This blog is dedicated to law. Criminal law.
But I have a life outside law. My life comprises things I may or may not acknowledge.
Obama wants to kill in Syria.
I, unlike many of my ilk, care nothing about death. I don't even care about killing the innocent. I've never been bothered by death. Death is the only true peace. It is suffering that bothers me. And suffering, unfortunately, comes each time our government proclaims death.
A friend of mine, an old colleague, one with whom I share few, if any, values, is in the military.
Tonight, she asked on facebook of all places:
We are debating the beginning of a third straight war during the last decade, and talking about broken promises and money. When will we bring the debate to every American dinner table and focus on the most valuable American resource we use in these decisions--when will we debate bringing back the draft?
Draft. Draft whom. The brain dead of America don't want to die in wars the way they once did. America likes its private military. We make movies about how our Marines love to kill. We tend to forget that other branches even exist. Let's say they take a stand and win. The Marines will likely take over. As long as you can manufacture killing machines, you will. Be they drone, or be they man.
Americans are a warlike people. We want blood. It keeps this nation alive. We simply aren't limited by the draft anymore. Not for something like Syria. "War" has come to mean something far bigger and more terrible. It requires a power capable of withstanding our vastly superior technology. Few are left.
Rome went through a similar period. I realize it is... unnecessary to point out that there's nothing to be done. And yet, a voice in the madness, however few voices, can help ensure the end of such a period.
Americans, your government does not serve you. It uses you to accomplish the goals of your privileged classes. Your lives will not be affected by what goes on in Syria, save the few of you that are hired to work for the companies building weapons. Americans, you'd be better served creating technology for surveying Mars, than creating a realm for him here.
Wednesday, September 4, 2013
Wednesday, August 28, 2013
Serve and Protect
There's been a lot of discussion lately on the militarization of the police force. Randy Balko got everyone interested with Rise of the Warrior Cop, including the mighty ABA which let him write a pretty good summary in their monthly magazine.
Of course, plenty of folks have been concerned about this for a long time.
What's curious for me is how the warrior cop has become acceptable in the court. Example: Officers go to investigate a domestic, find someone injured and intoxicated, rather than clearing him from the area before engaging in a search with a warrant, they just go around looking at his things, despite the fact that it obviously upsets him. And next thing you know cops are fighting with a badly injured drunk. When asked about it, the officers say, "I'm just trying to protect myself and the other officers." Ok. That's not really an answer to anything. But the judge nods sagely.
Or you have cops visit a home at 3 AM, barge inside and harass the naked occupants. Excuse: "They could be dangerous, I don't know what's going on in that house." Ok. So don't go in. "Well, but they could come out and attack me." Riiiiiight. Did you have any reason to think they were dangerous. "Every day I'm in danger." Fuck.
Judge: Yup. Scary out there.
No. No it isn't. Well, yes, but not all the time. There is no reason to take the guns blazing approach to EVERY FUCKING SITUATION.
So recently Police State USA posted this: http://www.policestateusa.com/2013/police-taser-man-to-get-him-off-a-roof-choke-drag-him-face-down-across-a-staircase-killing-him/
Which was, upsetting.
Then in Idaho, we get our own: http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2013/aug/26/man-shot-killed-cda-police-identified/
I can't get over the calm. These folks are upset, but it's like they feel they have to make a logical argument. Like there's a discussion to be had here. "Well, you see, when a man has a knife to his own throat, there's no reason to shoot him to death."
Yes. That is true. Assuming that's the case, you don't need to explain. The scenario explains itself.
Hell, I don't even know why they'd need to shoot a guy holding a knife. They have tasers. Why use the gun? Who was in danger of gross bodily injury or death? The guy himself? So you kill him?
None of this is new. Cops have been killing blacks, poor whites, and whatever other undesirable minority for as long as they have been around. But now we have it on video. And the response remains: shrug.
Thug cops are being replaced by warrior cops and the end result is: nothing changes. And the few good cops that believe what they do is about protecting everyone, even the law breakers, remain an endangered minority.
It would be cheaper for everyone if police were properly trained so that we could avoid things that lead to massive lawsuits.
There, I made the argument everyone can agree with. Money matters. The current situation is bad for money. Do it for the money.
The dead poor will sort themselves out.
Of course, plenty of folks have been concerned about this for a long time.
What's curious for me is how the warrior cop has become acceptable in the court. Example: Officers go to investigate a domestic, find someone injured and intoxicated, rather than clearing him from the area before engaging in a search with a warrant, they just go around looking at his things, despite the fact that it obviously upsets him. And next thing you know cops are fighting with a badly injured drunk. When asked about it, the officers say, "I'm just trying to protect myself and the other officers." Ok. That's not really an answer to anything. But the judge nods sagely.
Or you have cops visit a home at 3 AM, barge inside and harass the naked occupants. Excuse: "They could be dangerous, I don't know what's going on in that house." Ok. So don't go in. "Well, but they could come out and attack me." Riiiiiight. Did you have any reason to think they were dangerous. "Every day I'm in danger." Fuck.
Judge: Yup. Scary out there.
No. No it isn't. Well, yes, but not all the time. There is no reason to take the guns blazing approach to EVERY FUCKING SITUATION.
So recently Police State USA posted this: http://www.policestateusa.com/2013/police-taser-man-to-get-him-off-a-roof-choke-drag-him-face-down-across-a-staircase-killing-him/
Which was, upsetting.
Then in Idaho, we get our own: http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2013/aug/26/man-shot-killed-cda-police-identified/
I can't get over the calm. These folks are upset, but it's like they feel they have to make a logical argument. Like there's a discussion to be had here. "Well, you see, when a man has a knife to his own throat, there's no reason to shoot him to death."
Yes. That is true. Assuming that's the case, you don't need to explain. The scenario explains itself.
Hell, I don't even know why they'd need to shoot a guy holding a knife. They have tasers. Why use the gun? Who was in danger of gross bodily injury or death? The guy himself? So you kill him?
None of this is new. Cops have been killing blacks, poor whites, and whatever other undesirable minority for as long as they have been around. But now we have it on video. And the response remains: shrug.
Thug cops are being replaced by warrior cops and the end result is: nothing changes. And the few good cops that believe what they do is about protecting everyone, even the law breakers, remain an endangered minority.
It would be cheaper for everyone if police were properly trained so that we could avoid things that lead to massive lawsuits.
There, I made the argument everyone can agree with. Money matters. The current situation is bad for money. Do it for the money.
The dead poor will sort themselves out.
Thursday, August 22, 2013
Intoxilyzer 8000 a Worthless Piece of Junk
First, a caveat.
A really, really depressing caveat. Bad news first.
1987, Supreme Court of Nebraska declares results of Intoxilyzer 4011AS inadmissible because they rely on blood/breath ratio of 2100:1.
1990, Colorado Department of Health and the New Hampshire Division of Human Services send separate letters, unrelated to each other, to CMI telling them that the Intoxilyzer 5000 has lost credibility with the law enforcement community and has a ton of problems. No one seems to care.
2000, Nebraska backtracks.
2004, Indiana Court of Appeals throws out a result because of a tongue ring.
2005, Indiana Supremes say, forget that!
There are other such cases (particularly an amazing battle between trial judges in New Jersey and their seriously fucked up Supreme Court).
The landscape of DUI law is postapocalyptic, with massive, steel towers draped in a twisted version of the American flag. Nothing good lives here. Even in Ohio, where State v. Homan
89 Ohio St.3d 421, 732 N.E.2d 952 (2000) remained good law right up until it was overruled by the legislature.
But Good News arrives once again from the armpit state:
Retired Municipal Judge Teresa Liston (may she live forever) found in the Marrietta Municipal Courthouse (Ohio) that the Intoxilyzer 8000 is based on science too unreliable to be used in a court of law.
OH YEAH BABY
Articles are here and here
First person to get a copy of that order wins.
A really, really depressing caveat. Bad news first.
1987, Supreme Court of Nebraska declares results of Intoxilyzer 4011AS inadmissible because they rely on blood/breath ratio of 2100:1.
1990, Colorado Department of Health and the New Hampshire Division of Human Services send separate letters, unrelated to each other, to CMI telling them that the Intoxilyzer 5000 has lost credibility with the law enforcement community and has a ton of problems. No one seems to care.
2000, Nebraska backtracks.
2004, Indiana Court of Appeals throws out a result because of a tongue ring.
2005, Indiana Supremes say, forget that!
There are other such cases (particularly an amazing battle between trial judges in New Jersey and their seriously fucked up Supreme Court).
The landscape of DUI law is postapocalyptic, with massive, steel towers draped in a twisted version of the American flag. Nothing good lives here. Even in Ohio, where State v. Homan
89 Ohio St.3d 421, 732 N.E.2d 952 (2000) remained good law right up until it was overruled by the legislature.
But Good News arrives once again from the armpit state:
Retired Municipal Judge Teresa Liston (may she live forever) found in the Marrietta Municipal Courthouse (Ohio) that the Intoxilyzer 8000 is based on science too unreliable to be used in a court of law.
OH YEAH BABY
Articles are here and here
First person to get a copy of that order wins.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)