike from the catch-pole to the alpha’s head. No harm done, yet when he turned the rest of the dogs turned as well. And a good portion of the time, a clipboard was all I needed to turn a dog away who was acting aggressively.

    I worked this job unarmed with the exception of two years where I carried a .22 rifle in the work vehicle for the purposes of shooting sick wild animals.

    I carry more scars from being an animal care specialist as opposed to working animal control.

    I can guarantee you, I went home every night to my family without ever shooting someone’s dog. I may have gone home a little worse for wear, but I got there.

  17. #17 |  Over the River | 

    We talk endlessly about the police and their aggressive nature against people and their dogs. Cops say they are protecting themselves while on duty because their life is on the line, etc. But if police continue to use aggressive tactics, and people begin to meet this violence with violence, the police should start worrying about protecting themselves; even when they are off duty.

  18. #18 |  omar | 

    the police should start worrying about protecting themselves; even when they are off duty.

    You sound pretty tough, bro.

    I’m a libertarian primarily because I despise violence. There’s no fine line between criticizing a person’s actions and wishing for blood.

  19. #19 |  divadab | 

    What I wonder is why the police who shoot harmless dogs because they were afraid aren’t embarrassed for being femmy pussy sissies.

    When did we start hiring complete cowardly fraidy-cats, who are afraid of injury by friendly labradors, as police? When did our police forces become so feminized?

    All armored up and armed to the teeth and you’re afraid of a pet? You might want to find another line of work – perhaps interior decorating?

  20. #20 |  Over the River | 

    @omar #18

    I’m not what one would describe as tough. I too despise violence when other diplomatic means work toward a peaceful resolution. But when people are exposed to a police state where their safety, and the safety of their loved ones is threatened by those who are sworn to protect them, and their property is something they need to protect if they want to keep it, they may very well take up arms against the aggressors.

    Constructive criticism, where the end result is a change in policy or practices is of great value. But when criticism is absorbed by “internal investigations” and reports of “my boys done good”, it has no value. People, as resilient as they are, can only take so much.

  21. #21 |  JimBob | 

    Radley– I don’t know if you saw Randazza’s post yesterday about the Oakland PD. Apparently, the court-appointed police monitor’s e-mails to Chief Jordan were going unanswered. Jordan said he never received the e-mails…

    …because he had directed his IT department to treat ALL e-mails to him containing the phrases “Occupy Oakland”, “police brutality”, and “excessive force” as spam.

    Apparently the judge in the case– the same judge who ordered the oversight after the Riders case from 2000-2003– is pretty pissed off. Stuff like this makes it more and more likely that the judge is going to put the Oakland PD under federal receivership in order to actually make the reforms they were ordered to make nearly a decade ago.

    Stay classy, Oakland.

  22. #22 |  Deoxy | 

    There’s no fine line between criticizing a person’s actions and wishing for blood.

    Pointing out the logical conclusion of behaviour is not WISHING for that behaviour.

    If the police act like thugs, the people will eventually treat them as such. No WISHING required.

    (For the record, I am WISHING for the police to get their house in order before it comes to that.)

  23. #23 |  celticdragonchick | 

    I’m not what one would describe as tough. I too despise violence when other diplomatic means work toward a peaceful resolution. But when people are exposed to a police state where their safety, and the safety of their loved ones is threatened by those who are sworn to protect them, and their property is something they need to protect if they want to keep it, they may very well take up arms against the aggressors.

    I grok what you are getting at. However, most of the American public do not see the police as a threat to their own safety and liberty because they are not the “wrong kind of people” that the police usually deal with.

    Readers of this blog know that is utterly, tragically wrong, but comforting lies persist because they are, well, comforting. As long as various elites (both political and economic) can continue to use wedges to pit various groups against each other, the police will reliably maintain control for them and the groups on the better end of the deal will not rock the boat.

    It took shocking scenes like police dogs chewing on peaceful protestors and fire hoses injuring kids during the civil rights marches to really wake up people 50 years ago. I have no idea what it would take now, given that this picture of a police officer looking ready to blow away a frightened child at the infamous mass traffic stop/arrest in Aurora, Colorado didn’t seem to bother many people.

    http://littlegreenfootballs.com/page/277825_Aurora_Police_Chief_apologizes

    (yes, that post at LGF is from me)

  24. #24 |  Burgers Allday | 

    When did we start hiring complete cowardly fraidy-cats, who are afraid of injury by friendly labradors, as police?

    Oooh,ooooh, I’ll take this one. Somebody get Tarran . . .

    “Oh, that Burgers!” (TM)

  25. #25 |  freedomfan | 

    Though the arguments made (and refuted) in Mike Riggs’ Hit & Run piece stand on their own, it should be noted that the article he critiques was in The Daily Beast, for whatever the distinction between it and Newsweek is worth.

Leave a Reply