"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."

Video shows California deputies beating suspect after he flees on horseback | US news | The Guardian

The latest video of California deputies beating a suspect shows that police brutality is common across the country.

Video shows California deputies beating suspect after he flees on horseback | US news | The Guardian

I think that the use of video is now starting to show what has been going on for a century.  When police have an opportunity, they will take revenge upon suspects.  By "police" we also include FBI, DEA, Border Patrol, Military Police, and all state and local forces.  When convenient video first became available, police would try to stop observing citizens from taking video, confiscate their cameras or intimidate them into giving up their media.  Why did they do this?  Of course, to hide what they were doing!  Now that everyone has a video camera on their phone, it is much more difficult to stop from happening.  Now we are hearing (and seeing) a lot more about this going on.

I think it is absolutely absurd that the Rodney King police got off scott free for the beating they engaged in.  That set a precedent that made them think they could get away with anything.  The lack of an indictment in the Ferguson case gave the police the impression they could even get away with murder if they could somehow claim they "feared for their life"...

I can sympathize with police -- it is a dangerous job!  When a suspect is carrying a gun and might point it at them, they do need to defend themselves!  I can also understand that after a long difficult chase, as this one was, they might be very angry, exhausted, and have a lot of adrenalin flowing in their bodies.  They just might want to "take it out" on the suspect.  That is certainly a difficult thing to stop!  However I think our US system of Justice requires restraint and discipline on the part of our officers.  Officers who participate or who observe and don't try to prevent a beating should be disciplined in some way.  The public should be aware the the discipline occurred to help maintain confidence on our police system.  I wonder if what we all see in movies and TV (for example "Dirty Harry") helps set the public image for how police should act?  Do our police believe that it is OK to beat up suspects because they've seen it happen so much on TV and in movies?

Fair treatment for school students

I can sympathize with school principals and police.  They believe their job is to identify the guilty as quickly as possible. They understand that their te is valuable, and paid by taxpayers.  Obtaining a confession is the best and quickest solution.  However, the techniques they may be using do not necessarily stand up to rules of American justice & fair play.  See this article in Guardian:  Adult interrogation tactics in schools turn principals into police officers http://gu.com/p/46n22

I think techniques like this could be used by schools, but only if video recorded and if a parent or guardian is viewing it while it is being done....with some reasonable rights to veto or terminate the process.

General Petraeus

The LA Times published an editorial critical of the light sentence proposed for General David Petraeus who was found guilty of releasing classified information to his mistress

A double standard on government secrets for David Petraeus http://lat.ms/1CK1Bzs

I agree with the LA Times editorial board. The crime of releasing classified data should not be one of "degree" --who knows what information could end up being critical?  Petreaus certainly knew better and knew the law. The fact that up to then he did a good job could apply yo many other defendants.

U.S. judges see 'epidemic' of prosecutorial misconduct in state - LA Times

February 1st 2015 Sunday LA Times had an article by Maura Dolan about a Federal Court of appeals citing misconduct by prosecutors:  U.S. judges see 'epidemic' of prosecutorial misconduct in state - LA Times
I think this was an important event.  Deputy Attorney General Kevin R. Vienna wanted the three-judge panel of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court to "rubber stamp" a murder conviction of Johnny Baca when there had already been significant evidence that the prosecutors in the case had presented false evidence in the original trial --and the prosecutors knew about  it!  The article quotes the three judges on the court of appeals: Judge Alex Kozinski, Judge Kim Wardlaw, and Judge William Fletcher.  They also pressed the Deputy Attorney General to make sure that his boss, Kamala Harris, was aware of the situation.  Apparently Harris was not aware, and stopped Vienna.  Probably a smart move, since Harris is one of the leading candidates for US Senator, or Governor and probably doesn't want to be involved in such a scandal.

Maura Dolan, in her article,  described an "epidemic" of prosecutorial misconduct, with no discipline against the prosecutors.

Yes, I understand that our Police and Prosecutors have a very difficult job, with seemingly too many arcane rules about how they do their job.  However it is clear that there are many cases where police and prosecutors violate the law and get away with it.  That has an effect of "poisoning" the jury pool.  If we, as jurors, can't trust the police and prosecutors to tell the truth, how can we make a good decision?  All it takes is a few "bad apples" to provide citizens with a little bit of "reasonable doubt" that will let a criminal get off.

I've only served as a juror about 4 times in my life.  As a juror, we understand that we are making a decision based upon incomplete data.  So we have to evaluate the veracity of the witnesses for the prosecution and the defense. We also understand that if, for any reason, it turns out that additional information or evidence is discovered AFTER we make our decision, that if we found a defendant guilty, that the decision can be corrected after the fact.  There have been MANY situations where new evidence has been discovered years, or even decades after a person was found guilty, that clearly shows that the defendant was, in fact, innocent.  In almost all of these situations, I'm astounded that the prosecutors and judges who were involved in the original conviction seem to do everything they can to prevent the overturn of the decision.  They also seem to try to delay any decision--they seem to want their erroneous decision to not be overturned, rather than correct the situation and allow justice to occur.  What is wrong with them?

I believe that prosecutors think of their job as a game rather than an important role in achieving justice.  They don't want to "lose" a battle, even if they know that it would result in fairness to everyone.  When they have either been negligent or intentionally violated the law, they know that there is no recourse. They won't lose their license, won't be fined, and will not be sent to prison.  Somehow there needs to be a way that these VERY high paid government employees can be forced to have some "skin in the game" -- so that if they, in fact, lie, cheat or in some other way cause someone to go to prison who doesn't belong, that they will be also given an equivalent punishment for such misconduct.  Not a "mistake" -- but a situation where the police or prosecutors know that vital evidence is being withheld to strengthen their case.

Serial --Thorough Journalism documenting difficulty of delivering justice

My son, Sean, told me about the Serial Podcast he and Manon had listened to on their trip to Lake Tahoe.  So I started it.  Wow! I found it to be a very interesting, well-produced show.  It is also excellent documentation of how difficult it is to achieve justice. In the podcast Sarah Koenig describes research and analysis that she did over several years into the conviction of Baltimore area high school student Adnan Syed for the murder of an ex-girlfriend Hae Min Lee.

The podcast is excellent, and I highly recommend it.  There are lots of other websites that provide additional information: The Daily Dot, Wikipedia, and Serial Wiki.

The murder case and conviction took place 15 years ago, and I don't think I heard anything about it at the time.  Now, this podcast series has rejuvenated interest in the case.  The prosecutor on the case has made a statement, and Huffington Post has had articles about it:

Of course, the podcast was produced as a form of entertainment.  Even though it appears to have been presented in a way that was fair to all sides in the case, it may have twisted or distorted the facts.  I can't be sure.  However, from the information presented in the podcast, it is clear to me:

1. The defense attorney for Adnan may have been "one of the best" --but possibly due to declining health, did not do as good of a job as she should have in this case.
2. The prosecution clearly distorted some of the facts in such a way to make their case stronger, and the defense was ineffective or negligent in not pointing out the problems
3. The prosecution violated some basic rules of courtroom ethics by providing a lawyer to the other prime suspect, Jay.
4. There were many, important, off-the-record negotiations between police and Jay in which it is likely that the police "led" Jay to testify  in such a way that it incriminated Adnan.
5. The Judge was negligent in this case for allowing some of the prosecution shenanigans.
6. The sentence given to Adnan (life plus 30 years) for a murder conviction seems totally out of line, even if it was clear that Adnan had committed the crime.  It seems to me that people convicted of murders that were much more heinous than this one have received less severe sentences.  

It will be interesting to continue to follow what happens in this case.  I hope the DNA tests will be performed and uncover new evidence.  There were those several "outlier" pieces of evidence that seem to confound other theories.  For example if the "serial killer's" DNA is found on Hae, then how would Jay know where Hae's car was located?

I was sorry to see the end of the podcast.  I believe there would be some other interesting areas to explore that could be subjects for future episodes of this series concerning Adnan.  Some of those areas could be:

1. Detailed analysis and description of the history of the judge, prosecutor, and detectives involved with this case.  For example was there any sign of racial prejudice?  Were any of them disciplined?  
2. It isn't clear why the two detectives refused to be interviewed.  They said they weren't permitted to do so?  Who wasn't permitting them to do it?  Did they have something to hide?
3. Has anyone drawn up a physical map of the area with the particular cell tower hits and events and tied them together with travel times?
4.  More of the biography/history of some of the witnesses.  
5. What was Jay now doing?  Has he stayed on the straight and narrow path?  
6. Is there the possibility of using voiceprints technology to determine of some of the recorded answers during interviews or testimony could have been deceptive?
7. Even though Adnan's lawyer died, the staff may have additional information protected by attorney-client privilege.  With permission from Adnan, would there be any value in exploring any of that information?  His lawyer, for example may have had notes that aren't public.  .  

Reform prosecuting police misconduct:

I suppose I have been very naive about the relationship between prosecutors and police.  I didn't understand what has been happening each time a police officer is charged with an on-duty crime, such as unnecessary violence against a suspect, or shooting a suspect.  Somehow, I always thought that a suspect, whether a police officer or a civilian would get the same treatment by prosecutors and grand jury made up of citizens.  I have recently, finally, understood what has been happening.  This editorial in USA Today has an excellent explanation of the problem, and what needs to be done to solve the problem.

Reform prosecuting police misconduct: Our view



I didn't understand how the police in the Rodney King situation could be excused for their action.  It appeared to me that the chokehold killing in New York, on video certainly had enough evidence to go to trial.  In the Ferguson case, there is now way that the police officer needed to fire so many shots into the suspect.  The officer had clearly lost control of himself.  He may have not been guilty of a crime, but he should have stood for a trial.

I can now see that we probably have the exact same conflict of interest between the FBI, Homeland Security, Border Patrol, DEA, and other Federal police agencies and their Federal prosecutors.  I'm sure there is misconduct at times within those organizations, and I wonder how the independence between prosecutors and the federal agencies is maintained.