Officers in Virginia Accost a US Army officer

 I just read about the young army officer in Virginia who was assaulted by police.  The video was very revealing: https://youtu.be/6GN-u-b9bog.  I think there were multiple videos of the same situation.

This is nothing new.  I think it has been going on for the past century when the police pull over anyone who is a minority or a teenager.  The difference now is that we have complete video records of the event, which allows us to catch the police lying. In this case, the police made a mistake pulling the army officer over, since it had legal temporary tags.  So they 'doubled down" by trying to incite a reason for the stop. 

The San Diego Union-Tribune today had an article about racial bias in traffic stops and actually use more force with minorities.  See this link: ​http://enewspaper.sandiegouniontribune.com/infinity/article_share.aspx?guid=82f680fc-1bc5-4e52-8d30-525b6e2d7011 

It was a very good, thorough article, but it is frightening to all minorities.  The LA Times also had an Op-Ed that explained why traffic stops can be deadly to people of color

Personally, I object to "pretense stops" and "consent searches" done by the police.  They should be outlawed.  Pretense stops make the police look foolish, and make the public upset.  Consent searches are not truly voluntary.  If the police pull me over and ask to search my car, I can say "no." But the officer will tell me that if I don't allow them to do it, they will request a search warrant and an officer will bring it to him in about an hour.  How many people want to sit by the road for an hour?   The police know this and will not allow us to enjoy our constitutional rights.  

For a decade in the 1920s the Police enjoyed the fun of hasseling people with the ultimate goal of enforcing prohibition.  Then after prohibition stopped, they helped write laws against recreational drugs, so they could continue having fun.  They made up arguments, and created posters to market their case, which now looks absolutely silly.  Of course now we're seeing that legalizing marijuana didn't cause the end of the world.  I believe the "war on drugs" is what has contributed to a lot of the pretext stops and consent searches.  When the police are able to find a little bit of drugs, they are able to "score" a success, and justify what they are doing --and it feeds a "vicious circle" --back to needing more laws to help them etc. 

Uber and Lyft Drivers Treated Unfairly?

I saw an article on TechCrunch website  by Natasha Lomas that complained that Uber and Lyft drivers don't make enough money and are apparently treated unfairly.  The article cited a study done by MIT.  NPR also reported on the MIT Study  Both articles said the study claimed that Uber/Lyft drivers only earned $3.37 per hour after expenses.  I wonder how accurate these revenues are.  Drivers have a powerful incentive to keep the appearance of their salary low.  The belief that they are low paid certainly helps win sympathy for their cause, and for increased tips.  Do drivers really declare all of the money they get in tips?  I always try to tip with cash -- how is that tracked?  I have had drivers offer their services "on the side" -- outside of the Uber/Lyft system.  Is this common among drivers?  If so, there could be a lot of un-reported revenue, as well as hours reported that had no revenue. 
It appears to me that Uber/Lyft has clearly contributed to a revolution in transportation in the world.  Throughout my life, I have used taxis very sparingly.  I've always thought their service was far too expensive!  However Uber/Lyft has finally brought the cost of cab service down to a level where I feel it is fair.  I did recognize that cab drivers spent a huge portion of their workday waiting in cab lines for a chance for a fare, so I knew there was a lot of inefficiency in their system.  I also recognized that cab drivers or cab companies had to buy "medallions" to be permitted to operate a cab service.  Those medallions represented a control on the number of cabs in service, and also represented a huge, additional cost to the cab companies who were often paying off loans used to finance purchases of medallions.
I would like to know how the Uber/Lyft net revenue of $3.37/hour compares to the net revenue of a traditional cab driver -- both before the Uber/Lyft revolution and now.  How much more than $3.37/hr did they earn before Uber/Lyft?  How much now?
I do believe that Uber/Lyft drivers are really self-employed, independent contractors -- not employees.  Uber/Lyft provides a similar service to drivers that Ebay and similar companies provide to the independent people who sell products on those websites. 
The Uber/Lyft market, like Ebay and other Gig-economy websites provide a tool that allows people who want to work to operate in an almost-perfect free market economy.  The drivers can decide how much they want to work, when they want to work, and and start and stop working whenever they want.  If they aren't making enough money they can quit.  If they decide that by working certain hours they get more revenue, they can change their hours. 
Because Uber/Lyft costs less for customers, the number of cab customers has grown immensly -- maybe even doubled?  So that means there is more work for everyone!  It also means that there are fewer DWIs, fewer parking spots needed, and fewer valet parking attendants needed.
What does the future hold?  It appears to me that within the next 5 years we will start seeing self-driving cars doing the job and replacing cabs/uber/lyft.  I think that cab driving is a basic, low-skill entry-level job.  It shouldn't be a lifetime career.  I expect that drivers will need to find other careers.  All drivers seem to be very adept at using computers & internet.  I can imagine they could easily take the free online courses on Java Script and easily find jobs coding that would pay much better than their current wages

Police stops in era of self-driving cars

Over the past few months, there have been several articles about what might happen in an era of self-driving cars. Last year, the San Diego Union Tribune had an op-ed article by  Ian Adams and Arthur Rizer titled: "Autonomous Vehicles Could Change Everything You Know About Traffic Stops"

I've thought about this a lot since I first heard about self-driving cars.  What will happen to our culture as we need fewer police due to self-driving cars?

As Adams & Rizer mentioned traffic stops for driving or vehicle problems are often pretenses for checking driver and passenger for other more serious offenses -- smuggling, drugs, kidnapping, weapons, immigration violations, car theft, escaped or wanted criminals etc.  Presumably the police have some success with these other arrests when stopping cars for these minor traffic offenses.  So if they can no longer do it, will there be more criminals getting away with crimes?  

What else might change in an era of self driving cars?

• It seems that self-driving cars will probably be more expensive than the equivalent traditional car.  If those cars are more expensive, people may consider leasing or renting rather than buying cars.  They also might consider using services similar to Uber/Lyft to only use cars when they need them.  That will shift the capital cost to those companies and save users from those costs.  Citizens could then eliminate having parking garages.  They wouldn't need to hunt for parking spots or parking meters.  They would no longer need to register cars or buy insurance themselves. 

• Police boredom -- Police will not have as many chores for traffic violations or helping with accidents -- will they be bored?  Or will governments consider reducing police budgets and the number of officers on duty?  With fewer highway patrol, and fewer infractions, we will need fewer courts, fewer judges, fewer court reporters, fewer balifs etc. 

• Less Insurance, fewer car repairs - If there are fewer accidents, there will be fewer car repairs.  The cash flow through insurance companies and repair shops will be reduced.  

• Parking enforcement -- If more people use self-driving services and not own their cars they won't need to find parking spots.  Uber-like services can park in large garages in last-in-first-out configurations, which will take up much less space than current parking arrangements.  Enforcement goes away as unneeded.

• Fewer adversarial engagements - Now police seem to spend a lot of their time pulling people over for traffic infractions.  However with self-driving cars, we would think that most problems with speeding, illegal lane change, running stop signs or traffic lights will be eliminated.  If most of these adversarial situations are eliminated, will the public image of police improve?  

• No DUIs --If we don't drive, but depend upon our self-driving cars, we can drink alcohol and "ride" without worrying about DUIs.  Police will no longer need to perform DUI checkpoints, or do sobriety tests for passengers in self-driving cars.  That will reduce their workload, for sure.  It will also help make for safer highways.  But, in some ways, the concern about DUIs may have a moderating effect on drinking.  If people no longer are worried about DUIs,  will that lead to more alcohol/drug abuse?

• Market for Entertainment --If we don't have to drive cars, we will have more idle time in cars.  We can engage in more involved entertainment, such as video games, watching videos, texting, or studying.  The need for pure "audio-based" entertainment such as listening to music or talk radio might go away.    

The Transition to self-driving cars may take many years --while people.  Nostalgia lovers may keep current design cars forever.  Will they be banned from some roads?  Will they be required to install a chip?  

Police Violence Against Blacks

There was an article in today's LA Times  (by Makeda Easter and Richard Winton) about a 21 yr old black man, Christopher Ballew,  being beaten violently by two Pasadena police officers at an Alta Dena gas station on November 9th..  There were multiple videos of the police action and it sounds like the man was generally cooperating with the police.  But the police beat him with night sticks, broke his leg, and slammed his head onto the concrete.  The police claimed they stopped him because he was missing a front license plate and his tinted windows were too dark.
I have driven a car for 60 years, as has my wife.  My 3 kids have driven cars for about 20 years.  I  have never been pulled over for such infractions, nor has my wife.  I don't believe my three kids have ever experienced it and I really don't think I know anyone who has been treated by police that way.  Of course, we are white!  Even though I have always driven older cars with headlights or tail lights that fail from time-to-time or have other problems such as cracked windshields etc -- we have never been stopped!  On the other hand, it seems that many Blacks are stopped for "driving while black" --
I would expect that if I would have been pulled over for a broken tail light, the police would simply have handed me a ticket.  I may have complained about the stop and the ticket.  I may even curse the police --but I would expect they would be respectful anyway and write the ticket.  Why would they ever want to put me in handcuffs? 
In this case, the police claim that Christopher Ballew tried to grab their weapon (the night stick they were beating him with) -- and charge him with resisting arrest?  Are we, as citizens supposed to not defend ourselves when police are beating us?  Grabbing the stick seems to be the only defense we would have! 
The article says that the two police officers Lerry Esparza and Zachary Lujan remain on duty.  It seems to me that if anyone else did that violence they would be instantly locked up.  Why are these officers still free?  And why are they on duty?  I suspect that if they are charged with a crime, the DA will assign a very weak or inexperienced prosecutor to the case, and the prosecutor will be encouraged to go through the motions of prosecuting --but not try to win the case.  Prosecutors all have a serious conflict of interest in such a task, because if they might happen to win a case against an officer, they will never get cooperation from anyone in the police department again and their career would be ruined.  I believe that is why so many of the flagrant examples of police violence and killing seem to go unpunished.
I can see how neighborhoods can feel "under siege" by the police.  Some police departments are so well funded and heavily staffed (like Pasadena's?) that the officers have to search for excuses or pretenses to pull people over to arrest them.  Over the past few years there have been many police killings of citizens that started with seemingly trivial pretenses such as jaywalking (when there is no traffic in the street) or  riding a bicycle on a sidewalk as approaching home (when no people were on the sidewalk).  All of these seem to be occasions when police are looking for something to do --and they seem to pick on minorities when doing it.
I believe if the police worked to win the respect and gratitude of the citizens of these neighborhoods, they would get more cooperation and help to reduce crime.  I think if the police had pulled me over at any time for trivial pretenses, I might become angry with them.  I might, in fact, complain to the city police chief.  I would write to my City Council, and provide no support or help to my police force.  If I were repeatedly hassled by police as many black are, I just might consider organizing or participating in protests. 
  

New California Law Puts Restrictions on Asset Forfeiture But Police will find a way around it.

Jeff McDonald reported in the Union Tribune Oct 1, 2016 that Governor Brown signed SB443,  the law sponsored by Sen Holly Mitchell and pushed by the American Civil Liberties Union that requires a person to be convicted before the Government gets to keep "booty" captured by police.

It is clear to me that the asset seizure that state and Federal police agencies have participated in over many years is unconstitutional.  Although, it has never been fully tested in the Supreme Court.  This new law will make it illegal for State police agencies to steal property from citizens without a conviction.  However Federal agencies within the state will still do it.  I suspect that the city, county and state agencies will "partner" with Federal agencies in order to keep up their stream of ill-gotten gains.

It is clear that a criminal's ill-gotten gains should be taken.  A criminal has no right to keep, for example, stolen money or goods.  If a person is convicted of a crime, they should give up those assets and they should go for restitution or for the overall welfare of the public.  Why, however, should the police agency who made the "bust" get to keep the "booty" from the bust?

In addition to local police "partnering" with Federal agencies, the police can simply make it difficult for a citizen to get their assets back through bureaucratic complications.  If police take $10,000 in cash from me when I'm on my way to buy a car, would I then want to put up another $5000 to hire a lawyer to get my money back?

This new law helps in avoiding the "guilty until proven innocent" aspect of asset forfeiture.  However until Federal law also changes, and the attitude of the police changes, the problem will continue.  

We Need to End This Form of Robbery by Cop

This is unbelievable.  The police now steal more from citizens using "asset forfeiture" than thieves steal from citizens.   See this link on "The Influence:"  We Need to End This Form of Robbery by Cop | TheInfluence.  When thieves steal something from someone, and are caught, they get due process of law, and are required to return stolen property pay restitution.  However when the police steal our property, and claim it was "ill gotten gains" --without needing proof--the owner of the property is forced to spend a small fortune in legal costs to try to get it back --even if never convicted of a crime.  Absolutely crazy!  It is hard to believe that it could ever be legal and within our Constitution and Bill of Rights.

I can understand "freezing assets" when a criminal is arrested.  But if not charged and convicted the police should be required to give us our stuff back within a minimum amount of time -- 30 days?  And if there were losses or damage to the property, the police should be liable for that as well.

Police Disciplinary Secrecy

Steven Greenhut column in today's Union Tribune pointed out a difficult situation in maintaining police discipline while also keeping the public informed.



LEGISLATURE REVISITS POLICE DISCIPLINARY SECRE... | SanDiegoUnionTribune.com



Apparently in 2006 Senate Bill (SB) 1019 was proposed to open up police department discipline records to the public.  At that time, it was "dead on arrival."  Now, Assemblyman Mark Leno has introduced another bill:  SB1286 to allow the public to learn more about discipline against police officers.



Greenhut seems to imply that we absolutely need to find out the names and discipline history of police officers.  However there is another side.  Taxpayers invest a LOT of money in training officers.  We also pay fairly high salaries to these officers who daily risk their lives to protect us.  Exposing those officers to unfair public criticism can discourage people from wanting to be officers and hurt recruiting, which, in turn, can sharply increase the cost to everyone.  Sometimes what could be perceived as a police officer making an error, could also be due to inadequate training, equipment, or management.  Police management should be the first level under fire from the public.  Management should have good statistics at their fingertips that identify the numbers and types of problems encountered and the numbers and types of discipline that has been handed out.   Only in cases when police have, in fact, been charged with a possible criminal offense should the individual police officer's name be made public.

I hope that the new SB1286 takes all of that into account.