How can a reasonable person believe that someone running away from a cop poses a "significant physical danger" to that cop?
It doesn't compute! On Tuesday, July 12, 2016 at 12:28:02 PM UTC-4, KeithInTampa wrote: > > Your little cut and paste article answers your own question within the > first sentence: > > "A seminal 1985 Supreme Court case, *Tennessee vs. Garner*, held that the > police may not shoot at a fleeing person unless* the officer reasonably > believes that the individual poses a significant physical danger to the > officer"* > > (Emphasis Added) > > On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 12:11 PM, plainolamerican <[email protected] > <javascript:>> wrote: > >> there's seldom an excuse for shooting an unarmed suspect in the back. >> >> A seminal 1985 Supreme Court case, Tennessee vs. Garner, held that the >> police may not shoot at a fleeing person unless the officer reasonably >> believes that the individual poses a significant physical danger to the >> officer or others in the community. That means officers are expected to >> take other, less-deadly action during a foot or car pursuit unless the >> person being chased is seen as an immediate safety risk. >> >> In other words, a police officer who fires at a fleeing man who a moment >> earlier murdered a convenience store clerk may have reasonable grounds to >> argue that the shooting was justified. But if that same robber never fired >> his own weapon, the officer would likely have a much harder argument. >> >> “You don’t shoot fleeing felons. You apprehend them unless there are >> exigent circumstances — emergencies — that require urgent police action to >> safeguard the community as a whole,” said Greg Gilbertson, a police >> practices expert and criminal justice professor at Centralia College in >> Washington state. >> >> Gilbertson said he thought the video of the shooting of Walter Scott in >> North Charleston, South Carolina, was “insane” given what he said was the >> apparent lack of justification. >> >> Though the legal standard has been established, courts continue to hear >> cases involving use of force against fleeing felons under a variety of >> circumstances. Just last year, the Supreme Court sided with police officers >> who were sued over a high-speed, two-state chase in Arkansas that ended >> with the deaths of the fleeing driver and his passenger. >> >> *In cases where police officers are not supposed to use deadly force >> against a fleeing person, what should they do?* >> >> Each case involving a suspect who flees the police, whether in a car or >> on foot, poses a balancing test for an officer, said Chuck Drago, a police >> practices expert and former Oviedo, Florida, police chief. >> >> “Am I creating more of a danger by chasing this person than if I let this >> person stay at large?” Drago said. “Especially in a vehicle pursuit, is it >> worth risking everyone on the road to catch this guy?” >> >> In a pursuit on foot, the more reasonable option might be to call for >> backup, including perhaps with a police dog, so that other officers can set >> up a perimeter and trap the suspect, Drago said. >> >> In the South Carolina case, the former lawyer for the North Charleston >> officer, Michael Slager, said Monday that Slager felt threatened and had >> fired because Scott was trying to grab his stun gun — an older model that >> would have had to have been manually reloaded. But if the stun gun was on >> the ground at the time Scott fled, Drago said, then “there is no longer a >> threat. The threat is gone.” >> >> There’s also no indication on the video that after the physical encounter >> between the men, where the officer has said he believed Scott had tried to >> get ahold of his stun gun, that he shouts any instructions. >> >> On Tuesday, July 12, 2016 at 10:57:12 AM UTC-5, KeithInTampa wrote: >>> >>> Maybe not if the guy just jacked you up with 50,000 watts and is now >>> running away with the guide wires still attached to your chest..... >>> >>> On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 11:52 AM, plainolamerican <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Have you heard >>>> --- >>>> that shooting an unarmed man in the back is the act of a coward? >>>> >>>> On Monday, July 11, 2016 at 4:07:38 PM UTC-5, KeithInTampa wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Obviously, the initial media reports are incorrect. Scott somehow >>>>> wrested control of the taser from Slager during the altercation and shot >>>>> Slager: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> This becomes obvious with the enhanced video, and I will make it easy >>>>> for you: >>>>> >>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5em7GcDTg8U >>>>> >>>>> The taser guide wire is clearly visable from Slager's chest; as Scott >>>>> runs after shooting Slager. (If you can, try to watch this on a full >>>>> screen PC/laptop. It may be difficult to see if you are viewing from a >>>>> cell phone. >>>>> >>>>> Other questions that you should ask yourself Plain Ol': >>>>> >>>>> Have you seen Officer Slager’s report? >>>>> >>>>> Have you heard the radio calls made by Officer Slager? >>>>> >>>>> Have you heard the radio traffic from the responding officers who were >>>>> trying to aid an officer in a fight with a suspect? >>>>> >>>>> Have you heard from the passenger that was riding with Scott? >>>>> >>>>> Have you heard from the mysterious “car selling” neighbor (that Scott >>>>> initially told Slager regarding the purchase of the vehicle) ? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 4:24 PM, plainolamerican <[email protected] >>>>> > wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> ok ... not exactly. >>>>>> >>>>>> According to the incident report and city officials, Slager then >>>>>> fired his Taser, hitting Scott.[20] >>>>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Walter_Scott#cite_note-WaPo.Charged-21> >>>>>> Scott >>>>>> fled, and Slager drew his handgun, firing eight rounds at him from >>>>>> behind. >>>>>> [7] >>>>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Walter_Scott#cite_note-NYTimes.Charged-8> >>>>>> The >>>>>> coroner's report stated that Scott was struck a total of five times: >>>>>> three >>>>>> times in the back, once in the upper buttocks, and once on one of his >>>>>> ears. >>>>>> [21] >>>>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Walter_Scott#cite_note-NYTimes.Federal-22> >>>>>> Official >>>>>> autopsy reports have not been released.[7] >>>>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Walter_Scott#cite_note-NYTimes.Charged-8> >>>>>> >>>>>> Immediately following the shooting, Slager radioed a dispatcher, >>>>>> stating, "Shots fired and the subject is down. He took my Taser."[20] >>>>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Walter_Scott#cite_note-WaPo.Charged-21> >>>>>> >>>>>> When Slager fired his gun, Scott was approximately 15 to 20 feet (5 >>>>>> to 6 m) away and fleeing.[7] >>>>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Walter_Scott#cite_note-NYTimes.Charged-8> >>>>>> In >>>>>> the report of the shooting filed before the video surfaced, Slager said >>>>>> he >>>>>> had feared for his life because Scott had taken his Taser,[7] >>>>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Walter_Scott#cite_note-NYTimes.Charged-8> >>>>>> and >>>>>> that he shot Scott because he "felt threatened".[22] >>>>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Walter_Scott#cite_note-23> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Monday, July 11, 2016 at 3:01:40 PM UTC-5, KeithInTampa wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Well not exactly. It seems that Walter Scott shot Slager with a >>>>>>> taser; twice; and then ran with him still holding the taser/cartridge >>>>>>> with >>>>>>> the taser guide-wires still in Slager's chest. This was after the two >>>>>>> had >>>>>>> been in a scuffle, where Scott was clearly on top of Slager; >>>>>>> apparently >>>>>>> winning. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Not nearly as clean and neat as it was sold to the public. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> (Watch the videos in the links provided Plain Ol') >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 3:21 PM, plainolamerican < >>>>>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Michael Slager stopped Walter Scott >>>>>>>> <http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/09/us/former-south-carolina-officer-is-indicted-in-death-of-walter-scott.html?_r=1> >>>>>>>> for >>>>>>>> a busted taillight and then fatally shot him >>>>>>>> --- >>>>>>>> he shot the unarmed man 8 times in the back. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Monday, July 11, 2016 at 8:48:16 AM UTC-5, MJ wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> [ALL people ... actually] >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> September/October 2015 issue >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> *Police Shootings Won't Stop Unless We Also Stop Shaking Down >>>>>>>>> Black People * >>>>>>>>> *The dangers of turning police officers into revenue generators. >>>>>>>>> *Jack >>>>>>>>> Hitt >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> In April, several days after North Charleston, South Carolina, >>>>>>>>> police officer Michael Slager stopped Walter Scott >>>>>>>>> <http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/09/us/former-south-carolina-officer-is-indicted-in-death-of-walter-scott.html?_r=1> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> for a busted taillight and then fatally shot him, the usual >>>>>>>>> cable-news >>>>>>>>> transmogrification of victim into superpredator ran into problems. >>>>>>>>> The dash >>>>>>>>> cam >>>>>>>>> <http://www.cnn.com/videos/us/2015/04/09/tsr-dash-cam-walter-scott-police-shooting.cnn> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> showed Scott being pulled over while traveling at a nerdy rate of >>>>>>>>> speed, >>>>>>>>> using his left turn signal to pull into a parking lot and having an >>>>>>>>> amiable >>>>>>>>> conversation with Slager until he realized he'd probably get popped >>>>>>>>> for >>>>>>>>> nonpayment of child support. At which point he bolted out of the car >>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>> hobbled off. Slager then shot him. Why didn't the cop just jog up and >>>>>>>>> grab >>>>>>>>> him? Calling what the obese 50-year-old Scott was doing "running" >>>>>>>>> really >>>>>>>>> stretches the bounds of literary license. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> But maybe the question to ask is: Why did Scott run? The answer >>>>>>>>> came when the *New York Times* revealed >>>>>>>>> <http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/20/us/skip-child-support-go-to-jail-lose-job-repeat.html> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Scott to be a man of modest means trapped in an exhausting hamster >>>>>>>>> wheel: >>>>>>>>> He would get a low-paying job, make some child support payments, fall >>>>>>>>> behind on them, get fined, miss a payment, get jailed for a few >>>>>>>>> weeks, lose >>>>>>>>> that job due to absence, and then start over at a lower-paying job. >>>>>>>>> From >>>>>>>>> all apparent evidence, he was a decent schlub trying to make things >>>>>>>>> work in >>>>>>>>> a system engineered to make his life miserable and recast his best >>>>>>>>> efforts >>>>>>>>> as criminal behavior. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Recently, two more deaths of African Americans that have blown up >>>>>>>>> in the media follow a pattern similar to Scott's. Sandra Bland >>>>>>>>> <http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/07/texas-waller-county-sandra-bland-racial-tensions> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> in Texas and Samuel DuBose >>>>>>>>> <http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/07/video-shows-police-shooting-samuel-dubose> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> in Cincinnati were each stopped for minor traffic infractions >>>>>>>>> (failing to >>>>>>>>> use turn signal, missing front license plate), followed by immediate >>>>>>>>> escalation by the officer into rage, and then an official story that >>>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>>> obviously contradicted >>>>>>>>> <http://gawker.com/video-of-sam-duboses-death-drastically-different-from-t-1720896658> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> by the video (that the officer tried to "de-escalate" the tension >>>>>>>>> with >>>>>>>>> Bland; that the officer was dragged by DuBose's car). In both cases, >>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>> perpetrator of a minor traffic offense died. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> When incidents of police violence come to light, the usual defense >>>>>>>>> is that we should not tarnish all the good cops just because of "a >>>>>>>>> few bad >>>>>>>>> apples." No one can argue with that. But what is usually implied in >>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>> phrase is that the "bad" officers' intentions are malevolentthat >>>>>>>>> they are >>>>>>>>> morally corrupt and racist. And that may be true, but they are also >>>>>>>>> bad in >>>>>>>>> the job-performance sense. These men are crummy cops, sometimes >>>>>>>>> profoundly >>>>>>>>> so. Slager had a record for gratuitously using his Taser. Timothy >>>>>>>>> Leohmann, >>>>>>>>> who leapt from his car and instantly killed 12-year-old Tamir Rice >>>>>>>>> <http://www.cbsnews.com/news/cleveland-officer-shot-tamir-rice-within-seconds-of-pulling-up-in-patrol-car/>, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> had been deemed "weepy" and unable to "emotionally function" by a >>>>>>>>> supervisor at his previous PD job, who added: "I do not believe time, >>>>>>>>> nor >>>>>>>>> training, will be able to change or correct these deficiencies." >>>>>>>>> Ferguson's >>>>>>>>> Darren Wilson was also fired >>>>>>>>> <http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/darren-wilsons-first-job-was-on-a-troubled-police-force-disbanded-by-authorities/2014/08/23/1ac796f0-2a45-11e4-8593-da634b334390_story.html> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> from his previous jobactually, the entire police force of Jennings, >>>>>>>>> Missouri, was disbanded for being awful. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> When you ask why such "bad" cops are nevertheless armed and >>>>>>>>> allowed to patrol the streets, one begins to see that lurking beneath >>>>>>>>> this >>>>>>>>> violence is a fiscal menace: police departments forced to assist city >>>>>>>>> officials in raising revenue, in many cases funding their own >>>>>>>>> salariesredirecting the very concept of keeping the peace into >>>>>>>>> underwriting the budget. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> We saw a glimpse of this when the Justice Department released its >>>>>>>>> report >>>>>>>>> <http://www.motherjones.com/documents/2191006-doj-ferguson-report> >>>>>>>>> on Ferguson in March. In his statement, then-Attorney General Eric >>>>>>>>> Holder >>>>>>>>> referenced a lady in town whose life sounded Walter Scott-like. She >>>>>>>>> had >>>>>>>>> received two parking tickets totaling $151. Her efforts to pay those >>>>>>>>> fines >>>>>>>>> fell so behind that she eventually paid out more than $500. At one >>>>>>>>> point, >>>>>>>>> she was jailed for nonpayment andeight years laterstill owes $541 >>>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>>> accrued fees. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The judge largely responsible for the extraction of these fees >>>>>>>>> from Ferguson's poor, Ronald J. Brockmeyer >>>>>>>>> <http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/mar/06/ferguson-judge-owes-unpaid-taxes-ronald-brockmeyer>, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> owed $172,646 in back taxes, a sum orders of magnitude greater than >>>>>>>>> any >>>>>>>>> late fine coming before his bench. Even as he was jailing black >>>>>>>>> ladies for >>>>>>>>> parking tickets, Brockmeyer was allegedly erasing citations for white >>>>>>>>> Ferguson residents who happened to be his friends. After the report's >>>>>>>>> publication, he resigned so that Ferguson could "begin its healing >>>>>>>>> process." >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> But consider: In 2010, this collaboration between the Ferguson >>>>>>>>> police and the courts generated $1.4 million in income for the city. >>>>>>>>> This >>>>>>>>> year, they will more than double that amount$3.1 millionproviding >>>>>>>>> nearly >>>>>>>>> a quarter of the city's $13 million budget, almost all of it >>>>>>>>> extracted from >>>>>>>>> its poorest African American citizens. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Evidence also suggests that this new form of raising >>>>>>>>> revenuepoliciteering?goes far beyond Ferguson. Remember the recent >>>>>>>>> Oklahoma case involving Robert Bates >>>>>>>>> <http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/local/volunteer-tulsa-deputy-robert-bates-sold-company-went-back-to/article_7f23ccc3-4bcb-52a4-826d-c06103a42786.html>, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> a 73-year-old millionaire insurance broker with scant law enforcement >>>>>>>>> background who was allowed to go out on patrollikely because he had >>>>>>>>> donated lots of money and equipment to the local sheriff's office? He >>>>>>>>> killed an unarmed black suspect when he grabbed his gun instead of >>>>>>>>> his >>>>>>>>> Taser. In the days that followed, we learned that other deputies had >>>>>>>>> long >>>>>>>>> resented this guy's freelance incompetence. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> "Essentially, these small towns in urban areas have municipal >>>>>>>>> infrastructure that can't be supported by the tax base, and so they >>>>>>>>> ticket >>>>>>>>> everything in sight to keep the town functioning," said William >>>>>>>>> Maurer, a >>>>>>>>> lawyer with the Institute for Justice who has been studying the >>>>>>>>> sudden rise >>>>>>>>> in "nontraffic-related fines." >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Take the St. Louis suburb of Pagedale, where, among other Norman >>>>>>>>> Rockwell-worthy features deemed illegal, "you can't have a hedge more >>>>>>>>> than >>>>>>>>> three feet high," Maurer says. "You can't have a basketball hoop or a >>>>>>>>> wading pool in front of a house. You can't have a dish antenna on the >>>>>>>>> front >>>>>>>>> of your house. You can't walk on the roadway if there is a sidewalk, >>>>>>>>> and if >>>>>>>>> there is not a sidewalk, they must walk on the left side of the >>>>>>>>> roadway. >>>>>>>>> They must walk on the right of the crosswalk. They can't conduct a >>>>>>>>> barbecue >>>>>>>>> in the front yard and can't have an alcoholic beverage within 150 >>>>>>>>> feet of a >>>>>>>>> barbecue. Kids cannot play in the street. They also have restrictions >>>>>>>>> against pants being worn below the waist in public. Cars must be >>>>>>>>> within 500 >>>>>>>>> feet of a lamp or a source of illumination during nighttime hours. >>>>>>>>> Blinds >>>>>>>>> must be neatly hung in respectable appearance, properly maintained, >>>>>>>>> and in >>>>>>>>> a state of good repair." >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Where did this Kafkaesque laundry list come from? Maurer explains >>>>>>>>> that in 2010, Missouri passed a law that capped the amount of city >>>>>>>>> revenue >>>>>>>>> that any agency could generate from traffic stops. The intent was to >>>>>>>>> limit >>>>>>>>> small-town speed traps, but the unintentional consequences are now >>>>>>>>> clear: >>>>>>>>> Pagedale saw a 495 percent increase in nontraffic-related arrests. >>>>>>>>> "In >>>>>>>>> Frontenac, the increase was 364 percent," Maurer says. "In Lakeshire, >>>>>>>>> it >>>>>>>>> was 209 percent." >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> This racket now has many variants. South Carolina hosts " >>>>>>>>> Operation Rolling Thunder >>>>>>>>> <http://ij.org/south-carolina-police-seized-nearly-100-000-in-crackdown-but-stopped-few-criminals>," >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> an annual dragnet in which 21 different law enforcement agencies >>>>>>>>> swarm >>>>>>>>> stretches of I-85 and I-26 in the name of catching drug dealers. In >>>>>>>>> 2013, >>>>>>>>> this law enforcement Bonnaroo netted 1,300 traffic citations and 300 >>>>>>>>> speeding tickets. But after everyone had paid up, the operation >>>>>>>>> boasted >>>>>>>>> exactly one felony conviction. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> A different strategy in San Diego simply tacks on various fees to >>>>>>>>> an existing fine. A 2012 *Union Tribune* investigation >>>>>>>>> <http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?hl=en&biw&bih&q=cache:gLaPZ1TIbc0J:http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/2012/aug/18/courts-how-your-35-speeding-ticket-becomes-a-235/%2BCourt+officials+say+that+San+Diego+County+law+enforcement+agencies+have+recently+been+issuing+fewer+tickets+than+in+the+past&gbv=2&&ct=clnk> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> revealed that while speeding is a simple $35 fine, other government >>>>>>>>> agencies can tack on as many as 10 other surcharges, including: a >>>>>>>>> state >>>>>>>>> penalty assessment, $40; county penalty assessment, $36; court >>>>>>>>> construction, $20; state surcharge, $8; DNA identification, $16; >>>>>>>>> criminal >>>>>>>>> conviction fee, $35; court operations, $40; emergency medical air >>>>>>>>> transportation penalty, $4; and night court, $1. When it's all said >>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>> done, that $35 ticket comes to $235. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Another report >>>>>>>>> <http://cdn.sandiegouniontrib.com/news/documents/2015/02/25/SDPD_traffic_stops_report.pdf> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> released earlier this year connects the dots: African Americans and >>>>>>>>> Latinos >>>>>>>>> make up less than a third of San Diego's population but represent >>>>>>>>> 64.5 >>>>>>>>> percent of those searched during a traffic stop. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> There is still no comprehensive study to determine just how many >>>>>>>>> cities pay their bills by indenturing the poor, but it is probably no >>>>>>>>> coincidence that when you examine the recent rash of police killings, >>>>>>>>> you >>>>>>>>> find that the offenses they were initially stopped for were >>>>>>>>> preposterously >>>>>>>>> minor. Bland's lane change signal, DuBose's missing plate. Walter >>>>>>>>> Scott had >>>>>>>>> that busted taillightwhich, we all later learned, is not even a >>>>>>>>> crime in >>>>>>>>> South Carolina. Eric Garner was selling loose cigarettes. When Darren >>>>>>>>> Wilson was called to look into a robbery >>>>>>>>> <http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2014/08/15/ferguson-police-releasing-name-of-officer-who-shot-michael-brown/>, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> the reason he initially stopped Michael Brown was for walking in the >>>>>>>>> streetin Ferguson, an illegal act according to Section 44-344 >>>>>>>>> <https://www.municode.com/library/mo/ferguson/codes/code_of_ordinances?searchRequest=%7B%22searchText%22:%22manner%20of%20walking%20in%20roadway%22,%22pageNum%22:1,%22resultsPerPage%22:25,%22booleanSearch%22:false,%22stemming%22:true,%22fuzzy%22:false,%22synonym%22:false,%22contentTypes%22:%5B%22CODES%22%5D,%22productIds%22:%5B%5D%7D&nodeId=PTIICOOR_CH44TRMOVE_ARTVIIPE_S44-344MAWAALRO> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> of the local code. Between 2011 and 2013, 95 percent of the >>>>>>>>> perpetrators of >>>>>>>>> this atrocity were African American, meaning that "walking while >>>>>>>>> black" is >>>>>>>>> not a punch line. It is a crime. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> And not just a crime, but a crime that comes with fines that are >>>>>>>>> strictly enforced. In 2014, Ferguson's bottom-line-driven police >>>>>>>>> force >>>>>>>>> issued 16,000 arrest warrants to three-fourths of the town's total >>>>>>>>> population of 21,000. Stop and think about that for a moment: In >>>>>>>>> Ferguson, >>>>>>>>> 75 percent of all residents had active outstanding arrest warrants. >>>>>>>>> Most of >>>>>>>>> the entire city was a virtual plantation of indentured revenue >>>>>>>>> producers. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Back in Pagedale, *St. Louis Post-Dispatch* reporter Jennifer >>>>>>>>> Mann recently calculated >>>>>>>>> <http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/municipalities-ticket-for-trees-and-toys-as-traffic-revenue-declines/article_42739be7-afd1-5f66-b325-e1f654ba9625.html> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> a 500 percent increase in petty fines over the last five years. >>>>>>>>> "Pagedale >>>>>>>>> handed out 2,255 citations for these types of offenses last year," >>>>>>>>> Mann >>>>>>>>> wrote, "or nearly two per household." >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> "Once the system is primed for maximizing revenuestarting with >>>>>>>>> fines and fine enforcement," Holder said apropos Ferguson, "the city >>>>>>>>> relies >>>>>>>>> on the police force to serve, essentially, as a collection agency for >>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>> municipal court rather than a law enforcement entity." >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> In Alabama, a circuit court judge, Hub Harrington, wrote a >>>>>>>>> blistering opinion >>>>>>>>> <http://www.motherjones.com/documents/2191007-court-order-in-dana-burdette-v-town-of> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> three years ago asserting that the Shelby County Jail had become a >>>>>>>>> kind of >>>>>>>>> "debtors' prison" and that the court system had devolved into a >>>>>>>>> "judicially >>>>>>>>> sanctioned extortion racket." This pattern leads to a cruel paradox: >>>>>>>>> One >>>>>>>>> arm of the state is paying a large sum to lock up a person who can't >>>>>>>>> pay a >>>>>>>>> small sum owed to a different arm of the state. The result? Bigger >>>>>>>>> state >>>>>>>>> deficits. As the director of the Brennan Center's Justice Program put >>>>>>>>> it, >>>>>>>>> "Having taxpayers foot a bill of $4,000 to incarcerate a man who owes >>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>> state $745 or a woman who owes a predatory lender $425 and removing >>>>>>>>> them >>>>>>>>> from the job force makes sense in no reasonable world." >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> When the poor come to understand that they are likely to be >>>>>>>>> detained and fined for comically absurd crimes, it can't be a >>>>>>>>> surprise to >>>>>>>>> the police that their officers are viewed with increasing distrust. >>>>>>>>> In this >>>>>>>>> environment, running away from a cop is not an act of suspicion; it's >>>>>>>>> common sense. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Cops like to talk about "good police." They say, "That guy is good >>>>>>>>> police"a top compliment, by which they mean cool under the pressure >>>>>>>>> of the >>>>>>>>> street and cunning at getting people to give up the details of a >>>>>>>>> crime. >>>>>>>>> Good police look bad when sharing the street with crummy police. But >>>>>>>>> when >>>>>>>>> budgetary whims replace peacekeeping as the central motivation of law >>>>>>>>> enforcement, who is more likely to write up more tickets, the good >>>>>>>>> cop or >>>>>>>>> the crummy one? When the mission of the entire department shifts from >>>>>>>>> "protect and serve" to "punish and profit," then just what >>>>>>>>> constitutes good >>>>>>>>> police? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/07/police-shootings-traffic-stops-excessive-fines >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>> Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. >>>>>>>> For options & help see >>>>>>>> http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ >>>>>>>> * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. >>>>>>>> * Read the latest breaking news, and more. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> --- >>>>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>>>>>>> Groups "PoliticalForum" group. >>>>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, >>>>>>>> send an email to [email protected]. >>>>>>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. >>>>>> For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum >>>>>> >>>>>> * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ >>>>>> * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. >>>>>> * Read the latest breaking news, and more. >>>>>> >>>>>> --- >>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>>>>> Groups "PoliticalForum" group. >>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, >>>>>> send an email to [email protected]. >>>>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>> -- >>>> Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. >>>> For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum >>>> >>>> * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ >>>> * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. >>>> * Read the latest breaking news, and more. >>>> >>>> --- >>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>>> Groups "PoliticalForum" group. >>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send >>>> an email to [email protected]. >>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >>>> >>> >>> -- >> -- >> Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. >> For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum >> >> * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ >> * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. >> * Read the latest breaking news, and more. >> >> --- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "PoliticalForum" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >> email to [email protected] <javascript:>. >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >> > > -- -- Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
