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.

Use of Students as Confidential Informers -- Dangerous and should be illegal!

On December 7 2015, CBS "60 Minutes" show reported on the unbelievable amount of use of college students as confidential informers (CIs).  Police apparently set up extortion-like situations to persuade students to serve as confidential informers.  Then they require the students to make a fixed number (like 10) drug buys with "wires" to help make arrests.  Because of this pressure, CI recruits may set up friends or associates as patsys in order to meet their quota.  Working as a CI is incredibly dangerous, and student CIs have been murdered when their police role was discovered.

The police claim that the informers are critical to their operation. By using a CI, the police are able to dramatically increase the number of arrests while using much less police labor.   It is clear from the interviews, that the police are most concerned about making "drug busts."  They admit that the use of CIs help them increase the statistics on the number of arrests, which, in turn, helps them obtain more "grants" from Federal or State agencies.  With more money from grants, they can increase pay, hire more police and increase their "status" within the police hierarchy. Because of this, the police, and police organizations lobby to try to prevent any restrictions on recruitment of CIs.  They appear to hide behind an argument that they feel they are protecting their community and the country from the "evil of drugs."   In another breath they say that all they are doing is enforcing laws that are on the books, and that they don't need to justify the laws.

There are possibly as many as 100,000 confidential informers in the US.  Most of them are students and most are "recruited" with charges related to marijuana, rarely any of the "harder" drugs.  In most states there are no laws to protect or control the use of CIs.  To recruit a CI, the police don't have to formally charge the student.  They don't have to "Mirandize" the student by explaining they  have the right to obtain a lawyer.  They apparently can also lie to the students by telling them that they would go to jail if they don't cooperate and become a CI.  The recruited CIs are also told they are not allowed to tell anyone, including their parents, that they are working as a CI.   The CI is given no training, and even though the police may promise to provide protection for the CI in dangerous situations, they don't always follow up and provide that protection.  So the CI role can be extremely dangerous.

I think the use of students as CIs in college or high schools "stinks," is un-American, and may even be unconstitutional. Other organizations, such as Drug Policy Organization, have the same opinion: http://www.drugpolicy.org/blog/sickening-use-young-people-confidential-informants-drug-war.   However the police love to do it, because, as was stated on 60 minutes, the police are addicted to the money involved in the drug war as much as the actual addicts are addicted to their drugs.

I believe that we do need some laws, probably at the Federal level to put some reasonable controls on the use of CIs.  Some of the reasonable controls should include:

1. Police should be required to tell the "truth" when recruiting CIs.  In particular they need to be required to tell the truth about the likely penalties that the recruit might encounter if convicted. I was astounded when I learned that people can be charged with a crime of "lying to police" -- but police can lie to citizens as much as they want! 
2. Use of a CI is something very close to entrapment, and similar to use of a wiretap, since the CI is "wired" when meeting with the dealer.  Therefore, it seems that a judge should be required to sign off on both the recruitment of a CI and each use of the CI.  For each "assignment" for the CI, the judge should also be provided the police plan to make sure that the CI will be protected. 
3. If the CI being recruited is under the age of 21, they should be required to tell the person that they should obtain a lawyer, or get their parents involved in making the decision to become a CI. 

  

US Prison Population and Drug Offenses

I saw an editorial in the Union Tribune, which was apparently originally written on October 14 2015 in the Washington Post by Charles Lane. His position is that if we ended the war on drugs, and let all of the previous drug offenders out of prison, we still wouldn't significantly reduce the prison population.

Charles Lane pointed out some possible exaggerations in statements recently made by politicians, such as Carly Fiorina's claim that “two-thirds of the people in our prisons are there for nonviolent offenses, mostly drug-related.” He then stated that 46 percent of all state and federal prisoners are there for violent crimes. That clearly conflicts with Fiorina's claim of 66% in prison for non-violent crimes. He also says that only 19.5% of the prisoners are there for drug offenses. It amazes me that the statistics can be so different! The drugwarfacts.org website says 50% of federal prisoners are there for drug violations.  The Huffington Post agrees with that number.  I think the problem is that we don't have standard definitions of what a "drug-related" offense is, nor can we easily tease out the "violent" offenses that are drug related from all other violent offenses.  A lot of burglary, robbery, car theft, weapon offenses, could be caused by drug addicts trying to obtain money to feed their habit of drugs that are only expensive because of our prohibition laws.  Many non-violent crimes, such as income tax evasion, money laundering, credit card fraud etc are also possibly drug-related.  Remember Al Capone was finally convicted for income tax evasion.  That probably would have been called a non-violent, and "non-alcohol" related crime, while his "empire" was all about alcohol, and one of the most violent crime organizations.  

The statistic that is currently being touted by many, including Bernie Sanders and President Obama is that the US has 5% of the world population but 25% of the world's prisoners.  I get the impression that Charles Lane does, somehow agree this is a problem.  But his arguments against relaxation of drug laws makes him appear to be a strong supporter of the drug war.  At the end of his column he wrote of the US incarceration rate: "The only way to lower it dramatically would be to reduce the frequency and duration of imprisonment for violent crimes, while continuing to reduce violent crime itself. If any of the candidates has a plan to do that, he or she should speak up."    So it is clear that Charles Lane doesn't have a real solution to the problem. If he does, he probably wouldn't want to advocate it because it could alienate his readership.  As soon as anyone proposes reducing the frequency and duration of imprisonment for violent crimes, his fellow right-wingers scream "soft on crime" and complain that releasing prisoners will unleash a huge rash of crime in the US,  There are now so very many people making so much easy money as part of the "war on drugs" that they will certainly push the politicians to continue the war.  In the 1960's many Americans complained about the Military-Industrial complex that caused us to buy weapon systems we maybe didn't need.  Now we have a "Drug-war-Industrial Complex" that advocates for continuation of the drug war.   This complex may be larger and much more powerful than the military-industrial complex.  They include high tech companies who make spy and surveillance equipment, border patrol, FBI, NSA, CIA, DEA, Police, prison guard unions, builders of prisons, judges, prosecutors, and even defense attorneys.  They all enjoy relatively high paying positions and are willing to put money into politics to advocate for increasing the war on drugs. 

There could be some changes in the laws that will help reduce the US prison population.  See this article:   However, it would seem that the various organizations that keep statistics on prison populations do need to get together and come up with better definitions and better ways of maintaining the statistics.  If we are going to make any progress on reducing the incarceration rate, we need to be able to have a way of measuring our progress.  It will also be interesting to see if state prison populations change in states that have legalized recreational use of marijuana, like Colorado.  If so, that might prove, or disprove the assumption that relaxing laws on drugs could reduce the incarceration rate.  

One way of trying to figure out why we have such a high incarceration rate is to ask: "What makes the US so different from the rest of the world?"  Is it our drug laws?  We aren't much tougher on drugs than any other nation.  Some, like Indonesia have the death penalty for drug law violations.  Is it our "second amendment" that allows everyone to have unfettered access to guns?  That doesn't seem to be the case from prison population counts. Is it our education level?  We aren't the best or the worst educated country in the world.  Is it our racial and cultural mix?  It is hard to see how that would be connected.   Is it our freedom of religion?  Or our lack of a strong religious "moral compass?" is it our TV & Movies that glamorize drugs and violence?  Our movies and TV are shown all over the world, so how could it be unique to the US?   Somehow, I'd think that the many sociologists, criminologists, political scientists,  and other similar professionals would, by now have some solid, scientific-based recommendations to resolve this problem.

Chicago Police "Disappeared 7000 people" in Homan Square

Spencer Ackerman in the Guardian reported that Chicago police set up a "secret" warehouse called Homan Square where they brought people "snatched" off the street and interrogated them for hours or days, without giving them access to lawyers, or letting their family know where they were. According to this amazing Guardian website,  most of the people they took there were black, and according to the report, they were treated badly.  I found that this past March 2015, the Chicago Police Department published a "fact sheet" that disputed all of the claims against Homan Square, and claimed that it was not a "secret" location, and that they treated all people brought there for questioning fairly and in accordance with the law.  Around that same time, Nicholas Roti, the Chicago Police commander who managed the Homan Square site abruptly quit (see this article).  It is difficult to figure out if the Guardian is just simply sensationalizing a reasonable effort being done by the police, or if, in fact, Chicago Police may have overstepped the law in their attempt tocontrol crime.  If so, what they are doing sounds like something that is done in foreign countries to rival political parties.
Somehow this sort of treatment goes against everything I thought America stood for.  According to the article, it appears that most of the interrogation involved suspicion of production, sale, transporting or using illegal drugs.  The Chicago Police Department is trying to crack down on drugs as part of our country's absurd "war on drugs."  I'm sure the police probably think they are doing their city a service, and I suspect that they don't think much of the people they drag in for questioning.  Many of them may deserve harsh treatment.  But in addition to being illegal to bring people in for questioning without booking them and giving them access to lawyers, it also alienates the citizens against the police department.  If I, or a relative or friend had undergone such a treatment, I would probably harbor a resentment against the police for the rest of my life.  I would no longer assist them, I would not respect them and I might do what I could to interfere with them doing their job.  Likewise, if the police are, in fact, breaking the law by what they are doing, they also should be punished for doing it.  I would expect that the police have video of all interrogations, and can produce all of the proper booking information to dispute the charges from the Guardian.  I would expect also that the Illinois Attorney General, and/or the US Attorney General would have investigated, since this has been in the news for quite a while.  It will be interesting to see how this story progresses.

What worries me is that if the Police can treat citizens for relatively minor suspicion of illegal drugs, what would they do for suspicion of terrorism?  Could police round up and "disappear"  large numbers of our citizens for demonstrating against a war or some other policy and treat them as suspected terrorists?

Carlsbad Police Beat a Woman for No Apparent Reason

I read an article in the Coast News this week (Mid October 2015) about a lady named Cindy Hahn who was beaten by police for filing a complaint.  This situation sort of brings the Rodney King or Ferguson MO issue very close to home. Carlsbad borders on my city of Oceanside.

See these youtube videos from local TV stations about the situation:

• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LW-oXRvue3Y
• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WeBKYfHL2uw
• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ecWeIBWWL6U

After the incident, the police booked Cindy for resisting arrest and then the police testified in court.  After the police testified, Cindy's lawyer showed the DA the video taken by a spectator, and the DA dropped the charges. There is a gap before the video started which would be interesting to see.  Hopefully some of the bystanders who watched the scene are available to explain what they saw happen.  Did Cindy provoke the officer in some way?  Were photos taken of Cindy's bumps and bruises as a result of her altercation?  .
It appears that all of the police and Cindy Hahn were white race, so there probably was no "racial bias" in the situation.  I think if the Cindy had been black there would have been a LOT more press and maybe even demonstrations.   I think video is making everyone be a little more careful about what they say and do in stressful situations.  Hopefully Carlsbad police are "armed" with personal video systems.
Based upon the story, there are some facts that the police department needs to answer:
1. There must be recordings of the messages passed over the radio to the officers.Did the police officer get word from dispatch that a complaint was filed against him prior to the seat belt violation traffic stop?  

• If so, that seems like a bad procedure for the department, since it could lead to retribution. You would think that complaints like that should go to a supervisor for later follow-up
•  If not, then the assumption that the officer followed her for retribution may be false.

2. Why did the police attempt to arrest Cindy Hahn in the first place?  What was in the officer's police report?  What did the officer or officers say to the DA and the court?
3. Why were they hitting her?
4. Why did additional police officers get dispatched to the scene for such a trivial situation?
5. When the other police arrived and saw the first officer beating up the lady, why didn't they restrain the officer and help the lady?

I also think the DA should answer at least one important question:. Why after seeing the video and hearing the police officer lie on the stand, didn't the DA file charges against the officer?

The City of Carlsbad apparently didn't discipline the officers involved and now say they won't comment until they get into court. I would bet that the City will stretch it out for another year or so.  I'd hate it if the City agreed to an undisclosed settlement and all information was kept secret.  If the police, in fact, were out of control, they should be disciplined in some way.  If they weren't determined to be out of control, it means that the rest of us had better avoid Carlsbad!

Toward a 'More Just' Justice System

October 4 2015 Editorial by the San Diego Union Tribune commented on Gov Jerry Brown's veto messages written on a series of bills that proposed to create new crimes. 

The editorial said that possibly the article written by Alex Kozinski concerning the unfairness of our justice system may have been one of the reasons for his vetoes.

Kozinski was the Chief Justice of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals and his "Criminal Law 2.0" article in the Georgetown Law Review pointed out the serious flaws in our US system of justice and made a series of recommendations.

I believe I agree with Kozinski's findings and recommendations.  While I have not been in any courts other than a few times on jury duty, I do recognize from the news all of the many injustices that take place.  Prosecutors seem to be anxious to "win at any cost" which gives them a built-in conflict of interest when it comes to justice.  

The US really does need to figure out why we have more people in prison than any other country of the world both by percentage and by total numbers.  Our laws need to narrow down the scope to focus on crimes that actually affect us.  For example, it seems that far too much emphasis is placed upon crimes that occur among consenting adults that incur minimum of harm to others -- obviously drugs, gambling and prostitution.  All of them could easily be regulated, controlled and taxed and it would much better protect the sellers, and buyers.  In the name of protecting the public from these "vices" the Government has then justified defining many more crimes to include RICO, anti gang laws, money laundering laws, restrictions on buying/selling of chemicals that could be used for making or refining drugs, human trafficking (which would be reduced or eliminated if prostitution were legalized), 

The problems created by "illegal gambling" were significantly reduced when legal casinos were built throughout the country.  Now it is a very minor problem.  When prohibition ended, the problems of illegal alcohol almost went completely away.  Yes, we still have problem with DUIs which is a difficult situation for society.  However I believe the "self driving cars" on the horizon will start to resolve that problem long before our justice system will be revised.  

That leaves illegal recreational drugs and prostitution as the only remaining issues that seem to contribute to a very high percentage of our prison population. According to drugwarfacts.org website around 50% of the inmates in the US are there for some sort of drug violation.  These statistics appear to be related to direct drug offenses, and not "secondary" drug offenses.  For example, people could be arrested for gun offenses, or other violent crimes that were a result of disagreements related to drugs.  People could be arrested for money laundering, which could be due to moving drug money.  Gang related arrests and convictions are related to illegal drugs, because so much of a gangs power and finances seem to revolve around marketing of illegal drugs.  I think if all of those causes were included in the statistics, the percentage of drug-related inmates would be much higher.

Police swarm Sacramento --they want to be able to steal our stuff!

Steven Greenhut wrote a column today about the extreme pressure the state and local police departments are putting on the state legislature to prevent passage of a law to put controls on police forfeiture.  See this link  --His title:  Forget Justice:  Cops just want money!

Police departments like the additional money they are able to take from people they think might be drug dealers.  They can use the money anyway they want.  They can pay overtime, give bonuses, or buy shiny new cool weapons and devices.  All of those expenditures, of course, are outside of the normal budget approval process.

Conceptually, it sounds really good!  If a criminal steals money or sells drugs the police should confiscate those proceeds.  Why should the criminal get rich and keep the fruits of his crime?  The trouble is that while the police say they need this "tool" to go after the big "organized crime drug lords" -- they actually most often use it against the "little guy" who doesn't have the money to defend themselves.  People with $10,000 in cash going to buy a car, can be accused of having the cash for illegal purposes and the cash can simply be taken by police!  The person then has to hire lawyers to get it back, and the cost in time and money may be more than the person can afford --and maybe more than the value of the money they are trying to get returned!  Greenhut cites a situation where the police tried to take a $1.5M piece of real estate because one tenant was accused of selling drugs!  Note, there is no determination that a person is guilty to confiscate the assets!  The police just take it and keep it!

We all need to call and write our State Representative and State Senator and tell them to vote FOR SB443!   The Federal Government also needs some sort of control on their similar practices.  

Police Body Cameras Going the Wrong Way?

The San Diego Union Tribune had an editorial today (Sep 1 2015) that pointed out that the "police camera" revolution that had looked like it was going to help resolve the conflicts over police violence may be stopped in its tracks by new legislation.  See this link.  Steven Greenhut also addressed the subject in his column yesterday.  There has been a series of bills proposed in the California State Legislature (AB66, SB175, AB69) that attempted to put some controls on how the cameras are to be used and how/when data can be viewed or shared with the officers and public.  However the powerful police officers unions have apparently lobbied to stop or "water down" the proposed legislation.  Some have decried "thug cops" for stopping the legislation.
We need our police forces to be admired and respected, not feared and hated.  For years the police have confiscated cameras from bystanders who recorded what they were doing.  I've never heard of a police officer being indicted for doing that, even though it is a crime.  Police departments still confiscate videos of police arrests or police misconduct and then try to bury it.    I believe the state needs to establish some standards that treat the officers and citizens fairly and equally when reporting or documenting crimes.  If the police are permitted to view footage before writing their report, then accused citizens should have the same right before being interviewed by police.  If not, then neither should have access.  If the state does not establish standards, then maybe the Federal Government should draft some standards for use by Federal law enforcement agencies, and then it might become a "defacto" standard for states.  I think FBI, DEA, Border Patrol, Coast Guard, and TSA officers should also all have body cameras turned on during activities, and that citizens involved should also be treated fairly and uniformly when in comes to access to those videos. 

Trishawn Carey, a mentally ill woman is charged with assault for raising a police baton

The LA Police Department and Prosecutors don't have enough to do.  They have filed "3-strike" charges against a homeless, mentally ill woman for picking up a policeman's baton or "night stick" waving it around and then dropping it.  A good front-page headline article in July 24 2015 LA times by Marisa Gerber and Richard Winton explains the situation.
I think LAPD and Prosecutors are abusing the intent and spirit of the 3-strikes law and they should know better than do this to a person known to be mentally ill.  It seems crazy and expensive to taxpayers to spend the money to have a court trial for such an insignificant charge.  It seems also crazy to send her to prison for 25 years.
On the other hand -- maybe there is more to the story.  Maybe she actually "WANTS" to be in prison where she can get her three square meals, a bed, and her proper medications, rather than live on the street.  

House should Join Senate in Torture Ban

Today's Union Tribune had an oped by Dr. David Debus, a San Diego psychologist who has been active in the anti-torture movement.
See this link:  http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/2015/jul/23/cia-torture-ban-legislation/
Dr Debus is asking the US House of Representatives to pass a bill (McCain-Feinstein Bill) that has already passed the Senate that will ban the CIA from torturing people.  I am writing my congressman, Darrell Issa to ask him to vote for it, and I hope others will encourage their representatives to do likewise.  I tend to doubt that Issa will vote for it, because he has generally voted with all of the right-wingers in favor of torture.  He certainly supported all of Bush/Cheney's torture efforts including rendition, and Guantanamo.  We can hope he might have a change of heart?
I think that the US torturing people is an embarrassment for the US and it violates everything our country stands for. Of course, nobody in the military would be permitted to torture someone, because it is against the US law, and international law, and an order to do so, would be an illegal order.  If we do it to people from other countries, then it would make it "ok" for other countries to do it to our soldiers and citizens when captured abroad.  Apparently, the US even did it to American citizens.  It isn't clear to me why CIA employees should have been "exempt" from US law in the first place.  I have a hard time understanding why nobody has ever been prosecuted for torturing prisoners.
In the series "24" We all saw how torture was dramatized in situations where information might be needed to prevent an imminent disaster that could kill millions. Would torture in that type of situation make sense?  I don't know!  --but keeping people prisoners for years and torturing them seems like punishment, and not a valid method for extracting useful information.

FORFEITURE BILL WOULD HELP TAKE PROFITEERING OUT OF POLICING | SanDiegoUnionTribune.com

I've been a critic of asset forfeiture by law enforcement since it first started.  It seems like a great idea!  If a criminal acquires assets such as homes, cars, or land, using funds obtained illegally, then they should not be entitled to keep those assets.  That, in principle, makes perfect sense!  The assets then should be used to compensate those injured by the criminals.  If the assets were stolen, then they should be returned to the people they were stolen from.  However if the assets were obtained from an illegal activity such as drugs, prostitution, or gambling, who should get the "loot" from the forfeiture?  It would seem logical that the Government should receive the assets, as a representative of the people.  However which Government should get the loot?  City, State, or Federal?  Also how should those funds be used?  Somehow, our laws got twisted to make our Police forces benefit from "looting and pillaging" citizens so the police forces were entitled to take an keep any assets they could "capture" without any judicial process.  They could pull over a car for a "fuzzy dice hanging from mirror" violation, toss a small bag of marijuana in the back and then claim the owner was a "drug runner."  Then they could confiscate and keep the car, and the poor owner would have to spend their own money to hire a lawyer to get their car back.  The car would be "guilty until proven innocent" --.!! There have been notorious cases where drug enforcement agencies have seized valuable real estate when pot plants (wild or planted) were discovered on the property.  Forfeiture makes sense if we thought that the police forces would only use the right when they really were dealing with a criminal.  But who determines that the person is a criminal, unless the person is charged and convicted of being one?

That is not the way our justice system is supposed to work!

It does make sense for the Government and Police to "capture" and "freeze" any assets at the time of the arrest.  I'm sure police and prosecutors don't like the thought that a drug dealer might hire an expensive lawyer to defend them using proceeds from their drug business.  However, who separates the funds obtained illegally from those that might be legal?  The whole process needs to be "adjusted" to protect citizens from police abuse. Changes need to be made to protect citizens, but also capture those assets that might have been obtained illegally before they can be liquidated.  It is a shame that police and prosecutors take laws that make sense when passed and then abuse them against good judgement.  The "Three Strikes Law" made good sense when we passed it in California, and it was advertised and sold to the public as a way to get people who commit three "violent crimes" off the street.  Then the police forces started using it to extort confessions out of people charged with non-violent crimes, and sent far too many people to prison for extended sentences for minor crimes, such as use or sale of recreational drugs.  The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization (RICO) law was passed in 1970 as an attempt to combat the Mafia.  Police forces and prosecutors used that law far beyond what it was intended, and now use it against kids neighborhood clubs, which they call "gangs."  That has further violated many of our bill of rights freedoms.  Now our California legislature is considering a bill (Senate Bill SB443) that will help reduce some of the unchecked powers our police forces have with asset forfeiture.  The bill makes sense!  See this article by Steven Grenhut in today's Union Tribune:

FORFEITURE BILL WOULD HELP TAKE PROFITEERING OUT OF POLICING | SanDiegoUnionTribune.com

However, it is clear that the Police forces really do like "looting and pillaging" their neighbors.  They are fighting hard to keep the right to steal our stuff for their own use, and try to prevent us from getting it back without hiring lawyers at our expense.  I really do hope that the bill passes!

National security measures more invasive than effective | UTSanDiego.com

Ann McFeatters had a well-written column in Sunday's San Diego Union Tribune that pointed out the dilemma that we have in trying to stop terrorism.

National security measures more invasive than effective | UTSanDiego.com

She explained that TSA caught her gift of perfume that was slightly more than the 3 oz maximum, but apparently misses many of the guns and knives that their own inspectors are able to pass through the airport inspections. Apparently bomb-making materials got through 67 out of 70 attempts.   The good news is that TSA does have a program to "test" their inspection system.  I hope their statistics improve!  I wonder if they are too focused on collecting up the loose change ($675,000 in  year) and miss doing what they are supposed to be doing (See this link).   I've often thought that TSA designed the airport checkpoints to maximize opportunity for people to leave change and valuables.  It is also now reported (Ashley Halsey, Washington Post) that TSA is trying to catch whoever "leaked" the report on the results of the security tests with guns & knives. It appears to me that again, the Government is trying to "kill the messenger" by finding the "leaker" rather than correcting the problem.  NSA did the same thing with Snowden, who reported the Government was spying on Americans.  Of course nobody in NSA has been prosecuted for violating the law, or lying to congress, but they do want to catch Snowden!

It is obvious that it is much easier for a terrorist to cause damage, death, or injury, than it is to defend against the terrorism.  To a terrorist, every place and every person is a target.  To the defenders, a target terrorist could be anyone, and their weapon could be almost anything!  It could be a liquid, a solid, a powder, a knife, a gas, or even a sharp stick!  That's what makes terrorism so easy to do, and difficult to defend against. When a terrorist is willing to give up his life, it is even more difficult!

The terrorists have seemingly "won" most of the war so far.  They have successfully caused all citizens in almost all countries to take expensive and cumbersome actions which have reduced our freedoms.  Perversely, terrorist organizations can then say that the governments in our countries are taking away freedoms, and use that as a rallying cry for recruitment!  Government now spies on our bank accounts, our internet usage, our telephone calls, and our location, all in the name of fighting terrorism.  We and our vehicles are searched at transportation nodes, and our computers can be searched at any time.  Yes, the terrorists have caused all of us to lose many freedoms.  We have also had to pay for all of this additional layer of security.  The cost of the immense amount of additional security has become a huge tax on our economy.  Think of the salaries paid to all of the additional TSA, FBI, CIA, NSA, and border patrol employees involved with physical inspections, and sitting in rooms listening to all of our telephone calls and internet use!.  The latest Gallup Poll shows that a majority of the US believes we should worry about protecting our rights more than protecting against terrorism.  However it does amaze me that there are a lot of people who are willing to give up their privacy to protect against terrorism.  It is funny how people think.  So many people won't fly because they are afraid of a one in a million crash, but will buy a lottery ticket for that one in a million chance of winning.  So they are willing to give up all of their personal and financial privacy to help protect them from that one in a million chance of being a victim of terrorism

I'm afraid that a lot of these techniques that are being used to counter terrorism are being done to make the public think that we are safer because of them. It is clear that the TSA airport inspections aren't all that effective. But it does give travelers the feeling that something is being done for their safety.  Maybe that's why TSA wants to keep their "testing program" secret!  I'm not sure that they will do all that much to actually stop it.  I sure wish there were an easier answer!

'I am a citizen': when border patrol agents violate the rights of US residents | US news | The Guardian

I can understand the need for having a good screening system at the US-Mexico border.  It is important to make sure that people crossing the border have correct papers, and to verify that they aren't smuggling.  It takes significant time to perform all of the necessary checks for each person entering the country.  Because of that, and the appearance that the border patrol is "under-staffed" there are often huge hours-long waits at the border crossings.

That is one reason I have been a critic of the two major "border checkpoints" on Interstate 5 and Interstate 15 north of San Diego.  The checkpoints are not always in operation, but it is impossible to guess when they will be in operation.  Because the checkpoints can cause a delay in travel of  15 to 30 minutes, there is no way to plan trips for work or appointments without allowing an additional 30 minutes, just in case the checkpoint is in operation.  So not only are people delayed by the checkpoints when operating, they also have to allow for the checkpoint, so they end up wasting time by being "early" when the checkpoint isn't in operation.   When the checkpoint is in operation, cars move slowly past a border patrol agent who looks very bored and simply waves each car forward -- no apparent rationale for allowing cars to pass or stop them.

It is pretty clear that the checkpoints each employ a lot of people by the number of employee cars parked at each checkpoint, and I really don't see those employees being very productive.  It would seem that those employees would better serve the country if they were assigned to the actual US/Mexico border to assist with the border crossing inspections to reduce the wait time, or to actually patrolling the border for illegal crossings.



Over the past 20 years, I have written to my US Senators, and my Congressman (Randy "Duke" Cunningham) and since 2001, Darrell Issa about eliminating the border checkpoints to save taxpayer money and eliminate the annoyance to San Diego citizens when we travel to Orange or Riverside Counties. I've never received a rational explanation, nor has there ever been any action taken.  I believe many other people have also written and complained to no avail.  The checkpoints are an annoyance to everyone who travels North from San Diego County.  There are many daily commuters!



This article in Guardian points out that there are MANY other similar checkpoints on our side of the border that are continually annoying American citizens in the area.  A lot of the checkpoints are down closer to the border, and directly affect the residents in those areas.  In addition, as is probably expected, the border patrol stops people who appear to be Latino much more frequently than people who don't.  See this article:

'I am a citizen': when border patrol agents violate the rights of US residents | US news | The Guardian  Is it racial profiling?  Or is stopping people who look Latino just common sense?  Do we really need to show "our papers" at every checkpoint?  Do we need to allow our car to be searched?



I don't believe that most of the border checkpoints, particularly the ones on I-5 and I-15 are needed to control immigration, nor are they really used for that purpose.  I believe the purpose of those checkpoints are to allow the Government to "legally" stop drug courier suspects who may have been identified elsewhere using spies or informants inside drug organizations or electronic eavesdropping technology.  By catching the suspects at the border checkpoint, the Government prosecutors can claim that the person was caught during a "random border inspection" and not have to give away informants or "technical means."  Some of those "technical means" may not even be legal, and, even if it is legal, the Government doesn't want that information to be exposed during court proceedings.  In order to make the "random checkpoint" argument believable, the border patrol has to randomly open and close the checkpoint even when there are no suspects passing through just to maintain the charade.



If I were in charge of the Border Patrol, DEA and FBI, I would probably do exactly what they are doing if I wanted to continue the "war on drugs" as we have for the past 60 years.  Yeah, why not put "border checkpoints" all through the 100 mi area North of the border?  We could set up random checkpoints all over the region.  Would that help fight the war?  Or would it violate more of our citizen's rights?    However, I don't believe the US correctly fighting the drug war.  The methods being used are extremely expensive and end up violating the rights of all of us.  We would be much better off with programs that included treatment, licensing, taxing, standardizing doses, education, and spending much less on interdiction and law enforcement.  I believe the reason we are using the current strategy is because there are so very many businesses, leaders and government employees who are profiting from it.  For example, the prison guard unions would probably put money up to fight against any effort to legalize drugs.



I believe our Federal and State politicians understand this.  However they like receiving the campaign funds from the drug-war profiteers, and they don't have the guts to do what is right!   One clear example is that in the states where Marijuana has been legalized for medical or recreational use, it required a vote from the people to change the law, rather than a simple vote by the legislature and signature from the governor.  So even when it is the "will of the majority of the citizens" -- their representatives didn't have the guts to pass the law without a referendum first.

"Pay to Play" Police Volunteers Article in The Guardian

I've had friends who worked as police volunteers, and have seen police cars around Oceanside with "volunteer" printed on the side of the cars.  I've also seen older folks in police uniforms sauntering up and down the strand sidewalk and the beach on busy days. Sometimes, I've seen them cruising the beach in City of Oceanside "dune buggies" which sort of looked like fun.   I imagined they could work to enforce the rules about no smoking, drinking or dogs on the beach, if nothing else.  After reading about the accidental Tulsa shooting by Bates, a volunteer, I researched information about the City of Oceanside's "Senior Volunteer" program:  --Pretty impressive! 100 volunteers over the age of 50! It does say that volunteers are not put in "confrontational situations" --   I also discovered the "Volunteers In Police Service" or VIPS program sponsored by the US Department of Justice actually promotes the concept of putting volunteers in local police forces.  On the surface, this sounds like a great idea!  Expanded police force with little cost to Government.  Brilliant!

I've often thought it was probably useful to have additional, visible, police presence around the community to help citizens, and provide "eyes and ears" for the professional police whom the volunteers could call if needed.  I wondered a little about the cost to the City for maintaining the volunteer forces.  After all, they would need uniforms, radios, and vehicles, but volunteers probably would only be working a few days per week. A good staff of well-trained volunteers could supplement the force, and also serve as a "reserve surge" if and when a crisis occurred.  During fires, earthquakes, or floods, we need all of the trained help we can get!  I wondered if the volunteers were compensated at all.  This article amazed me!

150 cops, population 300: pay-to-play policing, from Tulsa to Kid Rock's town | US news | The Guardian

Who knew that citizens would actually pay money (or bribes to campaign funds) in order to be a member of the "volunteer" police force?  Is it really that much fun that people would pay money to be able to walk around in uniform and annoy their neighbors?  Is it really possible that a town of 300 could have 150 cops (albeit part-time, and many are non-resident)?

There have been many science-fiction books written that have focused upon the notion of a surveillance society with everyone spying on their neighbors.  Some books have added the concept of electronic tracking and video surveillance with chips inserted into citizen's bodies and pervasive video camera tracking systems. The book 1984 by George Orwell is one of the most notable.  Quite a few of those books were made into movies.   Those stories seemed hard to believe!  First of all, the electronics seemed far to0 difficult and expensive for a society to install.  The data collected would be much too much for anyone to ever be able to track a single individual, and where would a community every get a force of volunteers to spy on their neighbors?  Wow!  It came true!  We now have pervasive electronic systems that can track our every move continuously, as well as almost everything we do.  Our cellphones are tracked, our license plates are read and tracked, our debit and credit cards track what we buy, and internet tracks products we buy, facts we research, movies we watch, music we listen to, and friends we connect with using email or text.  Big Data analysis software can now sort through that massive amount of information and produce maps of where we've been, what we've done,  and generate large charts showing all connections to our friends and relatives. That analysis is getting cheaper and cheaper as computers and software get better.  Now, to top off all of that, the Federal Government is building a huge network of volunteers in all levels of police forces to serve as additional eyes and ears "on the ground" to track individuals.  I believe President Bush implemented this system as a response to the 9/11 attacks.  With the excuses of a "war on drugs" and a "war on terrorism" our nation has given up most of what we stood for to the "right wingers"... So we have lost our war for freedom.

I would like to know how much of our Federal, State, and local police efforts and expenditures are in support of the "war on drugs."  We know that most of our Homeland Security efforts (including Coast Guard, FBI, CIA, NSA, Border Patrol, Customs and Coast Guard are involved in drug interdiction.  However, even at the local level, our volunteers are apparently involved in DUI checkpoints, sniffing out marijuana smokers, and ticketing people drinking beer or smoking on the beach -- all aspects of the "war on drugs."