Category: crime and punishment

Categories
crime and punishment Regulating Protest

Mostly Peaceful Protest?

police, baton, riots

Crimes committed yesterday at the capitol should be prosecuted. 

Let’s make that the rule from now on, not the exception.

I’m not suggesting long prison terms for trespassing, smashing windows, small-scale vandalism. But we have a right (and almost a duty) to insist that people respect the lives and property of others, no exceptions.  

That’s Civilization 101.

Last summer, I think the cavalier attitude displayed by many public officials (Portland Mayor Ted Wheeler comes to mind) — and media outlets — toward looting and riots, as well as intimidation and violence directed at innocent individuals sent the wrong signal to . . . bad people on all sides.

Mostly peaceful protest isn’t good enough.

As the dust settles, we will learn more and discuss further. Note that as I put this and myself to bed last night, Congress was back at work but not yet finished certifying the Electoral College results.

Speaking of doing one’s job, in yesterday’s chaos, I witnessed one policemen apply some finesse to protecting the capitol — by de-escalating the tense situation. The mob he confronted refused to heed his instruction to leave the capitol. As the officer retreated up the stairs, they were on his heels. To delay their advance and stop them from overtaking him, he would turn upon reaching each floor’s threshold and threaten them with his baton. 

But he didn’t hit them. If would have been disastrous for him to do so, because even with a baton he was badly outmanned: mob against one.

Soon, however, he was able to get to reinforcements, who together appeared to block the insurgents.

A few moments of wise restraint. Too rare these days.

Not to mention some fancy footwork. 

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

—

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)

See recent popular posts

Categories
crime and punishment

Finally Fed Up

Ted Wheeler, Portland, Mayor

We keep returning to Portland — from a safe distance.

Why?

Because rioters keep rioting there. 

And because the people tasked to protect lawful order keep making nicey-nice with the thugs.

But maybe not anymore.

Portland’s mayor, Ted Wheeler, is apparently finally fed up, thanks to the most recent mass mayhem, conducted to ring in the New Year.

What’s motivating the newfound concern for innocent victims? More than any epiphany about the proper responsibilities of government, it may be the average age and modal hue of the current batch of rioters — as well as Wheeler’s awareness that Joe Biden sort of won the election, so haven’t the rioters already got what they wanted?

“Why would a group of largely white, young and some middle-age men destroy the livelihood of others who are struggling to get by?” Mayor Wheeler asks. 

Rhetorically.

You’ve had months, Mr. Mayor, to mull the motives of such persons as they ravage Portland. But I will assume you are sincere. So I will tell you.

Pull out your notebook. The “why” is: bad ideas plus bad character. They feed on each other. Gain insight into Marx, Marcuse, et al., on the one hand, and, on the other, thugs happy to rationalize their sprees. Then you will understand.

Yes, it’s time indeed to stop your “good-faith efforts at de-escalation”; it’s high time to use “additional tools,” like physical force, to stop the criminals who are committing their crimes right in front of you.

Oh, and by the way: it’s your job.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

—

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)

See recent popular posts

Categories
crime and punishment ideological culture

The Portland Chaos

Portland, autonomous zone, protest

“As a lifelong Portlander,” Alan Grinnell writes to the editor of The Oregonian, “I am shocked at what our city has become.”

Responding to a Steve Duin column about Portland, the “broken city,” Grinnell asks, rhetorically, “Who would have thought that our downtown would become a wasteland, that there would be homeless camps everywhere in the city, and that gangs of armed thugs on all sides of the political spectrum would run out our police?”

Duin defined the problem as one of “mob rule,” lamenting that “just about everyone I spoke to was terrified they might be the next random target of the mob.”

After months of riots and property destruction following the killing of George Floyd by police in distant Minneapolis, Minnesota, the focus of recent police and community attention turned to a house on Mississippi Street from which so-called “sovereign citizens” — the Kinney family (who are black and indigenous) — were evicted for not paying their mortgage (since 2017). Now the house is being occupied by “activists,” who have turned the area into a sort of autonomous zone — as was done for weeks this summer, dangerously, in the Capitol Hill area of Seattle.

“[I]f you live or tend shop on North Mississippi, and fear for your own safety around the local ‘security’ forces,” inquired the columnist, “what do you make of the cops’ retreat from the neighborhood?” 

While many appear sympathetic with the Kinneys’ plight, the takeover by the terrorists, er, activists, is another matter entirely. One black man on reddit calls it “one big scam,” suggesting folks “ignore these loons.”

But ignoring willful lawbreakers appears to be the problem, not the solution.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

—

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)

See recent popular posts

Categories
crime and punishment ideological culture

Needed Theft

Seattle, Capitol Hill, crime, law, theft

Some Seattle city council members want to legalize theft when the thief is thereby meeting an “immediate basic need.”

A KOMO News reporter elaborates: “If someone . . . steals power tools with the intent of reselling them online in order to pay for a basic need like food or rent, the city of Seattle may be OK with that.”

This “principle” discards the principle that individuals have rights, including property rights, which it is wrong to violate by, for example, stealing. With the principle discarded, no line can be drawn to limit the amount of stealing one may do or the means of doing so. The needs of the person being robbed are somehow deemed irrelevant.

The Seattle plan might have spared Hugo’s Jean Valjean decades of being pursued by Javert. But the injustice there wasn’t that Valjean was punished for stealing a loaf of bread but that his punishment — 19 years as a galley slave — was so disproportionate.

Food is a continuing cost. Rent is. The immediacy keeps recurring. What if you have a $2,500 monthly rent?

Well, just gotta steal lots of power tools, and do so regularly. According to the babblers on the Seattle city council, “need” trumps the rights and lives of the innocent. So it’s okay to terrify somebody in a dark alley and grab their stuff even if the victim has an immediate basic need to be left alone.

Seattle has an immediate basic need for a new government that respects lives and property. Until then, let’s hope the “city limit” signs are well marked.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

—

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)

See recent popular posts

Categories
Accountability crime and punishment

Not Above the Law

qualified immunity, police, justice

Should government officials be free to violate the rights of others so long as they are doing their job at the time?

With impunity?

That’s the question that the Institute for Justice is arguing before the Supreme Court in Brownback v. King.

The case concerns James King, whom officers of the law mistook for a fugitive. When they grabbed his wallet and demanded to know his name, King ran, thinking he was being mugged. The officers pursued him and and then viciously assaulted him — nearly killing him.

Later, the government concocted bogus charges to try to force King to accept a plea bargain. The idea was to prevent him from suing the government for the way he had been treated. 

King did not cooperate.

The problem? Many government officials in many circumstances have a get-out-of-prosecution-free card. The doctrine that confers this card is called “qualified immunity.”

In the 1982 case Harlow v. Fitzgerald, the Supreme Court opined that this immunity is warranted by “the need to protect officials who are required to exercise discretion” and “can be penetrated only when they have violated clearly established statutory or constitutional rights.”

In practice, however, the immunity being granted often seems more unqualified than qualified.

IJ’s premise is simple. “Government officials are not above the law,” says IJ President Scott Bullock. “Those who are charged with enforcing our nation’s laws should be more — not less — accountable for their unconstitutional acts.”

In a free society, police cannot brutally beat innocent people and get away with it. Can they?

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

—

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)

See recent popular posts

Categories
ballot access crime and punishment

Harvest Season

election, cheating, Texas, ballot harvesting,

Democrats say Trump is going to steal the election. But what if they are “projecting”? Politics has gotten so nasty that you wouldn’t be a cynic to express no surprise at stories like these: 

  1. Project Veritas uncovered a “ballot harvesting” scam in Representative Ilhan Omar’s Minneapolis district, implicating, it seems, Omar (D-Minn.) herself; and 
  2. Formal accusations against a Biden campaign official, and others, for a similar scheme in Texas.

The Minnesota story is juicy; the Project Veritas video speaks for itself.

But in Texas? “Two private investigators, including a former FBI agent and former police officer, testify under oath that they have video evidence, documentation and witnesses to prove that Biden’s Texas Political Director Dallas Jones and his cohorts are currently hoarding mail-in and absentee ballots and ordering operatives to fill the ballots out for people illegally, including for dead people, homeless people, and nursing home residents in the 2020 presidential election.” That, courtesy of the industrious Patrick Howley, in the thick of the investigation.

“Witnesses have shown me,” the former FBI agent testifies, “how the ballot harvesters take absentee ballots from the elderly in nursing homes, from the homeless, and from unsuspecting residences’ mailboxes. The ballot harvesters then complete the ballots for their preferred candidate and forge the signature of the ‘voter.’” 

Several Biden campaign workers and two Harris County bureaucrats are implicated. It will be interesting to see if these accusations lead to charges.

And how many similar stories will emerge elsewhere.

Folks can argue about how much voter fraud happens, but when we find it, let’s act.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

—

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)

See recent popular posts