Categories
CURRENT EVENTS Incorporation Doctrine Intelwars Police qualified immunity

Cops Terrorize Elderly Man With No Consequences Thanks to Qualified Immunity

Thanks to qualified immunity, an elderly Georgia man has no recourse after Henry County Sheriff’s Office deputies mistakenly broke into his home during a no-knock raid.

Onree Norris, 81, was watching TV when members of the Special Response Team battered down his door and tossed in a flash-bang grenade. The deputies were serving a warrant. The problem was they had the wrong house. The warrant was for the house next door. According to 11 Alive, the warrant included a detailed description of the target house.

“The warrant described an off-white house with a black roof. Norris’ house is yellow with a gray roof. The houses even had separate driveways, addresses, and mailboxes.”

Norris told reporters deputies kicked down four doors before they found him standing in his hallway.

“Got to the hallway, they was all over me,” Norris said. “Grabbed my arm, twisted behind my back, and handcuffed me.”

He said the whole incident “scared me to death.”

Deputies were wearing helmet-cams, but turned them off one-by-one once they realized their mistake. Norris said deputies told him they would release him only if he agreed to sign a piece of paper. “So I signed my name on there. I didn’t get a chance to read it.”

Deputies later repaired the door but the Henry County Sheriff’s Office refused to provide any additional compensation.

Norris sued for damages in federal court based on the fact that deputies entered his home without a warrant. U.S. District Judge Michael Brown ruled that the deputies have qualified immunity and dismissed the case.

Onree has appealed.

In qualified immunity analysis, judges must determine if it is “clearly established” that the specific use of force in a specific instance was unconstitutional. If not, the officer escapes liability. This standard is nearly impossible to meet.

Ilan Wurman explained the test in a paper titled Qualified Immunity and Statutory Interpretation published by the Seattle Law Review. He wrote that the “clearly established” test erects an almost insurmountable hurdle to those trying to prove excessive force or a violation of their rights.

“The qualified immunity test poses an almost insurmountable analytical problem—the permutations are infinite. A given situation is rarely exactly like another. There will always be sufficient distinguishing facts to decide that there was no clearly established law.”

Federal Courts, Qualified Immunity and the Incorporation Doctrine

This is yet another example of a case that should never have gone to federal court in the first place. Were it not for the dubious “incorporation doctrine” made up by the Supreme Crout based on the 14th Amendment that purportedly empowers the federal government to apply the Bill of Rights to the states, this case would have been litigated in state court under the bill of rights in the Georgia constitution.
Furthermore, were it not for the 14th Amendment and the incorporation doctrine, there would be no federal qualified immunity to shield cops like McClendon from the legal consequences of their actions.

Because Americans are conditioned to make everything into a federal case, people typically sue police for using excessive force or other types of misconduct through the federal court system under the U.S. Bill of Rights. But through a series of Supreme Court opinions, federal courts created a qualified immunity defense out of thin air. As we have seen over and over, the qualified immunity makes it nearly impossible to hold police officers accountable for their actions.

Through the incorporation doctrine and the application of the federal Bill of Rights to state and local governments, this system protects police officers in every city, county and state in the U.S. — from Honolulu, Hawaii to West Quoddy Head, Maine.

A decentralized system where cases were heard under state law and state constitutions would undoubtedly have problems. Some states would probably extend almost complete protection to law enforcement officers just like the federalized system. But surely some would be better. In fact, Colorado recently passed a law creating a state cause of action in state courts to sue police officers when they infringe on “any constitutional right secured by the bill of rights of the Colorado constitution.” The law specifically states that qualified immunity “is not a defense” to such civil action.

Since federal judges always defer to precedent, victims of police abuse have virtually no chance of prevailing in court. Even in the clearest cases of misconduct, federal judges will defer to the qualified immunity defense. It’s a prime example of government protecting its own.

Share
Categories
2020 Election Black Lives Matter BLM Defund the police election Intelwars Law Enforcement Police

Black Lives Matter leaders blast Democrats for not supporting ‘defund the police’ movement

There have been numerous internal discussions by Democratic politicians on attempting to find out why their party underperformed in the 2020 general election. Some Democrats have blamed the party’s support of defunding the police as one of the reasons the DNC’s blue wave flopped as nothing more than a ripple.

Black Lives Matter leaders have responded to the criticisms of the defund the police movement by castigating Democrats who are not fully supporting the far-left policy.

During a DNC conference call earlier this month, some Democrats allegedly lambasted the party’s embrace of progressive ideas.

If the Democrats “are going to run on Medicare for All, defund the police, socialized medicine, we’re not going to win,” House Majority Whip Jim Clyburn (D-S.C.) reportedly said on the call.

Rep. Abigail Spanberger (D-Va.) blasted fellow Democrats for espousing a far-left agenda.

“We need to be pretty clear, it was a failure. It was not a success,” Spanberger allegedly said during the call. “We lost incredible members of Congress.

“We have to commit to not saying the words ‘defund the police’ ever again,” she reportedly declared. “We need to not ever use the words socialist or socialism ever again. It does matter, and we have lost good members because of that.”

In another conference call this month, Rep. Vincente Gonzalez (D-Texas) allegedly said, “Defund police, open borders, socialism — it’s killing us. I had to fight to explain all that.”

Black Lives Matter activists across the country are incensed that some Democrats have abandoned the defund the police movement. In a report from Politico, numerous Black Lives Matter activists slammed Democratic politicians who jumped from the anti-law enforcement position.

“A half-dozen Black Lives Matter leaders said in interviews that they felt disrespected and frustrated by the debate over the slogan ‘defund the police,’ instead of the fundamental policy pushed by protesters for systemic changes to policing,” the Politico report stated.

The BLM leaders are now considering “counteroffensives to push back on the criticism,” and an “official rebuttal” on the controversial defund the police strategy.

“There needs to be a response,” said Cliff Albright, co-founder of the group Black Voters Matter. “We got to control the narrative because it’ll become a narrative that keeps us from being able to move further and faster on these issues.”

DeRay Mckesson, co-founder of the police reform organization Campaign Zero, said criticism of “defund the police” is a “smoke screen.”

“If people are confused about something, part of our responsibility is to make people less confused — forget the [Democratic] Party,” Mckesson said.

Rashad Robinson, president of the nonprofit civil rights group Color of Change, which is a partner organization in the Black Lives Matter movement, said he has “not seen the data sets to support” the idea of the defunding the police messaging causing the unforeseen losses in the House and Senate in the 2020 election.

“Which means that it’s reflective because it’s always easier to blame Black people,” Robinson added.

Domingo Garcia, president of the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC), disagreed with the notion that defund the police strategy didn’t scare away voters.

“It went from Hillary to Trump. Why? Because the issues of law and order are impacting Latinos quite a bit,” Garcia told NPR. “For example, a lot of the border patrol, law enforcement are heavily Latino in the Rio Grande Valley. So when you are talking about defunding the police, and you don’t stand up to those types of rhetoric, then it leaves an opening for Republicans to come in and take advantage of that.”

Share
Categories
Abuse toward police Black Lives Matter Intelwars Police portland Racial slurs Racism watch

‘Shut the f*** up, b***h!’: Black Lives Matter militant gets in cop’s face amid Portland street showdowns

There were some nasty scenes going down Thursday on the streets of Portland, Oregon, as Black Lives Matter militants faced off with supporters of police — and officers trying to keep the peace as well.

What are the details?

In one interaction caught on
cellphone video, a Black Lives Matter activist — apparently a woman — tells off a male officer using decidedly profane language.

Holding her arm outward and touching the cop’s chest, the white BLM militant gets furious at the officer: “Step the f*** back, ugly! S**t! You can’t run up on people like that!” Then as he engages in the friendly chat, the militant shouts, “Shut the f*** up, bitch!”

After the militant turns and walks away, she shoves the arm of a black man recording the proceedings on cellphone — and he’s justifiably annoyed that she apparently can get away with such an act while he insists he’d be charged with a crime if he did the same thing.

Here’s the clip. (
Content warning: Language):

More to the story

As it turns out, a longer video that precedes the latter outburst shows the white BLM militant with an angry, tearful black woman who complains to police that she was called the N-word and that such an act is a “hate crime.”


Image source: Twitter video screenshot via @SCATSOTS

Things heat up considerably when the officer — who gets the face-full of abuse from the white BLM militant in the latter video — informs the black woman that being called the N-word is not a crime.

“It should be, though!” the black woman yells back.


Image source: Twitter video screenshot via @SCATSOTS

As the officer and the black woman continue to interact, the white BLM militant tells the cop, “Shut the f*** up! You’re speaking beyond your limits, bro!” The cop ignores the slight and encourages both of them to go home.

As the black woman and the officer move closer to each other’s faces, the white BLM militant repeatedly says, “Stop walking up on her, sir!” and tells other cops, “Hey! Get your man off of her! He is touching her!”

Content warning: Racial slurs and profanity:

How it all started

There’s also video of what led to the latter interactions with police.

The starting point — as noted previously — was showdowns between Black Lives Matter militants and supporters of police, referred to as Back the Blue.

And in one scene, the same black woman shown in the above clip starts arguing with a white woman about the proper way to wear a mask — and the black woman tells the white woman, “Shut up, cracker! Shut up, cracker!”

With that, the white woman gets furious about being called a “cracker” and yells back at the black woman using the N-word before walking away. The crowd reacts strongly to the N-word utterance.

Content warning: Racial slurs and profanity:

Share
Categories
Arrested Berlin COVID-19 Germany Intelwars Police protest

Hundreds arrested in Berlin during protest against Germany’s ‘corona dictatorship’

More than 200 people were arrested in Germany’s capital city of Berlin on Wednesday, as law enforcement used water cannons to disperse thousands of demonstrators protesting against the government’s consideration of its authority to impose COVID-19 restrictions.

The protesters say their government’s actions amount to a “corona dictatorship.”

What are the details?

Berlin police estimated that at least 200 arrests were made out of the crowd of 5,000 to 10,000 people who descended on the streets of the city as parliament debated a bill that, according to the Associated Press, “would provide legal underpinning for the government to issue social distancing rules, require masks in public and to close stores and other venues to slow the spread of the virus.”

The measure passed both chambers of parliament and was signed by German President Angela Merkel the same afternoon.

CBS News reported:

As lawmakers in the German parliament voted to amend the country’s Infection Protection Act, which lays out the restrictions aimed at curbing the spread of COVID-19, thousands were protesting in the capital, accusing the government of using the law to curtail basic rights and establish a “corona dictatorship.”

Law enforcement from several departments assisted federal police in dispersed the crowds, using water cannons and pepper spray.

The Washington Examiner reported that German officials had pre-emptively banned a dozen protests Tuesday that were planned in Berlin on Wednesday, citing security concerns. Authorities formed a perimeter around the Reichstag, Germany’s parliament building, and demonstrations were not allowed in that area, but were allowed in other parts of the city.

The Washington Post reported last week that protests in Germany against the government coronavirus restrictions “are becoming increasingly radical,” citing a 20,000-person-strong demonstration last month in the city of Leipzig. As evidence, the outlet pointed to a researcher who asserted that across the entire country of Germany, “there are around 77,000 unique users in QAnon-associated Telegram chat groups.”

The Post further reported:

Authorities in Saxony said that most of the 20,000 people who gathered Saturday were peaceful. While 8 in 10 Germans think that strict measures are necessary to contain the coronavirus, according to a poll by ARD television, around 1 in 4 think the restrictions are disproportionate. Germany entered a new month-long lockdown at the beginning of November, as cases surged across Europe.

Share
Categories
Intelwars Police solutions Videos

Solutions: The Thick Red Line


Howard Lichtman joins us today to introduce ThickRedLine.org, an effort to restore respect for law enforcement by abolishing victimless crime. ThickRedLine seeks to upend the narrative that keeps the public afraid of breaking the unlawful orders of the politicians and prevents officers from following their own conscience.

Share
Categories
Intelwars Interviews Police solutions

Interview 1598 – Howard Lichtman on The Thick Red Line


Howard Lichtman joins us today to introduce ThickRedLine.org, an effort to restore respect for law enforcement by abolishing victimless crime. ThickRedLine seeks to upend the narrative that keeps the public afraid of breaking the unlawful orders of the politicians and prevents officers from following their own conscience.
Share
Categories
anti-Trump Donald Trump Election 2020 Houston Intelwars Police Stop the steal Trump Supporters watch

Trump-hating motorist spits on MAGA guy’s banner, appears to curse him out as he speeds off — and then pays for it, bigly

A left-wing motorist decided to take some time out of his day to jabber with supporters of President Donald Trump at a “Stop the Steal” rally in Houston over the weekend — and it ended badly for him.

What are the details?

A short clip circulating on social media shows one of the Trump supporters standing on a sidewalk holding a pro-Trump banner in front of the driver’s open window. They exchange words — some of them of the four-letter variety — and the phrase “you lost” is stated.


Image source: Twitter video screenshot via @JFNYC1

At one point the driver appears to spit on the banner — his face is obscured by the banner, but the distinct sound of spitting is audible — and the Trump supporter appears to spit back at the driver.

Then as the driver speeds away, he makes the mistake of turning his head back toward the Trump supporter in order to deliver one, final parting shot: “Stupid asshole!” he apparently yells.


Image source: Twitter video screenshot via @JFNYC1

Turns out it was a major mistake on his part.

He promptly crashes his car into a light pole — to the delight of nearby Trump fans.


Image source: Twitter video screenshot via @JFNYC1

“That’s what you get! All that hate!” someone yells at the driver, soon adding, “Look what it did to you, man!”

Another Trump supporter tells the driver his accident is “unfortunate” as the motorist unsuccessfully tries gunning the car’s engine to move it away from the pole — and the damaged vehicle just won’t cooperate.

Seconds later the same Trump supporter notices flashing lights and announces, “Oh, and now you’ve got the cops here!”


Image source: Twitter video screenshot via @JFNYC1

Here’s the video. (Content warning: Language):

What happened next?

Another much longer video shows the aftermath of the crash, with vehicles from the Harris County Precinct 1 Constable’s Office arriving on the scene.

The longer video — which focused on the rally — featured a short interview with a woman who said she and other Trump supporters were behaving “peacefully” when the motorist in question “drove up, and he yelled some derogatory words at us, and then he spit. And after he spit … he sped away really fast and lost control of his car and crashed into the light post.”


Image source: YouTube screenshot

The woman added that the outcome was “hilarious” and characterized it as “totally funny karma. This is what happens. We’re minding our own business, he comes around … talking smack, cursing and spitting — spitting during COVID — on us, and then he speeds off and crashes. Karma. Trump 2020!”


Image source: YouTube screenshot

The woman interviewed in the longer clip claimed the driver was arrested, but the Harris County Precinct 1 Constable’s Office on Monday told TheBlaze that wasn’t the case.

The official said there were no charges or citations issued in connection to Saturday’s incident, which took place in front of a downtown courthouse near the 1200 block of Preston Street. The official also said a Trump supporter and a supporter of former Vice President Joe Biden engaged in a verbal argument that escalated into a “spitting match,” after which the pro-Biden driver hit a light pole. Neither side wanted to press charges, the official also told TheBlaze.

Here’s the relevant portion of the longer video:


Houston TX – Stop The Steal . Xu?ng ???ng ?ng H? Trump Yêu C?u B?u C? Công B?ng

youtu.be

Share
Categories
American History Crime Intelwars Jail Police Police State Prison

Locked Up: How the Modern Prison-Industrial Complex Puts So Many Americans in Jail

Where you find the laws most numerous, there you will find also the greatest injustice.

There are no two ways about it: The United States of America and its 50 state governments love putting people in prison.

The U.S. has both the highest number of prisoners and the highest per-capita incarceration rate in the modern world at 655 adults per 100,000. (It’s worth noting that China’s incarceration statistics are dubious, and they execute far more people than the United States. Indeed, the so-called People’s Republic executes more people annually than the rest of the world combined.)  Still, that’s more than 2.2 million Americans in state and federal prisons as well as county jails.

On top of those currently serving time, 4.7 million Americans were on parole in 2016, or about one in 56. These numbers do not include people on probation, which raises the number to one in 35. Nor does it include all of the Americans who have been arrested at one time or another, which is over 70 million – more than the population of France.

For firearm owners, in particular, the growth in this “prison-industrial complex” is troubling because felons are forbidden from owning firearms and ammunition under the 1968 Gun Control Act. As the number of laws has grown and the cultural shift for police has gone from a focus on keeping the peace to enforcing the law, more and more Americans are being stripped of their 2nd Amendment rights (not to mention other civil rights like voting – as of 2017, 6.1 million Americans cannot vote because of their criminal records). All told, eight percent of all Americans cannot own firearms because of a felony conviction.

For American society as a whole, the prison-industrial complex has created a perverse incentive structure. Bad laws drive out respect for good laws because there are just so many laws (not to mention rules, regulations, and other prohibitions used by federal prosecutors to pin crimes on just about anyone).

How did we get here?

History of Incarceration in the U.S.

United States law is, of course, based on English common law. Thus, no history of incarceration in the United States can start without first discussing the history of incarceration in the Kingdom of England and later the United Kingdom of Great Britain.

In the old country idleness was the prevailing notion of the root cause of crime. Punishments often involved sending criminals to workhouses, which were quite distinct from the prisons we know today. Rehabilitation and reform weren’t strong currents in the English and later British penal systems until the 1700s. Reformers sought to improve the criminal and to make him not want to offend.

Another historical fact worth noting is that incarceration is a relatively recent innovation in punishment. Historically, criminals were punished by shaming, corporal punishment, mutilation, exile and death. The purpose was generally not to make the criminal better, but to deter him from offending again while simultaneously providing the community with some awareness of his crimes for the purpose of allowing them to take measures to protect themselves (for example, branding a “B” on the forehead of a burglar). Where criminals were incarcerated, it was generally a temporary measure prior to trial or post-trial punishment, not a punishment in and of itself.

Remember, a significant portion of early American settlers were convict laborers. This convict labor was not incarcerated, but rather freely mingled with the general population. For the safety of the non-criminal elements, they had to be quickly and easily identified. However, the early American colonies were in no position to expend resources to house, feed and clothe criminals who were not providing productive labor – which is why incarceration made about as much sense as cutting off a criminal’s hand. Only four types of criminals were prohibited from being shipped across the ocean from England: murderers, rapists, burglars, and witches.

Prison became the primary means of punishment for felonies in the years leading up to the American Revolution. Two systems emerged: One where prisoners were incarcerated alone and another where they were incarcerated in groups. For what it’s worth, most prisons were in the North. Throughout the South, crime was largely viewed as a northern problem. Rather than prison, the Antebellum South relied heavily on extra-judicial violence and honor culture to control crime.

Prison labor has been a feature of prisons going back to days of English and British colonial rule. However, the convict lease system changed this qualitatively in the late 1880s. At this point, prisons began to be paid for the labor of their convicts. Many times, convicts were put to work on plantations. Building railroads and coal mining were other common uses of convict labor during this period. Death rates were high. In Alabama, a full 40 percent of convicts used for leased labor died in 1870.

The convict lease system gradually died out. However, it was replaced with systems not terribly distinct from convict labor. The chain gangs and prison farms closely identified with southern punishment throughout the 20th Century are examples of what began to replace the convict lease system. While there were rumblings about bringing back the chain gang system in the 1990s, it never amounted to much.

Overcriminalization = Less Civil Liberties

One of the fundamental principles underpinning our Constitutional republic is that the citizenry should not accept “trust me” as an answer from the federal government. Yet in one of our most Orwellian of federal departments – the Department of Homeland Security – a surveillance state is growing as our private information “trusted” to the government is used against us.

This surveillance state is made possible by Fusion Centers, police intelligence agencies that allow different police agencies to share intelligence with one another. It is, in effect, the intelligence-gathering arm of the burgeoning police state. And the information gathered, received, analyzed and disseminated by local and state police agencies is then shared with the federal government.

Fusion Centers aren’t the only way police surveil citizens. Cell-site simulator devices – known as Stingrays – mimic wireless carrier cell towers to connect to nearby mobile phones and cellular data devices. These controversial devices can extract data, intercept communications, conduct denial-of-service attacks, find encryption keys, and more. It’s a serious threat to Americans’ privacy and civil liberties, first conceived during the War on Terror and now trickled down to local police departments and their militarized approach to enforcing the law.

Of course, while we’re assured that protections are being made for privacy and civil liberties, there is very little reason to trust the federal government.

It’s easy to blame the War on Some Drugs as the reason for the explosion in the prison population, however, this is simply not an adequate explanation. The real reason is a broad expansion in the total number of laws on the book and the vague manner in which they are written. What’s more, the concept of intent has largely disappeared from our national legal lexicon, meaning that simple mistakes are often enough to land a person in prison.

Sixty-six-year-old George Norris provides a case study. He was greeted by three pickup trucks filled with six officers outfitted in flak jackets. He was held for four hours while the police searched his house, eventually seizing 37 boxes of his things with neither warrant nor explanation. He was indicted for orchid smuggling under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species and for (what else) making false statements to an officer about a simple paperwork error. While being held for trial, he shared a cell with an accused murderer. He was facing five years for the original charge and five years for conspiracy. Because he couldn’t afford his legal bills, he pleaded guilty and was sentenced to 17 months in prison.

Another broad example is civil-contempt imprisonment. In these cases, people are put in jail or prison for failure to, for example, respond to a bench warrant for an unpaid parking ticket. This is what Anthony W. Florence was arrested for while riding as a passenger in his family’s car with proof that he had paid the tickets. He spent seven days in jail where he was strip-searched twice. Guards also watched him shower and subjected him to a delousing. People have also been imprisoned for failing to pay debts in accordance with court-ordered settlements, which carries the specter of the return of debtors’ prisons with it.

The Principle of Minimum Necessary Force

Minimum necessary force is a concept dating back to Plato, but has recently found expression in Dr. Jordan Peterson’s book 12 Rules for Life. Basically, the idea is that when someone wrongs another person, the correct course of action is always the one requiring the least force. This is why, for example, we can say that the Islamic practice of removing a thief’s hand is somehow objectively unethical – it is a punishment grossly out of proportion to the crime committed.

The secondary aspect to the principle of minimum necessary force is the notion that the best way to go about enforcing laws is to have as few as are necessary. While not strictly speaking “libertarian,” it’s sort of “libertarian adjacent.” Laws are, ultimately, a type of force. The more of them we have, the more force we have in society.

The present state of criminal justice in the United States violates both principles. Not only do we have far more laws than we need (asset forfeiture, for example), but the punishments are frequently far out of sync with the crime committed. Is prison time really an appropriate response to someone smuggling orchids into the United States?

The Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994

During his 1992 presidential campaign, then-candidate Bill Clinton was frequently attacked by his opponents as being “soft on crime.” He later won the endorsement of the 135,000-strong National Association of Police Officers by promising to put 100,000 new police officers on the streets. The result of Clinton’s desire to get tough on crime was the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, written by Joe Biden – though he actually gave credit to the National Association of Police Officers, saying: “You guys sat at that conference table of mine for a six-month period, and you wrote the bill.”

The 1994 crime act was a sweeping reform of police powers in the United States. It included provisions regarding immigration, so-called “hate crimes,” street gangs and séx offender registries.

Perhaps most of interest to our readers is the Federal Assault Weapons Ban of 1994. This was Title XI of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994. This provision banned a number of semi-automatic weapons, both rifles and pistols. Studies have shown that this law did not have a significant effect on homicides committed with firearms. The Gun Debate: What Everyone Needs to Know by Philip J. Cook and Kristin A. Goss found that “There is no compelling evidence that [the ban] saved lives.”

The assault weapons ban was subject to a sunset provision and expired on September 13, 2004. There have been repeated attempts in Congress to pass a new assault weapons ban, but all have been unsuccessful.

This was not the only provision of the Act. Title VI, known as the Federal Death Penalty Act, created 60 new capital offenses including narcotics trafficking and civil rights-related homicides.

Title IV was the Violence Against Women Act. This innocuous-sounding act made it more difficult for those accused of violence against women to defend themselves in court, which, also funneling more federal money to battered women’s shelters, created the National Domestic Violence Hotline and increased the power of restraining orders.

Likewise, the law stripped inmates of their eligibility for Pell Grants, increased privacy for driver’s license holders in public records databases, increased tracking of séx offenders, authorized the hiring of 100,000 additional police officers, expanded mandatory minimum sentencing, and created “boot camp”-style prisons for minors. Gang membership itself was criminalized. Drug testing was made mandatory for anyone on federal supervised release. “Three strikes” was made federal law as well.

The main impact of the law was a massive explosion in the number of incarcerated Americans. While crime declined sharply during the 1990s – 26 percent – not everyone agrees that the bill and the increased incarceration rate is due the credit. Some argue that all the bill did was incentivize incarceration by providing state and local governments with material benefits for increasing their incarceration rates. There were approximately one million Americans incarcerated in 1990. By 2000, that number had ballooned to approximately 1.5 million, peaking at nearly 2.5 million just before 2010.

For what it’s worth, the argument that most of these people are in jail for non-violent drug offenses is simply untrue. In 2016, 200,000 (less than 16 percent of all state inmates) were doing time for drug offenses. Compare this to the 700,000 incarcerated for violent crimes at the state level. In 2020, the Bureau of Prisons, which oversees federal inmates, tells a different story: 70,681 or 45.9 percent of federal inmates are doing time for drug charges, more than any other class of inmate. The lion’s share of inmates, however, are serving time in state rather than federal prisons.

The legacy of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 is a controversial one. It’s unclear whether or not it is responsible for the reduction of crime, but it’s crystal clear that it is responsible for a spike in the nation’s incarceration rate. Whatever one’s conclusion is on the matter, there is a certain irony to President Donald Trump running against the Act that Biden wrote – and Biden drawing a significant amount of support from people who want to abolish the police.

The Rise of Private Prisons

You cannot have a discussion on the prison-industrial complex without discussing private prisons. As of 2018, private prisons housed 8.41 percent of incarcerated persons in the United States. While private prisons date back to the colonial days, the modern privatized prisons as we think of them only date back to the 1980s. This was initially due to the explosion of the prison population and the resulting prison overcrowding that some have tied to the War on Some Drugs.

This spike in incarceration, however, is far more closely tied with the rise of private prisons. Between the years 1925 and 1980, the prison population in the United States remained constant as a proportion of the overall population. In 1983, however, two things happened: First, the first private prisons came into operation. Second, the prison population as a proportion of the overall population began to explode.

The first modern private incarceration company was Corrections Corporation of America (CCA), founded in 1983, and is currently known as CoreCivic. Their first contract was for a facility in Shelby County, Tennessee. This was the first time in American history when a government-run jail was contracted out to a private third party. The company made quick headlines when it offered to take over the entire prison system for the state for the sum of $200 million. The state, for its part, was quite ready to make a deal, but the backlash among the public, the prison guards union, and the state legislature ultimately squashed the deal.

This was hardly the end of the for-profit prison system. Fully 19 percent of all federal inmates are housed in privately owned and operated prisons. A comparatively lower 6.8 percent of all state inmates are housed in private prisons.

Since its founding, CoreCivic has seen a 200-percent increase in its profits. So it’s no surprise that the marketplace for private prison companies has become a bit crowded. Companies like the GEO Group, Inc. (formerly known as Wackenhut Securities), Management and Training Corporation (MTC), and Community Education Centers compete in a marketplace that took in $500 billion in 2011 alone according to Matt Taibbi’s book The Divide: American Injustice in the Age of the Wealth Gap.

The book further points out that major Wall Street money has flowed into this industry. Wells Fargo alone has $100 million invested in GEO Group and another $6 million in CCA. Fidelity Investments, The Vanguard Group, General Electric and Bank of America are likewise heavily invested in private prisons.

Some other numbers give a bit of shape to the scale of private prisons: CoreCivic has 80,000 beds in 65 different facilities. The GEO Group has 49,000 beds spread out over 57 correctional facilities. Most private facilities are in the West and the Southwest, where state and federal prisons freely mingle with one another.

Private Prisons Are Not Safe

Private prisons are, by virtually every metric, a worse place to hang your hat than government prisons. A United States Department of Justice report in 2016 found that private prisons were less secure, less safe, and more punitive than government-run prisons. The DOJ stated that it would cease the use of private prisons. However, soon thereafter, the Department of Homeland Security announced that it would renew its contract with CCA operation of the South Texas Family Residential Center, an immigration detention facility. Stock prices for private incarceration firms spiked upon the election of Donald Trump. President Trump’s Attorney General Jeff Sessions overturned the previous ban on private prisons.

The lax culture of safety and security in private prisons is not just a problem for the inmates. It’s also a problem for the people in the communities where the prisons are located. For example, three murderers escaped from a minimum/medium-security prison – Kingman Arizona State Prison – in Mojave, Arizona. This resulted in a murder, robbery and carjacking before the men were captured. State Attorney General, Terry Goddard, laid the blame at the feet of the private prison system, which he said was not adequate for the task of incarcerating these kinds of hardened criminals.

The state did an extensive report on this prison after the jailbreak, which found a number of problems with the privately-run prison:

  • The prison’s alarm system sent off so many false alarms that prison guards simply began ignoring them.
  • Eight of the floodlights used on the prison yard were burnt out.
  • Prison guards weren’t properly armed, nor were they properly trained with firearms.
  • 75 percent of all inmates in the facility did not have the appropriate identification.

While it’s certainly true that government-run prisons are far from perfect, and often have budgetary issues, it’s hard to ignore the potential corner-cutting that may have led to this escape and the subsequent deaths.

Then, of course, there was the “kids for cash” scandal. The short version of the story is that two judges in Pennsylvania were receiving kickbacks for sending children to private prison facilities. Millions of dollars were processed to the two judges for giving out prison time for such offenses as mocking an assistant principal on MySpace and trespassing in an abandoned building. The two judges were sentenced to a combined 45.5 years in prison. Every juvenile offender who appeared before the judges had their convictions overturned, and a class-action lawsuit is currently pending.

Unsurprisingly, cost-benefit analysis of private prisons tends to have a “both sides” feel about them. Studies funded by the industry frequently tout the cost benefits of private operation. Studies funded by state-funded institutions, such as universities, tend to paint private prisons as bloated and inefficient.

Prison Guard Unions and Private Prisons Lobbying Elected Officials

Anywhere government money is being spent or the state is picking winners and losers, there you will find lobbying. Like the military-industrial complex, private prisons are no exception to this rule. The two largest private prison corporations have put more than $10 million into electing favorable candidates since 1989, and more than $25 million into lobbying.

Marco Rubio is an excellent example of the power of the private prison lobby. He has very close ties to the GEO Group, the second-largest for-profit prison company in the United States. GEO was the recipient of a state contract for a $110 million prison during Rubio’s tenure as the Speaker of the House in Florida. This right after Rubio hired an economic consultant with close ties to the company, which has donated nearly $40,000 to his various political campaigns as of 2015. This makes him the politician with the closest financial relationship to the private prison industry.

The private incarceration industry has stepped up their lobbying game during the Trump Administration, with the GEO Group spending $1.3 million on lobbying between January and September 2017. That topped the total from the previous year, which was $1 million.

The timing of the increase in lobbying funds is worth considering. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) was looking to build five new detention centers at the time. Unsurprisingly, companies started lobbying hard to be the ones to build and operate these new facilities. That’s over 54,000 beds. What’s more, ICE is the number-one customer for the GEO Group, which is based in Florida.

Rubio is hardly the only politician to receive funding from private prison companies that claim to never attempt to influence policy in any way other than trying to get contracts for private prison operation. Chuck Schumer has received over $100,000 in donations from both the GEO Group and CCA.

While private prison operations companies claim they do not attempt to influence public policy beyond trying to get those lucrative contracts, the same cannot be said for prison guard unions. The California prison guards union spent $100,000 in 1994 trying to get the three strikes law passed. This was the first of its kind, but quickly became the gold standard across the nation. 28 states have such laws as of 2018. The same union spent over $1 million to defeat Prop 5, which, if passed, would have reduced sentences for nonviolent crimes and created more drug addiction treatment resources in the state. Another $1 million was spent to defeat Prop 66, a measure designed to reduce the number of crimes carrying mandatory life sentences.

Modern Prison Labor

Because compulsory, unpaid prison labor is not prohibited by the United States Constitution, some have argued that prison labor is a continuation of chattel slavery.

However, prisoners are not owned by the state. What’s more, they are generally paid – albeit between $0.12 and $0.40 per hour. Prisoners, when taken as a whole, represent the third largest labor pool in the world. And while they engage in all kinds of labor, it tends to be manually intensive, low-skilled, deeply unpleasant and highly profitable for the corporations who are able to take advantage of it.

The days of prisoners making license plates and breaking rocks are long gone. Employers now receive a substantial tax credit ($2,400) for work-release labor. There’s even a euphemism for private companies who take advantage of prison labor – “Prison insourcing” – and it’s becoming increasingly popular with large firms. The list of organizations with significant prison labor includes popular brands like Whole Foods, Target, Starbucks, Victoria’s Secret, McDonald’s, IBM, Honda, Texas Instruments, Boeing, Nordstrom, Intel, Aramark, AT&T, BP, Microsoft, Nike, Macy’s, Wal-Mart and Sprint.

Prison labor is not without its benefits for the prisoners or for society at large. It can be a valuable outlet for prisoners, keeping them from getting into trouble and teaching them new skills. What’s more, many inmates have never had a legal job before. This means they have to learn the most basic aspects of holding down a job – like showing up on time, working with others as a team, and listening to instructions from a supervisor. Many studies show that prison employment leads to reduced recidivism rates.

While companies profit from prison labor, they’re also cleaning up in other ways. JPay, which began as a way to wire money to people on the inside, has seen rapid success with a monopoly on how prisoners’ friends and family can communicate with them inside some state prison systems. All told, JPay had contracts with 21 state correctional facility systems and a number of private facilities as of August 2018. With no paper mail allowed, JPay charges per electronic message – making the company millions, and making prisoners the ultimate captive audience.

Federal Prison Reform

Passed in 2018, the First Step Act was a bipartisan bill to save money by reducing prison sentences. It reduces mandatory sentences, cutting a collective 53,000 years off existing sentences over the next 10 years. It creates sentencing disparity between powder and crack cocaine, and reduces recidivism rates. And it decreases the “three strikes” penalty for drug felonies from life to 25 years.

But not everyone thinks this reform bill is a “first step” in the right direction. Since it doesn’t apply to local jails or state prisons, those skeptical of this new legislation have pointed out that it only affects about 10 percent of the country’s incarcerated population – hardly a dent. Many also disagree with the fact that this bill will release high-risk inmates and offenders.

Libertarian magazine Reason is in favor of more reform. A 2016 article asked the question “Should Felons Get Their Gun Rights Back?” The argument is roughly the same as that of restoring voting rights to felons: Once people have served their time and been released, society assumes that the ledger has been balanced. If someone cannot be trusted to own firearms once they have been released from prison (presumably because they are dangerous), why are they out on the street and not in a cell?

For those interested in Second Amendment freedom, all of this is important. In a sense, the gun grabbers are getting through our prison-industrial complex what they cannot get through either the legislature or the courts – a disarmed populace.

Locked Up: How the Modern Prison-Industrial Complex Puts So Many Americans in Jail originally appeared in The Resistance Library at Ammo.com.

Share
Categories
Defund the police Intelwars Minneapolis Police

Minneapolis City Council trashed cops and threatened to defund them. As crime rises, they’re forced to outsource for police.

Minneapolis, where the cry to “defund the police” really got rolling, is facing a police shortage and that has led to a serious crime problem. So now it looks like the city will be forced to outsource its police work at a cost of $500,000 for a month and a half of work, WCCO-TV reported.

What happened?

In the wake of the death of George Floyd in late May, the Minneapolis City Council loudly and proudly declared it was time to “defund the police.”

The emotional calls to gut city law enforcement were echoed with anti-police protests and riots in Minnesota’s Twin Cities that eventually spread across the nation.

The council promised the city’s anti-police citizens that they would dismantle the city’s policing systems. Then, in June, the council voted unanimously to adopt a resolution officially committing to replace the Minneapolis Police Department with a “community safety” model.

The city council’s moves and the “defund the police” crowd’s demands were successful in cutting the number of police. They were so successful, in fact, that in September, as crime was spiking in Minneapolis, members of the city council were demanding to know: “Where are the police?

Minneapolis Police Chief Medaria Arradondo told them exactly where they were: gone.

When Arradondo explained to the council that its actions had repercussions, he noted that more than 100 officers had left the department, which was more than double the usual number.

In October, several residents sued the city over insufficient policing that has left them fearing for their safety as violent crime has surged. The lawsuit also claimed that there are now fewer officers employed in the MPD than what is required by the city charter.

What will the city council do?

The Minneapolis Star Tribune reported Monday night that the anti-police mayor and city council are looking at bringing in officers from other jurisdictions to help the MPD take on the crime wave and cop shortage.

The plan would pull in cops from the Hennepin County Sheriff’s Office and Metro Transit Police for temporary work with the city, mostly responding to violent 911 calls using Joint Enforcement Teams, the Star Tribune said.

According to the paper, the planned teams would form Sunday and run through the end of the year.

The seven-week contract policing plan would cost the city $497,000.

The vote on the plan is expected to happen Friday and be sent to the mayor for approval, WCCO said.

Share
Categories
Biden campaign collision Donald Trump Intelwars Police Texas Trump caravan watch

White SUV reportedly driven by Biden-Harris staffer ‘may be’ at fault for collision with Trump supporter’s truck during caravan, cops say

Dying-on-their-hills Democrats have been beside themselves since video surfaced over the weekend showing vehicles festooned with flags supporting President Donald Trump surrounding a Joe Biden-Kamala Harris campaign bus on Interstate 35 in Texas.

The chairwoman of the Travis County Democratic Party claimed, “Today, @realDonaldTrump supporters followed the Biden bus throughout central Texas to intimidate Biden supporters. They ran into a person’s car, yelling curse words and threats. Don’t let bullies win, vote.”

There was even video of a terrible, horrible, no good, very bad Trump supporter in a black pickup bashing into a white SUV, which some members of the Texas Democrats’ campaign say was being driven by a Biden-Harris staffer, KXAN-TV reported:


FBI investigating alleged harassment of Biden campaign bus in Texas

youtu.be

But it seems an honest look at the infamy-filled moment could possibly lead one to conclude that the white SUV maybe, just maybe, wasn’t staying in his or her lane — as leftists are so fond of saying these days. After which the driver of the black pickup made sure the other driver didn’t get any closer.

Conservative commentator Dana Loesch tweeted images of the incident that appear to show as much:

Was it distracted driving on the part of the person operating the white SUV? A big ol’ Texas bug on the steering wheel? Or is said motorist simply a Dallas Cowboys fan?

Listen to what the man said

In regard to the collision in question, San Marcos police said they researched the crash and watched online video and said “the at-fault vehicle may be the white SUV, and the victim appears to be the black truck,” KXAN reported.

Police added that “calls to the driver of the white SUV have gone unanswered, and SMPD has not been contacted by the driver of the black truck. Since SMPD has not spoken to either driver at this time, additional investigation would be required to fully ascertain who was at fault,” the station noted.

The statement added that involved parties could contact San Marcos police if they wanted to file a report, KXAN said.

Anything else?

The incident led the Biden campaign to cancel three Texas events on Friday. Trump, as you might imagine, loved the show of support:

Trump also tweeted that his supporters on the highway “did nothing wrong”:

The FBI is reportedly looking into the incident.

Share
Categories
Antifa Antifa violence cops Intelwars New York City NYPD Police President Trump thin blue line Trump caravan

Far-left agitators call for death of ‘Nazi’ cops, scream at NYPD: ‘Hope all of your children get raped and killed’

Deplorable demonstrators hurled vicious slurs and made heinous remarks to the faces of NYPD officers on Saturday. Malicious members of an anti-Trump and “anti-fascist” mob wished death upon the children of police officers.

There was an anti-Trump march in Manhattan on Saturday against “racism” and fascism, where the crowd chanted: “Black lives matter!” The march was organized by the United Against Racism and Fascism NYC, a self-proclaimed “broad-based coalition in NYC opposing racism & bigotry, and united in solidarity & action against fascism.” The march was promoted by the “New York City Antifa” Twitter account.

At one point, the demonstration escalated, and the situation became physical. NYPD officers are seen detaining at least one person. The New York Post reported that three people were arrested as of 2 p.m. on Sunday.

(Content Warning: Graphic video)

Radical far-left agitators arrived and spewed extremely hateful and vile anti-cop rhetoric. “The only good cop is a dead cop,” one man screams. A woman echoes the anti-police sentiment and yells at police, adding derogatory comments about the cops’ mother and grandparents. Another man in the group calls the police “Nazi f***s.”

The woman with pink hair is seen viciously screeching at the police, “I hope all of your children get raped and killed.”

The mob chanted: “How do you spell NAZI? N-Y-P-D!”

One man challenges an NYPD officer and then meekly runs away once the cop starts heading towards him. The man nearly gets run over by an SUV as he timidly flees through an intersection.

On Saturday night, the New York City Antifa Twitter account informed its over 62,000 followers about various MAGA caravans that would be driving around New York City and New Jersey. The Antifa account even included routes that the pro-Trump car parades would take so that members of the far-left group could mobilize to disrupt the caravan.

On Sunday, Antifa members claimed that they forced the Trump caravan to alter its routes and celebrated the news.

There was a massive Trump caravan that stopped traffic on the Gov. Mario Cuomo Bridge.

Share
Categories
2020 Election Election crime Election protests Election riots election violence Intelwars NYPD Police

Police departments across the nation preparing for election violence: ‘I don’t think we’ve seen anything like this in modern times’

Tensions are sky-high heading into the 2020 election, and those combustible forces will be inflamed once the winner of the presidential race is officially announced.

Businesses in major American cities have already started to board up their storefronts in anticipation of potential riots from the election. Law enforcement agencies across the country are also preparing for the worst-case scenario, which could mean widespread violence stemming from the presidential election.

“I don’t think we’ve seen ­anything like this in modern times,” Andrew Walsh, a deputy chief with the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, told The Washington Post. “When you look at previous elections, there’s always been the concern when you have large crowds . . . we know [that] can be a target for someone who has an agenda.”

Walsh is concerned that the results of the race likely won’t be available on election night, which could exacerbate the already bellicose situation.

“We just don’t know how long this is going to take, or what this is going to look like, once this is over … and no matter who wins, somebody’s not going to be happy,” said Walsh, who heads the Las Vegas Police Department’s homeland security division.

The New York City Police Department said it would dispatch officers at each of the city’s 1,201 polling locations on Election Day.

“It is no secret that this election is more contentious [than] in years past,” said NYPD Chief of Department Terence Monahan. “For that reason … our plan also includes the ability to respond to any type of incident that may occur.”

Washington, D.C., canceled days off for police officers starting this weekend. The nation’s capital “spent $100,000 on less-than-lethal munitions and chemical irritants for riot control to replenish a stockpile depleted by clashes over the summer,” The Washington Post reports.

“It is widely believed that there will be civil unrest after the November election regardless of who wins,” said D.C. Police Chief Peter Newsham. “It is also believed that there is a strong chance of unrest when Washington, D.C., hosts the inauguration in January.”

According to Chicago Police Superintendent David Brown, the department has canceled all days off for its force in November.

Brown said police and emergency responders are training for “whatever scenario happens on Election Day.”

“Many cities across the country are doing similar planning,” Brown said. “We are all in conversations with our counterparts across the country about what we might expect, but everything is uncertain, and so we’re trying as best we can to anticipate any hazard that might happen, including a weather hazard, snow might happen in our city, along with anything related to protests, embedded agitators that might loot or cause violence or destroy property.”

The Boston Police Department canceled officers’ time off around the election “to provide sufficient public safety.”

Boston Mayor Marty Walsh said his administration is planning for potential violence stemming from the election.

“What is kind of alarming to me is that the preparation that we’re putting into this election we’ve never had to put into an election before,” Walsh said. “I certainly wasn’t asked in 2016, ‘What’s your safety plan for Election Day?'”

Austin Police Department Assistant Chief Joseph Chacon said the department would be on “tactical alert” during the week of the election, and that every officer would be made available to respond to civil unrest.

As early as this weekend, the Texas National Guard plans to send up to 1,000 troops to five cities: Austin, Dallas, Fort Worth, Houston, and San Antonio.

The Beverly Hills City Council approved “an additional $4.8 million for supplemental police and security services in anticipation of the potential civil unrest around the presidential race,” including “hiring two private armed security firms,” according to the Beverly Hills Courier.

For the first time in Denver’s history, the city is establishing a police command center in preparation for potential post-election unrest.

Denver’s Public Safety Director Murphy Robinson said he is aware of two planned protests on Election Day with upwards of 2,000 people each.

A report from The Federalist states that insurgent groups against President Donald Trump have already planned Election Day turmoil to “make sure Trump leaves the White House.”

“[W]e’re making plans to be in the streets before the polls even close, ready to adapt and respond to whatever comes our way,” the group Shut Down DC said on its website. The purpose of the gathering is to “be together to process our feelings of hope, anger, fear and exhaustion as a community.”

The New Jersey Department of Homeland Security and Preparedness issued a threat assessment in September that warned about “threats from domestic extremists and foreign adversaries have emerged due to the COVID-19 pandemic, anti-government sentiment, nationwide civil unrest, and various forms of disinformation. These threats will begin to converge with the Presidential election in November in a manner not previously experienced by our nation.”

Share
Categories
federal courts Intelwars Police Police State qualified immunity

Police Lobby Groups Lie to Protect Qualified Immunity

Various police lobbies have aggressively opposed efforts to eliminate the qualified immunity defense. Along the way, they have told outright lies.

Qualified immunity is a legal doctrine that shields cops from civil (not criminal) liability for actions taken in the line of duty unless they violate constitutional or statutory rights “clearly established” by existing judicial precedent. No statute exists granting qualified immunity. It evolved over time based on a series of Supreme Court cases.

In 1982, Harlow v. Fitzgerald established qualified immunity for federal government officials and set the stage for the current definition of qualified immunity. The Court held that government actors are entitled to qualified immunity due to “the need to protect officials who are required to exercise discretion and the related public interest in encouraging the vigorous exercise of official authority.”

“Government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” [Empashis added]

In practice, courts analyze qualified immunity cases under a test established in Graham v. Connor (1989) to determine whether an officer violated a “clearly established” constitutional right. Ilan Wurman explained the test in a paper titled Qualified Immunity and Statutory Interpretation published by the Seattle Law Review.

“The test requires courts to undertake an objective analysis of the circumstances surrounding the use of force. Even if a court decides that the use of force was unreasonable and thus unconstitutional, the second step of the inquiry is the qualified immunity analysis: Was it ‘clearly established‘ that this kind of force in this kind of circumstance is unconstitutional? If not, the officer escapes liability.” [Emphasis added]

In simple terms, “clearly established” means a court has previously held that a specific action has already been deemed unconstitutional in essentially the same circumstances as the current case. Wurman argues that the “clearly established” test erects an extremely high hurdle to those trying to prove excessive force or a violation of their rights.

“The qualified immunity test poses an almost insurmountable analytical problem—the permutations are infinite. A given situation is rarely exactly like another. There will always be sufficient distinguishing facts to decide that there was no clearly established law.”

Police Lies

A strong push for justice system reform, including the elimination of qualified immunity, exploded in the wake of the death of Geroge Floyd. Colorado recently passed a law creating a state cause of action in state courts to sue police officers when they infringe on “any constitutional right secured by the bill of rights of the Colorado constitution.” The law specifically states that qualified immunity “is not a defense” to such civil action. Other states are considering similar legislation. Four separate bills have been introduced in Congress.

Unsurprisingly, law enforcement lobby groups have aggressively opposed ending qualified immunity. Cops like the legal doctrine for obvious reasons. It provides a Teflon-coated legal shield making it very difficult for any claim for damages to stick. In effect, it allows cops to act aggressively and violate people’s rights with impunity.

In their zeal to maintain their legal protections, some of these law enforcement lobbyists outright lie.

Cato Institute policy analyst Jay Schweikert chronicled some of the “misrepresentations” about qualified immunity made by law enforcement lobby groups.

One of the biggest whoppers is that eliminating qualified immunity would open the door for police officers to be thrown in prison just for doing their jobs. The National Association of Police Organizations (“NAPO”)  spun this yarn in a letter of opposition to the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act signed by the organization’s executive director and general counsel William F. Johnson.

“With the change to qualified immunity, an officer can go to prison for an unintentional act that unknowingly broke an unknown law. We believe in holding officers accountable for their actions, but the consequence of this would be making criminals out of decent cops enforcing the laws in good faith.”

This is an absurd statement. Qualified immunity has nothing to do with criminal liability. It only applies in civil cases.

As Schweikert points out, Johnson certainly knows this is B.S.

” It beggars belief to think that he is unaware that qualified immunity is a civil doctrine, not a bar to criminal prosecution.”

Johnson was also quoted in a Washington Times article.

“You’ve got federal lawmakers proposing a federal law that says that even when the federal law is so unclear as to be unknowable by any reasonable officer, that officer can still go to prison for an unintentional act that unknowingly broke an unknown law.” [Emphasis added]

Schweikert called the assertion “astounding.”

“One of the largest police organizations in the country is opposing qualified immunity reform based on the clearly erroneous assertion that the doctrine has anything to do with criminal prosecution,” he wrote.

Police lobbyists also claim that ending qualified immunity will subject cops who haven’t violated anybody’s constitutional rights to civil damages. This is untrue. The legal doctrine is a shield for officers who have violated a person’s rights. As Schweikert explains, “The doctrine of qualified immunity only matters when a public official has, in fact, violated someone’s federally protected rights. If a police officer hasn’t committed any constitutional violation in the first place, then they don’t need qualified immunity, because they haven’t broken the law at all.”

Nevertheless, police lobbyists often claim qualified immunity merely protects officers who have acted “reasonably” or who haven’t violated the law. A Massachusetts police union that represents Boston police officers made the following statement in opposition to reforms in their state.

“To be clear, Qualified Immunity is a bedrock protection extended to all public employees. Not just police officers. It does not protect bad cops. In fact, it only protects police officers who act reasonably and within the rules and regulations of their respective departments.”

It’s true that qualified immunity applies to all public officials, but Schweikert calls the last part of the statement “nonsense.”

“The claim that qualified immunity only applies when officers “act reasonably and within the rules and regulations of their respective departments” is a pure invention, directly at odds with actual case law.”

The Indiana State Police Association (“ISPA”) made a similar assertion in a statement in opposition to the “Reforming Qualified Immunity Act.”

“While there is no doubt that bad actors have brought this issue to the forefront, we believe that qualified immunity serves to protect all police officers legitimately performing their duties, and it allows the public to recover damages in cases where an officer has violated the person’s rights.” [Emphasis added]

Schweikert wrote that this isn’t just wrong.

“It is basically the exact opposite of what qualified immunity actually does. … Qualified immunity only matters when a public official has violated someone’s constitutional rights, but where a court finds that right was not ‘clearly established.’ Police officers who are ‘legitimately performing their duties’ — i.e., acting lawfully — do not need qualified immunity because, by definition, they’re not violating anyone’s rights in the first place.”

Here’s another statement, this one by Deputy Attorney General of the United States Jeffrey Rosen in an op-ed for the New York Post opposing qualified immunity reform.

“Qualified immunity is a legal doctrine that prevents law-enforcement officers and other officials from being personally subjected to civil lawsuits when they have acted lawfully and haven’t violated clearly established rights. . . . Officers should be — and are — held accountable when they violate the law. They shouldn’t also have to worry about being personally sued for doing their jobs, when they follow the law.” [Emphasis added]

Again, qualified immunity is not a protection for officers who have “acted lawfully.” As Schweikert points out, “The entire point of the doctrine is to protect officers who have broken the law, but where they violated rights that were not “clearly established.” As the Deputy Attorney General and a former adjunct law professor at Georgetown, Mr. Rosen surely knows better.”

Police organizations are among the most powerful lobbyists in the American political system and they almost always oppose reforms that would strengthen the protection of individual rights. They generally lobby against asset forfeiture reform, limits on surveillance, ending police militarization, barring enforcement of unconstitutional gun control and anything that will limit the growing national police state.

And as we have seen – they don’t hesitate to misrepresent the facts in order to block necessary reforms.

Share
Categories
ban City Council Intelwars pepper spray Philadelphia riots Police rubber bullets tear gas Walter wallace jr

Amid rioting and violence, Philly City Council actually passes ban on cops using tear gas, pepper spray, rubber bullets

In the middle of week marked by rioting, looting, and violence, Philadelphia City Council on Thursday passed a ban on police using non-lethal munitions such as tear gas, pepper spray, and rubber bullets on protesters and demonstrators.

What are the details?

The legislation is in reaction to incidents between officers and protesters following the death of George Floyd earlier this year,
WPVI-TV reported, and was approved by the council’s public safety committee last week.

Of course, the rioting that’s gripped the city this week stems from
police fatally shooting Walter Wallace Jr., a black man who approached officers while reportedly armed with a knife.

Content warning: Language:


Philadelphia Police Are Outnumbered By Hundreds Of Rioters.

youtu.be

Still, councilmembers praised their ban.

“The ban passes at a time of demonstrations and unrest after the police shooting of Walter Wallace Jr., and days before an election where demonstrations are expected regardless of the result,” council said in a press release, WPVI noted.

Councilmember Helen Gym said such a ban would help reestablish trust between the public and law enforcement, the station said: “Residential neighborhoods are not war zones. Demonstrators are not enemy combatants.”

Content warning: Language:

“This is a first step in working with our communities to build a new model for public safety that is driven by their needs and their vision for the future,” Gym also stated in the release, WPVI noted.

City Council said Philadelphia would be the largest American city to enact such a ban. The station said it’s awaiting word from Mayor Jim Kenney’s office to see if he’ll sign the bill.

Pushback

Roosevelt Poplar, vice president of the Fraternal Order of Police, told WPVI the whole point of “less than lethal” force for crowd control is to keep the public as safe as possible during potentially dangerous situations.

“So, basically, you’re taking away non-lethal munitions, and you’re leaving them with only one tool, and that’s a deadly weapon tool, which is a gun,” Poplar added to the station.

Anything else?

One of the first questions following Wallace’s fatal shooting is why the involved officers didn’t use tasers — and Philadelphia Police Commissioner Danielle Outlaw said
the two officers who shot Wallace weren’t carrying tasers — and many other officers don’t carry them, either.

Complicating issues between cops on the ground and their superiors was a tweet from WTXF-TV reporter Steve Keeley that officers were “extremely frustrated” after Deputy Police Commissioner Melvin Singleton allegedly
ordered both patrol and commanding officers to “not arrest looters just disperse them.”

“By the order of CAR-2, Philadelphia Police will respond to ‘priority’ calls only,” the alleged directive from the department obtained by Keeley said. “This means no calls for disturbance, missing person, stolen vehicle, burglary or theft will be answered.”

Keeley added that some officers believe the order “leaves no deterrent to stop looting.”


At least 30 officers hurt in Philadelphia riots after police kill Black man

youtu.be

Share
Categories
Black Lives Matter Intelwars Philadelphia looting Philadelphia police Philadelphia riots Police

Report: Philadelphia PD ordered officers not to arrest rioters and looters — just disperse them — as city was ransacked

As looters and rioters ransacked the city of Philadelphia again Tuesday night in response to the deadly police shooting of Walter Wallace Jr., the city police’s response was reportedly obstructed by their own deputy commissioner.

WTXF-TV reporter Steve Keeley tweeted Wednesday morning that police officers were “extremely frustrated” after Deputy Police Commissioner Melvin Singleton allegedly ordered both patrol and commanding officers to “not arrest looters just disperse them.”

“By the order of CAR-2, Philadelphia Police will respond to ‘priority’ calls only,” the alleged directive from the department obtained by Keeley said. “This means no calls for disturbance, missing person, stolen vehicle, burglary or theft will be answered.”

Keeley added that some officers believe the order “leaves no deterrent to stop looting.”

It was not immediately clear if and when the order became effective, as police made at least 90 arrests, most for burglary, during Monday’s riots. However, Keeley’s tweet seems to indicate that the order was given heading into Tuesday night.

Rioters first took to the streets Monday night after video of 27-year-old Wallace’s death went viral on social media. In the video, Wallace appeared to be walking toward police as they yell at him and eventually open fire. The officers said that Wallace was carrying a knife and refused to drop it as he approached them.

Philadelphia police reported that on Monday night alone at least 30 officers were injured amid the chaos and lawlessness. Videos on social media showed rioters and looters facing little resistance as they burnt property and ransacked shops.

BlazeTV’s Elijah Schaffer recorded Black Lives Matter protesters chanting, “Every city, every town, burn the precincts to the ground!”

Schaffer was later attacked by a mob while recording looters inside a Philadelphia Five Below store, resulting in a bloody mouth and swollen lip.

Schaffer described the assault in a video posted on Twitter, in which he said he “was jumped by BLM rioters while they were looting more than a dozen stores, including Wal-Matt [sic], T-Mobile, & 5-below.”

Share
Categories
Constitution Facial Recognition Intelwars Police Police State qualified immunity Surveillance trump

Trump’s Plan to Expand the National Police-State

A draft report from the Presidential Commission on Law Enforcement and the Administration of Justice reveals the Trump administration’s plan to further expand the national police state, with an emphasis on supporting and expanding qualified immunity and facial recognition.

The president formed the commission via executive order in January. A federal judge recently blocked the release of the commission’s report due to a lack of diversity on the panel and evidence that it operated in secrecy in violation of public meeting laws.

The court order stemmed from a lawsuit filed by the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund (NAACP LDF). The suit claimed the commission failed to provide proper notice of public hearing and that it gave too much influence to law enforcement interests in violation of laws dictating how federal advisory committees must operate.

According to a Reuters report, “The panel’s 18 commissioners include federal, state and local law enforcement representatives, but no civil rights advocates, defense attorneys or big-city police officials.”

Through an open records request, Reuters obtained a draft of the commission’s report, revealing a plan to further empower law enforcement in the United States. A New York Times op-ed declared, “The president’s commission was considering recommendations that could transform this nation into a dystopian police state.”

The report recommends increasing “due process” protections for police offers facing charges of misconduct, and called on the Justice Department to regularly affirm support for qualified immunity.

Federal courts created the qualified immunity legal defense and applied it across the U.S. through in incorporation doctrine. In practice, the federal courts have cemented a system in place that gives law enforcement officers almost complete immunity and allows them to violate any individual’s rights with virtual impunity. The problem isn’t a lack of due process for cops; it is a system that gives them almost unlimited protections. The commission’s recommendations not only affirms the system but would give even more power to police.

For instance, according to Reuters, “proposals included allowing officers accused of wrongdoing to view body camera footage before speaking to internal investigators.”

The report also calls for increased federal funding for facial recognition technologies even as many states are working to limit or ban their use.

The federal government has been developing a massive, nationwide facial recognition system for years. The FBI rolled out a nationwide facial-recognition program in the fall of 2014, with the goal of building a giant biometric database with pictures provided by the states and corporate friends.

In 2016, the Center on Privacy and Technology at Georgetown Law released “The Perpetual Lineup,” a massive report on law enforcement use of facial recognition technology in the U.S. You can read the complete report at perpetuallineup.org. The organization conducted a year-long investigation and collected more than 15,000 pages of documents through more than 100 public records requests. The report paints a disturbing picture of intense cooperation between the federal government, and state and local law enforcement to develop a massive facial recognition database.

“Face recognition is a powerful technology that requires strict oversight. But those controls, by and large, don’t exist today,” report co-author Clare Garvie said. “With only a few exceptions, there are no laws governing police use of the technology, no standards ensuring its accuracy, and no systems checking for bias. It’s a wild west.”

There are many technical and legal problems with facial recognition, including significant concerns about the accuracy of the technology, particularly when reading the facial features of minority populations. During a test run by the ACLU of Northern California, facial recognition misidentified 26 members of the California legislature as people in a database of arrest photos.

With facial recognition technology, police and other government officials have the capability to track individuals in real-time. These systems allow law enforcement agents to use video cameras and continually scan everybody who walks by. According to the report, several major police departments have expressed an interest in this type of real-time tracking. Documents revealed agencies in at least five major cities, including Los Angeles, either claimed to run real-time face recognition off of street cameras, bought technology with the capability, or expressed written interest in buying it.

The federal government heavily involves itself in helping state and local agencies obtain this technology. The commission report recommends ramping it up even further.

The commission also wants to strip away privacy protections and make it easier for cops to access encrypted information on your phone.

Not only does the Presidential Commission on Law Enforcement and the Administration of Justice propose policies that will expand the ever-growing national police-state, but it also represents a further expansion of unconstitutional federal power. The federal government has no constitutional role in state and local policing. Police powers were among the powers supporters of the Constitution specifically said would remain with state governments.

The federal government has monopolized education, healthcare, environmental regulation, the economy, and more. Now it’s in the process of monopolizing law enforcement. Given the fed’s track record on everything else it controls, we should be wary of this movement to nationalize policing. It won’t end well.

 

Share
Categories
attack CANADA Indigenous People Intelwars Leftists Ontario Police Violence against police watch

VIDEO: Thugs brazenly smash Canadian police cruiser with rocks, lacrosse stick while cops manage to stay calm in their seats

Two males were caught on video recently walking up to a parked Ontario (Canada) Provincial Police cruiser and smashing it with rocks and a lacrosse stick while officers stayed calm in their seats.

What are the details?

The incident occurred in Caledonia — about 60 miles southwest of Toronto and about the same distance west of Niagara Falls, New York — where tensions regarding an indigenous land dispute have been reemerging, CTV News reported.

It isn’t clear when the incident occurred, but video of it was posted Sunday afternoon on OPP Commissioner Thomas Carrique’s Twitter page.

The officer behind the steering wheel calmly radios that “the male with camo is throwing rocks at us” as a second male dressed in dark clothing walks to the driver-side door, tells the cops to leave, and repeatedly pounds the driver-side window with the butt of a lacrosse stick and uses it to hit the hood.

The clip presumably was recorded on cellphone by an officer in the cruiser’s passenger seat.

Image source: Twitter video screenshot via @OPPCommissioner

The male dressed in camouflage soon walks up to the cruiser and chucks a rock at the windshield, which cracks upon impact.

Image source: Twitter video screenshot via @OPPCommissioner

The male in camo also punches the passenger-side window before the first male resumes pounding on the hood — as well as the passenger-side window — with his lacrosse stick.

The whole time the officer on the radio keeps calmly relaying what’s going on: “A lacrosse stick is hitting our cruiser.”

Finally, when the male with the lacrosse stick returns to the driver-side window to pound it, he appears to take off running as the officer begins to open the door.

Here’s the video:

“Protestors falsely blamed #OPP for escalation in #Caledonia,” Carrique tweeted. “Extremely proud of my officers for their professional and measured response to keep the peace & preserve life while under attack. Arrests continue as members take responsible and sustained enforcement approach.”

What happened next?

What the video doesn’t show is that while attempting to arrest the assailants, additional protesters targeted the officers, police told CTV News.

Carrique told the station one protester continued to throw pieces of lumber at police — who responded by firing a single round of a rubber, non-lethal projectile, which struck the demonstrator in the leg, after which the demonstrator fled.

Police told CTV News another officer used a Taser to control an aggressive subject, but added it was ineffective due to the person’s heavy clothing.

Cops identified the male with the lacrosse stick, and he will be facing charges, OPP Sgt. Kerry Schmidt confirmed to CTV News, adding that police are trying to identify the male in camouflage clothing.

Share
Categories
Bill de Blasio Campaign 2020 Donald Trump Intelwars New York City NYPD Police

‘Trump 2020’: Mayor Bill de Blasio vows swift action against NYPD officer caught praising Trump

New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio is promising swift action against a New York City police officer who was caught on camera saying “Trump 2020.”

What are the details?

Multiple videos uploaded to social media showed a NYPD officer say “Trump 2020” over the loudspeaker in his patrol car while two additional NYPD officers conversed outside the vehicle.

The incident happened in Brooklyn Saturday night.

“Do it again. What? You can’t say ‘Trump 2020’ now, you f***ing p****?” the man behind the camera in the first video said. “Say it again.”

When the officer repeated the phrase, the cameraman responded, “Go f*** yourself you f***ing fascist.”

Another video uploaded to Twitter captured the incident from a different angle. The video, taken from the window of a nearby apartment, showed what happened after the first video ended.

“Trump 2020. Put it on YouTube, put it on Facebook. Trump 2020,” the NYPD officer said over the loudspeaker. “Take a picture, take a picture, take a video, put it on your Facebook, put it on YouTube. Have some fun.”

What was the reaction?

Enraged city leaders, including the mayor, are vowing action against the officer, and the NYPD said they are investigating the incident.

According to the New York Post, “NYPD strictly forbids officers from expressing political views or endorsing candidates.”

In response, de Blasio promised New York City residents that the city would take immediate action against the police officer.

“Let me be clear: ANY NYPD Officer pushing ANY political agenda while on duty will face consequences. We will act fast here, and this will not be tolerated,” de Blasio said.

Top NYPD brass also scolded the officer.

NYPD Commissioner Dermot Shea said, “One hundred percent unacceptable. Period. Law Enforcement must remain apolitical, it is essential in our role to serve ALL New Yorkers regardless of any political beliefs. It is essential for New Yorkers to trust their Police. Updates to follow after initial investigation.”

Chief of Department Terence Monahan added, “When you wear our uniform it is imperative to remain apolitical. Behavior like this will not be tolerated and will be dealt with.”

Share
Categories
cell phones Encryption Intelwars Law Enforcement Police Smartphones

New Report on Police Decryption Capabilities

There is a new report on police decryption capabilities: specifically, mobile device forensic tools (MDFTs). Short summary: it’s not just the FBI that can do it.

This report documents the widespread adoption of MDFTs by law enforcement in the United States. Based on 110 public records requests to state and local law enforcement agencies across the country, our research documents more than 2,000 agencies that have purchased these tools, in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. We found that state and local law enforcement agencies have performed hundreds of thousands of cellphone extractions since 2015, often without a warrant. To our knowledge, this is the first time that such records have been widely disclosed.

Lots of details in the report. And in this news article:

At least 49 of the 50 largest U.S. police departments have the tools, according to the records, as do the police and sheriffs in small towns and counties across the country, including Buckeye, Ariz.; Shaker Heights, Ohio; and Walla Walla, Wash. And local law enforcement agencies that don’t have such tools can often send a locked phone to a state or federal crime lab that does.

[…]

The tools mostly come from Grayshift, an Atlanta company co-founded by a former Apple engineer, and Cellebrite, an Israeli unit of Japan’s Sun Corporation. Their flagship tools cost roughly $9,000 to $18,000, plus $3,500 to $15,000 in annual licensing fees, according to invoices obtained by Upturn.

Share
Categories
Australia Bans Cases Coronavirus country COVID-19 Deputy Prime Minister Leo Varadkar economic terrorism Emergency Preparedness Force Government Headline News house arrest human rights Intelwars IRELAND job losses liars lockdown again Martial Law New World Order Police Preparedness Prime Minister Micheal Martin restrictions

Economic Terrorism Continues: Ireland Imposes A 6-Week Lockdown

The economic terrorism committed by governments worldwide is growing yet again. Ireland will be the first European country to return to a nationwide shutdown as COVID-19 cases rise, Prime Minister Micheal Martin said Monday.

Additionally, the government knows they are committing terrorism, as they admitted the lockdown is going to result in another 150,000 people losing their job or source of income over the next “couple of days,” Deputy Prime Minister Leo Varadkar said. The country is entering its highest level of coronavirus restrictions for six weeks, beginning midnight Wednesday night, according to a report by Activist Post.  

The lockdown is being blamed on a “surge” in COVID-19 cases. Residents of Ireland are banned from traveling more than three miles away from their homes or going anywhere that is deemed “non-essential.” Following in Australia’s footsteps, it looks like Ireland may be the next country to see the New World Order’s martial law rolled out in force.

Australia is a Full-Scale Pilot Test For The New World Order

“We’re making a preemptive strike against the virus, acting before it’s too late,” Varadkar said during the news conference Monday. “Our objective is to change the structure of the virus to flatten the curve again to get it under control.” These new measures will be enforced by the police.

Police will continue to use road checkpoints to deter longer and nonessential journeys. Varadkar said there will be a penalty for travel beyond that distance, but he added that details are being finalized. There will be exemptions for work and essential purposes.

Ireland has seen nearly 51,000 confirmed cases and more than 1,850 deaths, according to the nation’s Department of Health. Cases have risen by 75% since the beginning of September, and the infection rate is 261 cases for every 100,000 people.  That means that for 51,000 cases, 150,000 people will lose their jobs in a country of almost 5 million.

Lockdowns are ramping up all over and the mainstream media continues to report on the surging cases of COVID-19 in the United States.  Be ready, because this scamdemic is not over. Anything is still possible. Stay prepared.

Here We Go: MSM Begins Propagating a “Third Wave” of COVID-19

Last Minute Prepping Advice: Be Ready For Literally ANYTHING!

The post Economic Terrorism Continues: Ireland Imposes A 6-Week Lockdown first appeared on SHTF Plan – When It Hits The Fan, Don't Say We Didn't Warn You.

Share
Categories
anarchism Intelwars Police solutions Videos

How Do You Police A Free Society? – QFC #071


Today we delve into the Questions For Corbett archives for an answer to Big-_-Brother, who writes in to ask about policing in a free society. How does policing function in a free society, and what would that look like? Join James for a very timely exploration of this increasingly important question.

Share
Categories
Attack on police Facebook livestream Intelwars North Carolina Police watch

Thug beats cop’s face bloody in brutal attack livestreamed on Facebook. Of course, it features laughing onlookers egging on suspect.

A North Carolina police officer was airlifted to a hospital early Saturday morning after he was beaten while trying to make an arrest — and the attack was livestreamed on Facebook, left his face bloody, and featured laughing onlookers.

What are the details?

Rowland Officer Michael Sale, 27, responded to a disturbance call and was beaten while trying to arrest a man, Chief Hubert B. Graham
told WPDE-TV.


Image source: Twitter video screenshot via @KittyLists

A bystander recorded the attack on cellphone, and it went live on Facebook, the station said, adding that the video gained dozens of shares. The video lasted 11 minutes,
WPDE reported in an earlier story.

The station said the officer asked a man for assistance, but the man refused. Several people came outside, and some urged others to help, WPDE noted. The officer was repeatedly punched in the face.

The clip does show one man pulling the attacker away from the officer, but another man is heard saying, “Let ’em whup his ass! Let ’em whup his ass!”

Image source: Twitter video screenshot via @KittyLists

After the man lets go, the beating continues. “Don’t you let that man take you to f***in’ jail!” the same man is heard saying to the attacker.

The following are several clips of the attack. (Content warning: Language):

What happened after help arrived?

Graham told WPDE that there was concern Officer Sale broke a bone around his eye, so he was airlifted to a hospital. He has since been discharged and is recovering at home with his family, the station said in a follow-up story.

Authorities charged Jamel Alphonso Rogers with assault with a deadly weapon with intentions to kill while inflicting serious injuries, kidnapping, and two counts of resisting a public officer, the station said.

Jamel Alphonso Rogers Image source: Robeson County Detention Center

Rogers appeared before a judge Monday and his bond was set at $500,000, WPDE said, adding that he’s being held at Robeson County Detention Center and that it’s unlikely Rogers will make bond.

Graham said Sale was the only officer on duty Friday night, the station said, which is why it took some time for backup to arrive.

“He was working by himself that night,” the chief said in a separate story. “That is being worked on.”

Graham also told WPDE he wishes others had stepped up to help “because they knew the situation the officer was in.”

Robeson County Sheriff Burnis Wilkins shared his thoughts about the attack on
Facebook:

Officer Sale was surrounded by a crowd outside a store last December when he worked for the Maxton Police Department and was violently beaten by one man in the crowd, the station said. As with this weekend’s attack, the incident last year was recorded on cellphone and shared on social media, WPDE said.

Share
Categories
anarchism Intelwars Police Questions For Corbett solutions

How Do You Police A Free Society? – Questions For Corbett #071


Today we delve into the Questions For Corbett archives for an answer to Big Brother, who writes in to ask about policing in a free society. How does policing function in a free society, and what would that look like? Join James for a very timely exploration of this increasingly important question.

Share
Categories
chicago Chief Drunk Eddie johnson Intelwars Police Rape

Former Chicago police chief accused of sexual assault and driving under the influence

Former Chicago Police Superintendent Eddie Johnson allegedly drove drunk the night he fell asleep behind the wheel last year in a high-profile incident that led to his firing, and the woman he was with that evening has filed a lawsuit accusing him of sexual assault.

What are the details?

Johnson was discovered passed out in his car one year ago by a passerby, and claimed he had pulled over as a precaution after becoming lightheaded due to prescription medication. Chicago police responded to the incident, but allowed him to drive home. The top cop was later fired by Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot, who said she found out Johnson had not been forthright about what happened that evening.

The Chicago Sun-Times reported last year that the incident was “an embarrassing drinking-and-driving incident,” and cited sources who claimed Johnson “was actually drinking for hours with a member of his security detail, a woman, at a downtown restaurant.”

That woman was Officer Cynthia Donald, who filed a lawsuit against Johnson on Thursday, accusing him “of ‘shockingly violent, abusive, and harassing conduct’ that included multiple instances of forced oral and vaginal sex,” CBS News reported.

Donald says she served as Johnson’s personal driver.

According to a separate Sun-Times report on Friday, “taxpayers paid for 7 business trip taken by” Johnson and Donald. But Johnson denies Donald’s accusations, telling the outlet in a statement, “”the allegations of sexual assault and harassment made by Ms. Donald never happened.”

Johnson is married to Nakia Fenner, a lieutenant in the Chicago Police Department.

Also on Friday, USA Today reported that according to new findings published by Chicago’s Office of the Inspector General, before Johnson was found asleep in his SUV in a stop sign last October, “he had consumed ‘several large servings of rum…the equivalent of 10 alcoholic beverages.”

According to the outlet, seven Chicago police officers have been suspended for failing to hold then-Superintendent Johnson accountable on the night their top boss was found allegedly driving under the influence. The IG’s office recommended that one of them be terminated.

Share