Recently in Policing Category

"Pigs in a Blanket, Fry 'em Like Bacon"

| No Comments
The title of this post is the chant used by the Black Lives Matter contingent at the Minnesota State Fair this last weekend.  "Pigs" of course refers to the police; "fry 'em" is slightly more obscure, although I doubt it means "give them a box of candy."

BLM used this chant hours after the report of the execution-style murder of a white Houston policeman, Darren Goforth, by a black man, Shannon Miles.  Miles' motive is not clear; he and Goforth had not had any prior experience with each other that is known about.

The BLM spokesman, Rashad Turner, explained that the chant is nonviolent because  --  ready now?  --  those are only words

Well, why not?  When prize-winning NYT journalist Linda Greenhouse can proclaim that the country has adopted a death penalty "moratorium" while it is executing a killer an average of every twelve days or so, why would anyone think that words are supposed to mean anything?

But perhaps more troubling than the rigged solipsism is the fact the the BLM movement  --  with all its potential for good  --  seems increasingly rooted in hate.

Hat tip to PowerLine.

BLM, the New Fascism

| No Comments
It's not like we've never seen shouting down opposing speakers.  We saw plenty of it, circa 1930's Germany.

We saw more today, courtesy of Black Lives Matter.  The person they shouted down was the black, female, liberal Democrat who is the Mayor of the District of Columbia, Muriel Bowser (not that it was any better when they did it to two white men, Bernie Sanders and Martin O'Malley).

The Washington Post has the story:

Dozens of protestors shouting "black lives matter" interrupted D.C. Mayor Muriel E. Bowser's address late Thursday morning on how to stem the rising number of homicides in the city.

Bowser (D) planned to announce a wide-ranging, $15 million plan to boost both community programs and police presence in response to a 36 percent spike in killings this year. But protesters linked to a nationwide movement that has mobilized over allegations of police misconduct erupted at her first mention of putting more officers on the streets. 



William Sousa has an article in the City Journal with the above title, subtitled, A response to Broken Windows critic Bernard Harcourt.  Sousa is the co-author, with George Kelling, of an NYPD research report on the efficacy of Broken Windows policing.

For the better part of two decades, Columbia University law professor Bernard Harcourt has been on a personal crusade against Broken Windows policing, criticizing both its theoretical underpinnings and its policy applications. A close look at Harcourt's work, however, reveals not only the weaknesses of his arguments but also his lack of attention to other research findings that conflict with his own. His portrayal of Broken Windows policing, it turns out, is fundamentally inaccurate and incomplete. In effect, Harcourt creates and then fights a paper tiger.

By way of background, Broken Windows is a policing tactic that emphasizes the police management of minor offenses. The authors of the Broken Windows hypothesis--George L. Kelling and the late James Q. Wilson--always maintained that Broken Windows policing should encourage proper discretion on the part of officers. Kelling in particular has discussed the importance of discretion when it comes to maintaining order, as in a recent article in Politico, where he indicates that arrest should be the last option when managing minor offenses.
The misrepresentation of Broken Windows policing as "zero tolerance" policing, encouraging arrests for minor offenses, is an important element of the campaign against it.  When you can't win with the truth, you have to make stuff up.
Along with Ferguson, Mo., Baltimore, Md. has become an epicenter of the Black Lives Matter Movement.  It took root in Maryland in the Freddie Gray case, in which a black drug dealer died in police custody after having been transported  --  under still not clearly known but possibly negligent, or worse, conditions  --  in a police van.  Both black and white police officers have been charged in the death by States Attorney Marilyn Mosby. This was back in April.

Rioting immediately ensued.  The Mayor declared that there needed to be "space to destroy."  Baltimore's rate of violent crime took off.

Six days ago, in mid-August, the Baltimore Sun announced:  "Baltimore records 211th homicide, equalling total for 2014."

It's  not telling tales out of school to observe that the huge majority of Baltimore murder victims are black (it's possible that nearly all of them are, I don't know).  In the wake of the galvanizing of the BLM Movement, and the ensuing fusillade of criticism of the police, there are now dozens more black murder victims in that unhappy city than in decades. 

Is there a lesson here?
Mixing politics and the power to prosecute is the fast road to tyranny.  That is one reason I have been unstinting in my criticism both of Eric Holder's politicization of DOJ and of the reckless grandstanding by Baltimore State's Attorney Marilyn Mosby in the Freddie Gray case, see here, here, and here.

Even Ms. Mosby, however, looks good by comparison to the federal prosecutors whose jaw-dropping unethical behavior resulted in well deserved judicial rebukes from both the federal district court and, now, the Fifth Circuit (opinion here).

It's impossible to summarize in a single sentence the extent or the sleaze of the prosecutors' stunts, but let me start by saying that they essentially tried a prominent federal case against seven New Orleans police officers  --  four of them black or Hispanic  --  by tweet, then repeatedly lied about it.

Sal Perricone, a high-ranking prosecutor in the U.S. Attorney's Office, using a fake name, posted commentary on Nola.com, the website of the Times-Picayune, that (in the words of the Court of Appeals) "castigated the defendants and their lawyers and repeatedly chastised the New Orleans Police Department as a fish 'rotten from the head down.'"

Perricone was joined in this outrageous misconduct by Jan Mann, the first assistant to the U.S. attorney.

Meanwhile, back in Washington, Karla Dobinski, a veteran of Holder's Civil Rights Division, also posted inflammatory commentary under at least one assumed name. Ironically -- appallingly -- Dobinsky was part of the DOJ "taint team" in this case. As such, she was assigned to protect the civil rights of the indicted defendants. 

The whole appalling story is here.



The Lies at the Base of "Black Lives Matter"

| 5 Comments
The "Black Lives Matter" Movement took root a little more than a year ago in Ferguson, Mo.  A white policeman, Darren Wilson, shot a blameless and unarmed black teenager, Michael Brown, as Brown had his hands up, trying to surrender (hence the Movement's first slogan, "Hands Up, Don't Shoot").  Thereafter, Wilson walked up to Brown, now prone, and, as noted in stories briefly recounted in this New Yorker article, shot him in the back.

Or so is the fable.  It's a pack of lies, and was from the day it started. The point of BLM was never to tell the truth, so when the truth came out  --  as it did in two grand jury investigations, including one by Eric Holder's Justice Department  --  it was dismissed. The point was always something different:  To intimidate the police and thus benefit criminals.

There's evidence that it's worked.  Police work has become more fraught.  Some cops say they're pulling back.  When the State's Attorney indicts the police and the city's mayor says rioters must be given "space to destroy," what were we expecting?  We should have been expecting, e.g., Baltimore, and a spike in murders coast-to-coast, which is what we got and are getting.

The wretched irony in this is, of course, that black lives do matter, and that blacks, who disproportionately bear the brunt of poverty, depend more than better-off whites for the basic protection policing provides.  In part for that reason, I repeat the following entry on PowerLine, a bitterly humorous tribute to the insidious deceit and tragic carnage of "Black Lives Matter."

Who Wants A Larger Police Presence?

| 1 Comment
From Gallup today:

Which would you prefer to see in your local area -- [ROTATED: a larger police presence than currently exists, no change, (or) a smaller police presence than currently exists]?



The report notes:

In general, though, majorities of these major groups profess wanting "no change" in the police presence in their local community. However, blacks are the least likely to say this at 51%, compared with Hispanics at 59% and whites at 74%. Only small percentages of any group say they want a smaller police presence than currently exists.
I suspect that the difference is not race as such but rather the likelihood of living in a high crime area.  If Gallup, or any poll, asks this question again, it would be interesting to record precisely where each respondent lives and then cross-tab that with actual local crime rate.

First Responder

| No Comments
AssistingKlanProtester.jpg
The KKK held a rally in South Carolina to protest removal of the Confederate flag.  One of the protesters, wearing a swastika T-shirt, became ill from heat exhaustion.  Leroy Smith, Director of the South Carolina Department of Public Safety, rendered assistance.

Seanna Adcox has this story for AP.

Way Beyond Unhinged

| No Comments
Criminal justice, sentencing, and police behavior  --  especially behavior toward African Americans  -- have become contentious issues.  As one would expect, they have shown up in the race for each party's Presidential nomination.  They have opened a window on (1) what treatment is given speakers with opposing viewpoints, and (2) what, in some circles, is considered an "opposing viewpoint."

The appalling state of play was summed up in this headline from CNN:  "O'Malley Apologizes for Saying 'All Lives Matter" at Liberal Conference."  The first three paragraphs of this extremely depressing story are:

Democratic presidential candidate Martin O'Malley apologized on Saturday for saying "All lives matter" while discussing police violence against African-Americans with liberal demonstrators.

Several dozen demonstrators interrupted the former Maryland governor while he was speaking here at the Netroots Nation conference, a gathering of liberal activists, demanding that he address criminal justice and police brutality. When they shouted, "Black lives matter!" a rallying cry of protests that broke out after several black Americans were killed at the hands of police in recent months, O'Malley responded: "Black lives matter. White lives matter. All lives matter."

The demonstrators, who were mostly black, responded by booing him and shouting him down. 

When the President of the United States hypes racial grievance at every turn, this is what you get.



What Happens When We Lose Our Nerve

| No Comments
What happens is that we return to past failures.  An article in Quadrant begins:

Welcome to the 1970s! In New York, anyway, one of the decades Tom Wolfe denominated "purple" has made a stunning comeback. Consider crime. After a precipitous decline that began under the mayoralty of Rudy Giuliani and continued under Michael Bloomberg, violent crime has soared in the city. From May 2014 to the end of May this year, shootings increased almost 10 per cent while murders jumped a stunning 19.5 per cent during the same period. Meanwhile, Central Park has once again become a haven for thieves and muggers. "Police are investigating another mugging in Central Park," begins a May 20 story in the New York Post, "the latest in a string of robberies that has residents on edge."

It continues:

The centrepiece of Bill de Blasio's mayoral campaign in 2013 was a promise to end one of the most effective weapons against violent crime: "stop and frisk", the practice by the police of stopping, questioning and, in some cases, frisking suspicious characters. De Blasio wanted to end the practice because the overwhelming majority of those stopped and frisked were Black. The reason for this was that the overwhelming majority of suspicious characters that the police encountered were Black, but that reality did not prevent de Blasio from pretending that the practice was inexcusably racist. Former Police Commissioner Ray Kelly warned that "people would suffer" if the prophylactic practice was abandoned. No matter. It was too good an opportunity for a left-wing demagogue to ignore.

I don't subscribe to everything the author argues, but I very much subscribe to the underlying thesis:  If we turn away from standards, and the enforcement of standards, that made life safer and better, it will return to being more dangerous and worse.


Crappy Days Are Here Again

| 2 Comments
Myron Magnet minces no words in the City Journal:

Twenty-three prior arrests, including menacing someone with a machete five years ago, and this madman is still walking the streets? Seeing a passerby's video of Sook Yeong Im, a pretty young Korean tourist, lying on the 40th Street sidewalk after crazy career criminal Frederick Young, 43, had twice slashed open her arm with his viciously honed weapon--exposing muscle fiber and sending blood spurting everywhere--brought back in an instant the knot of fear New Yorkers carried in their stomachs in the pre-Rudy Giuliani era, when out-of-control crime was killing not just one person every four hours, 365 days a year, but also was killing Gotham itself. That the assault occurred in Bryant Park at 11:30 on a sun-drenched early-summer morning, as the victim was looking for a seat after her yoga class, seemed to unravel just about every gain that the tireless efforts of thousands over 20 years had achieved to make New York once more the capital of the world. Suddenly, it seems we're back to Son of Sam or the Wild Man of West 96th Street.
The subtitle of the piece, BTW, is It's De Blasio Time, and madmen with machetes are on the loose.
As we have noted on this blog, Heather MacDonald has dared to tell the truth about the real-world effect the attacks on policing are having.  Naturally, the forces of Political Correctness have criticized her.  In this op-ed in the WSJ, MacDonald responds to the critics.  Here is the concluding paragraph:

Activists and many criminologists may continue to deny the importance of proactive policing, even as shootings increase, but its effectiveness was central to America's remarkable crime reduction of the past two decades. Police departments must constantly reinforce the message of courtesy and respect, and train officers to minimize the use of force. But when the police back off, crime eventually goes up. If anti-cop vituperation tapers off in the coming months and police start to feel supported in their work, the recent crime increases may also taper off. If the media-saturated agitation continues, however, the new normal may be less policing and more crime.
Heather MacDonald of the Manhattan Institute is as good as it gets in the debate whether the police are actually an occupying racist army (and let's face it, that  -- sometimes in disguised form, and sometimes not so disguised  --  is the accusation on the table).

Her column in the National Review starts this way:

New York Times columnist Charles Blow is angry again. This time he's angry at me, among other "tough on crime, fear-mongering iron fist-ers." Also, of course, at the cops. I had debated Blow last week about a Wall Street Journal op-ed of mine on depolicing and crime. Blow followed up with an online column in the Times entitled "Romanticizing 'Broken Windows' Policing." It exemplifies the confusions of the Left about crime and policing.

My article had proposed that a rise in violent crime in many cities across the country may be the result of officers' backing off from proactive policing. The last nine months have seen non-stop agitation against the police profession. Officers have routinely been called racists, murderers, and scourges of black communities. Arrests in inner-city communities are even more tense than usual, thanks to the media's constant amplification of the "racist cop" meme. Cops are becoming reluctant to engage in discretionary enforcement, according to their own reports, for fear that if an encounter becomes confrontational, they will become the latest YouTube racist-cop sensation -- or, worse, could find themselves indicted for a crime. 

Ms. Mac Donald ends this way:

The puzzle for the police is what critics like Blow want them to do -- police proactively and be accused of racism, or back off and wait for people to get shot and be accused of a dereliction of duty?

The article is chock full of facts and well worth the read.

The Destruction of Baltimore

| No Comments
Actions have consequences.  So do failures to act.

When rioters smashed their way through Baltimore, supposedly as an exercise of First Amendment "protest," Mayor Rawlings-Blake chirped that they would be given "space to destroy."  They heard her loud and clear, and took advantage.  The police stood down.  

The cynical among us believe, however, that the "protesters" were less interested in the First Amendment than in just looting.  Not being dummies, among the most coveted items for them were the drug supplies of smashed-in pharmacies.

Now those drugs are fueling a turf war among traffickers, much increased drug abuse, and --  guess what  --  a murder spree unlike anything Baltimore has seen in decades.

If you think, however, that this will change the narrative that the whole problem is racism, cops, and thuggish prosecutors using mandatory minimum sentences, you haven't been keeping up with Al Sharpton and his enablers in Congress and academia.

The Bloodiest in 40 Years

| 2 Comments
Four days ago, as May wound down, I asked what happens when we paint the police as villains, rather than pointing to the thieves, thugs and muggers.  This is a particularly acute question in Baltimore, and a good deal of evidence was already in.

May ended yesterday.  We now have an even clearer idea of what happens when, on account of the Cops-Are-Devils campaign, we exchange enthusiastic, proactive policing for timid, work-to-rule policing.


Those who think the record low crime we've been enjoying just fell out of the sky are in for a rude awakening.  If we are deluded enough to think that we can cut back the things that have produced low crime  --  more police, more proactive policing, and more incarceration  --  and nothing will happen, we'll deserve what we get.  And, in Baltimore, are getting.


Monthly Archives