Category: crime and punishment

Categories
Accountability crime and punishment government transparency moral hazard nannyism national politics & policies political challengers Regulating Protest responsibility too much government U.S. Constitution

A Morning After

Eric O'Keefe, Gov. Scott Walker, John Doe, Wisconsin

Yesterday we celebrated the end to “a disgraceful episode in Wisconsin history” — the dawn police raids of the so-called John Doe investigations against conservatives alleged to have violated campaign finance regulations.

State and federal courts ruled that no laws were broken and some laws were unconstitutional — certainly Milwaukee County DA John Chisholm’s prosecutorial methods violated the rights of citizens the court called innocent.

The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision, announced Monday, not to hear Chisholm’s appeal thankfully ends this particular reign of error and terror.

So what have we learned?

First, courage is contagious. Had Eric O’Keefe with the Wisconsin Club for Growth not bravely spoken out, others would have remained quiet, and the prosecutors might have gotten away with what National Review’s David French called “a pure intimidation tactic to try to terrify conservatives into silence.”

Another unmistakable conclusion: yes indeed, it can happen here.

It has.

Obviously.

And if changes are not made, it will happen again.

Reforms have already been won. Not only is the John Doe investigation shut down, the law was changed, allowing for no more John Doe attacks. The Government Accountability Board, found to have acted from partisan motives, has been completely disbanded and new ethics bodies formed.

Another avenue of correction comes through the courts. The MacIver Institute filed a class-action lawsuit against Milwaukee County DA John Chisholm and others for illegally seizing documents, and Cindy Archer, whose home was raided by police, has filed a civil rights lawsuit.

Ms. Archer’s suit was dismissed after a federal judge ruled that the prosecutors had immunity. But that dismissal is now on appeal before the federal Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals.

The prosecutors will go to court . . . as defendants.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Printable PDF

Eric O'Keefe, Gov. Scott Walker, John Doe, Wisconsin

 

Categories
Accountability crime and punishment moral hazard national politics & policies property rights Regulating Protest responsibility U.S. Constitution

It’s Morning in Wisconsin

Assault on Free Speech in Wisconsin, police abuse, harassment, militarization, democracy, intimidation, collage, photomontage, illustration, editorial, violence

Regarding mornings, put me in Sheriff Hopper’s camp. He’s the Stranger Things character, repeatedly informing folks: “Mornings are for coffee and contemplation.”

Speaking of stranger things, who expects an early morning SWAT-like police raid on their home?

Three years ago, yesterday, that happened to Cindy Archer, and other conservatives in Wisconsin. Near dawn, a dozen police officers in flak jackets pounded on her door, carrying a battering ram just in case. Her dogs were freaking out and she feared they’d be shot. The police ransacked her home, confiscating her computer and smart phone.

This was a secretive John Doe investigation, so Ms. Archer was informed she could discuss the raid with nobody but her lawyer. The raid was public, the media tipped off, but Archer was prevented from defending herself publicly. Or even privately, among friends and relatives.

Her suspected crime?

Like her fellow targets, she had supported Gov. Scott Walker’s effort to reform the law regarding public employee unions. And for fundraising “coordination” in pursuit thereof.

The gag order slapped on conservatives in 29 groups might have prevented us from knowing the partisan political assault taking place, but Eric O’Keefe, the head of the Wisconsin Club for Growth, courageously spoke out.

“Had I honored their secrecy order, I couldn’t have organized our defense,” Eric O’Keefe told Blaze TV. “I decided quickly — look, this is supposed to be a free country, I’m going to operate as though it is, even if it isn’t today.”

First, John Doe Judge Gregory Peterson ordered the probe to close. Prosecutors appealed.

O’Keefe went to federal court and soon Judge Rudolph Randa agreed that Milwaukee County District Attorney John Chisholm and the Government Accountability Board were violating their rights. Randa warned: “[A]ttempts to purify the public square lead to places like the Guillotine and the Gulag.”

Randa’s ruling was stayed pending the appeal to the Wisconsin Supreme Court. “It is utterly clear that the special prosecutor has employed theories of law that do not exist in order to investigate citizens who were wholly innocent of any wrongdoing,” read the that court’s majority opinion.

Still, the persecutors persisted, asking the U.S. Supreme Court to hear the case. Yesterday morning, the High Court denied Milwaukee County’s appeal.

Calling the three-year dystopian odyssey “a disgraceful episode in Wisconsin history,” this morning Mr. O’Keefe is pushing the state legislature to have some coffee and contemplate (and then legislate) ensuring this never happens again.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Printable PDF

Assault on Free Speech in Wisconsin, police abuse, harassment, militarization, democracy, intimidation, collage, photomontage, illustration, editorial, violence

 

Categories
Accountability crime and punishment folly general freedom media and media people

Crime and Terror and Panic

panic, terror, terrorism, media, keep calm, illustration

Many people think crime is going up. But it’s going down.

Similarly, many people think terrorism is “an existential threat” to our very civilization.

Could the latter folks be wrong for the same reason the former folks are?

Because news reporting concentrates on crime, covering it intensely, incessantly — if it bleeds, it leads — we get the wrong perspective on crime. The long-term trend-line shows crime going down since the early 1990s. Though we’re now seeing upticks in certain big cities, it’s simply not all getting worse.

This is not a reason to slack off. It is a reason not to panic.

How is terrorism different?

In 15 years, there has been no repeat of 9/11/01, or anything close to it. Granted, there have been horrific homegrown terror incidents. That threat remains. Though, thankfully, last weekend’s terrorist spree wasn’t more effective: One bomb fizzled, another killed no one, and the mad jihadist knifer was himself put down before anyone was killed.

Some might note that the number of deaths as a result of automobile crashes* is far, far higher than from terrorism. Why worry more about the very small number of terrorist outbreaks in a huge country like ours?

Here’s why: the terrorism is intentional, and could become worse for whatever reasons flip normal Muslim men and women into jihadist radicals. So our vigilance must not abate.

But there’s another difference. Terrorists, unlike normal criminals, want to be noticed. The more we panic, the more they are tempted to seek to cause us to panic.

Terrorism, whether going up or down, requires, along with vigilance, a certain resolute calmness.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

 

 

* Deaths from automobile accidents have been decreasing for decades, a 35 percent drop from 1979 to 2005. However, last year the U.S. had the “highest one-year percentage increase in traffic deaths in half a century.”

Printable PDF

panic, terror, terrorism, media, keep calm, illustration

 

Categories
crime and punishment ideological culture media and media people nannyism national politics & policies

The Other Half of the Truth

Jason Falconer, terrorism, gun, gun control, media bias, illustration, meme

Another terrorist event. And another.

Douglas A. French, of the National Review, while writing about Islam and terrorism, innocently drew up a half-truth: “In Saint Cloud, Minn., Dahir Adan’s family identified him as the man who stabbed eight people in a mall before being shot and killed by an armed civilian, an off-duty police officer named Jason Falconer.” So, what is the missing half of the truth?

The heroic Mr. Falconer was armed, sure. And an off-duty cop. But he was more civilian than cop, for the weapon he had on him was concealed (by permit), and he is the owner of a gun range.

Actually, a firearms training business that teaches “individuals the mindset, knowledge and skills needed to be successful with firearms in order to secure their personal safety or that of their family, at home or in public.”

Falconer used to be a police chief, and still works part-time as a police officer. But, we should emphasize, his main gig is training. Indeed, he’s an advocate concealed carry and a member of the dreaded National Rifle Association.

I am not criticizing Mr. French. His focus was on something else. And he did use the word “civilian,” which is not the case in most coverage. But that “off-duty cop” meme is everywhere — pushed by most journalists.

Could they not want us to think that mere civilians can do good in a world of too much conflict and crime — if armed?

Let’s honor Jason Falconer. And let’s also reaffirm his message, the importance of concealed carry and trained firearms use by good people.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

 

Poor Obama, gun control script in hand

 

Printable PDF

 

Categories
crime and punishment general freedom ideological culture meme moral hazard nannyism national politics & policies

10 Out of 10

Muslim, terrorist, Jihadist, guns, gun rights, 2nd Amendment, illustration, meme

10 out of 10 terrorist Jihadists agree…

American gun rights must be restricted!

 

Categories
crime and punishment First Amendment rights media and media people national politics & policies political challengers

A Suit of a Different Color

Melania, Donald, Trump, daily mail, scandal, sex worker, illustration

Donald Trump has threatened to use lawsuits against people he says are lying about him. Even if elected President.

Well, enter the third Mrs. Donald Trump, Melania. She is suing Britain’s Daily Mail* for suggesting that she may have worked as a “part time escort in New York,” explains the BBC, “and met husband Donald Trump, who is now running for the White House, earlier than previously reported.”

We know from published nude photographs that she was in the U.S. before the time specified by her presidential-hopeful husband. And for some, those nude photographs lend credence to a rumor about escort service work. (She’s made money for being photographed in sexual congress before.)

The Daily Mail has withdrawn its article, insisting that it had not “suggested the sex work claims were true but said that, even if false, they could affect the US presidential campaign.” Sounds like a defense to me.

Earlier this week I confessed to my lack of accounting expertise. Now I should do the same regarding law. Yet, the claim by the Trumps’ lawyer, Charles Harder, seems hard to take seriously — that is, that the defendants’ statements were “so egregious, malicious and harmful to Mrs. Trump that her damages are estimated at $150 million dollars.”

Really? That much?

Besides, it’s her husband’s career on the line. And a sex morals rumor about Mrs. Trump wilts next to the long list of rumors and established fact in the scandal department of actual candidate (and former First Lady) Mrs. Bill Clinton.

Seems with either major party candidate, we’re guaranteed a soap opera . . . and full employment for lawyers.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

 

* She is also suing an American blogger.

Printable PDF

Melania, Donald, Trump, daily mail, scandal, sex worker, illustration

 

Categories
Accountability crime and punishment general freedom moral hazard nannyism national politics & policies

A Practical Vote Against Racism

marijuana, drug, war, racism, illustration

“Marijuana is only legal for white people, in California,” explains Lynne Lyman of the Drug Policy Alliance. Talking with Zach Weissmueller, on reason.tv, she clarifies the situation regarding California’s currently legal medical marijuana, and why Prop. 64, a ballot measure sponsored by Californians for Responsible Marijuana Reform, is so necessary.

Marijuana prohibition — which has been severely curtailed in the states of Alaska, Colorado, Oregon and Washington, all of which allow not only doctor-prescribed “medical marijuana,” but also recreational use — is still in play in California, despite legal medicinal use.

But the weight of the state’s heavy hand falls mainly upon the poor, especially on racial minorities. “If you are white and over 21 in California,” Ms. Lyman insists, “you can pretty much use marijuana without any sort of criminal justice involvement.”

So here is where the old canard that pushing for legalization and the right to self-medicate is “just about you smoking dope,” which is what I often hear. Californians’ best reason to vote for Prop. 64 is that it establishes something very much like a right to self-medicate, and — get this! — it altruistically applies to more than the white population.

The truth is, drug prohibition in America has been, mostly, racist.

Sure, alcohol prohibition transcended racial bias and bigotry. But the earliest federal laws against opium, heroin, and cocaine were directed at despised minorities, first the Chinese and even, many years later (after alcohol prohibition failed) when marijuana was made illegal, against blacks, “ne’er-do-well” jazz musicians, and Latinos.

So, one reason for white Californians to vote for legal marijuana is not so they can imbibe, but so that others aren’t unjustly persecuted.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.    

Printable PDF

marijuana, drug, war, racism, illustration

 

Original cc photo by ashton on Flickr

 

Categories
crime and punishment general freedom national politics & policies too much government

Loose Cannon as Prez

Rodrigo Duterte, Philippines, President

“If I order the killing of someone,” Philippines President Rodrigo Duterte said last Friday, “you cannot arrest me: I have immunity.”

Yikes. Nearly everything negative imputed, perhaps dubiously, to Donald Trump applies double to Duterte, without a hint of dubiety.

Ordering killings with impunity? Only the U.S. president can do that.

The former mayor of Davao City was in the news during his presidential bid, for his ultra-Trumpian outbursts, saying daring, ugly, even wicked things.

Most scandalous was his remark about a young woman who was gang raped in his home town. It was “only a tragedy,” as Breitbart.com phrases it, “because he himself did not get to have sex with her first.”

Vile, yes; downright evil.

And terrifying coming from a politician entrust with protecting his countrywomen’s rights.

But then, Duterte is clear: he doesn’t care about human rights.

In his ruthless war on drugs, he’s instructed drug-warrior police to shoot first, ask questions later. The nation’s “narco-mayors” (politicians who cooperate with drug dealers) are begging for protection, leniency, anything. If those mayors have armed defenders, Duterte threatens to have the Air Force bomb them.

The American ambassador to the Philippines has publicly censured Duterte, but not (that I’m aware of, anyway) for humans rights violations, but for Candidate Duterte’s earlier rape comment. Duterte struck back calling the ambassador names and claiming his public condemnation was out of line, undiplomatic.

True enough.

I guess that’s why Secretary of State John Kerry just “inked a deal,” says Breitbart, sending $32 million to support Duterte’s war on drugs.

Duterte’s response? “[L]et’s insult them again so these fools try to make amends again.”

Fools, indeed.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.  

Printable PDF

Rodrigo Duterte, Philippines, President

 

Categories
Accountability crime and punishment moral hazard national politics & policies responsibility

Freddie’s Dead

Freddie Gray, police brutality, misconduct, Baltimore, illustration

Marilyn Mosley is frustrated. This State’s Attorney in Baltimore, Maryland, angrily dropped charges against the remaining three police officers not already acquitted in the death of Freddie Gray, who died from injuries sustained while in police custody.

Clearly, Mosley lacked the evidence to convict these officers of murder, manslaughter, false arrest, etc. Were the charges politically motivated, as police allege? Or did police impede her investigation, as she charges?

I don’t know. But here’s what we do know:

Upon sighting police April 12th of last year, Gray ran but was apprehended. Police confiscated a knife, which was perfectly legal to carry. Then police called for a van, and video captured police dragging 25-year-old Freddie Gray, screaming in agony, to that van.

Police transported him on a very circuitous route “downtown” that ended up at the hospital, after police discovered during a stop that he wasn’t breathing. A week later Freddie died.

The cause of death was a spinal injury.

The video suggests impairment before the travel therapy administered by police, though the injury could have been worsened in transit. Gray wasn’t wearing a safety belt. In fact, the medical examiner ruled it a homicide based on his not being belted in.

Whether the spinal injury was a freak accident, caused by police misconduct or, as alleged, Gray was trying to injury himself to seek damages, the medical evidence shows no serious bruises or broken bones — just the spinal injury.

We don’t know what happened.

What we do know is that a man was taken into police custody without any legitimate charge, not treated or attended to as he should have been, and he’s dead.

There’s no victory or vindication here for police.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

 

AND ANOTHER THING: To what degree is Freddie Gray a casualty of the war of drugs? Back in June, defense attorneys for the police released an email that Prosecutor Mosley’s office had sent to police asking for an “enhanced” police presence to combat drug dealing in the area Freddie Gray was arrested. That was three weeks prior to his arrest.

Printable PDF

Freddie Gray, police brutality, misconduct, Baltimore, illustration

 

Categories
Accountability crime and punishment general freedom moral hazard national politics & policies Regulating Protest responsibility too much government

Too Much – Part 2

crime, police, Police Chief David BrownX poverty, President Barack Obama

Yesterday, we discovered that modern America asks police to do “too much.” Which prompts the next question: What should police stop doing?

Here are two immediate reforms where police can do less, while protecting the public more:

     (1) End the War on Drugs. Preventing violence and fraud is the rightful role of police. Not preventing people from engaging in activities that are peaceful, however misguided or self-harming. The criminalization of marijuana means more than 150 million Americans are criminals, warranting police involvement.

Now, Mr. Obama has released some convicts serving long drug-related sentences, but we need a president who will go much farther in changing law enforcement priorities.

     (2) Stop Using Civil Asset Forfeiture, whereby police steal people’s stuff without charging and convicting those people of any crime. Not only do federal agencies from Justice to the IRS take our property in violation of our rights, but the Feds encourage state and local police to join them in this bad behavior through their “equitable sharing” program.

While Obama has spoken against seizing assets without a criminal conviction, he hasn’t stopped it. And he could at the federal level, with a stroke of his pen — as I have advocated at Townhall. Ending civil asset forfeiture is an executive order actually within his constitutional power.

Would these two steps end all racism or violence or crime? No, no, no.

They would be, however, two steps forward toward a more principled, lawful and respectful style of policing that would better serve to unite rather than divide citizens and police.

It’s a different two-step than reformers have been witnessing.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Printable PDF

crime, police, Police Chief David BrownX poverty, President Barack Obama

 

Photo Credit: Tomasz Iwaniec