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!