The Real Pat-Down Outrage

Cord Jefferson at The Root points out that the frisk procedures that whites are now going through at the airport are not entirely unlike the daily stop and frisk that Black people experience every day, whether we fly or not. 

One significant difference I see is that whites know they will be friskes at the airport, while New York's Blacks can be stopped and frisked at any time, in any public place, with no notice or opportunity to prepare for the dehumanizing process.


Cord Jefferson says at The Root:

"If the media want to focus on embarrassing frisks, they should look at what black and Hispanic Americans routinely deal with, courtesy of the police department.

If the media want to focus on embarrassing frisks, they should look at what black and Hispanic Americans routinely deal with, courtesy of the police department.

 

As the fevered pitch around the Transportation Security Administration screenings gets even more fevered on the busiest travel days of the year, it's worth noting that, for some Americans, embarrassing frisks are de rigueur.


The man who first pointed this out to me is New York Times reporter David Carr, who tweeted, "White people aren't used to having the hands of state on them. Black folks know all about stop and frisk."

Carr is right about that, at least as far as New York City goes. According to the New York Civil Liberties Union, the NYPD's stop-and-frisk tactic, in which officers stop citizens on the street and search their bodies and bags, was used on 149,753 New Yorkers in the first three months of 2010. Of those frisked, 85 percent were black or Latino. Even more shocking is that 87 percent of those stopped were completely innocent.

More at the Root.

I felt sorry for whites who got this treatment at the airport, until I realized that Blacks suffer this everyday, everywhere, and whites don't raise their voices in unison against these frisks of Blacks.  Maybe we can chalk this up to "sensitivity training" in which whites suddenly realize some aspect of what Blacks experience evert day, except that these pat-downs are unlikely to result in police beat downs and false charges of criminal behavior.

White Dallas Police Shoots Unarmed Black Man 8 Times?

I don't have the bandwidth necessary to watch this video, so I would like for readers to watch it and then describe it or comment upon it in the comment section below.

White Dallas Police Shoots Unarmed Black Man 8 Times; 11 year old boy caught in crossfire.

Link to tragedy in South Oak Cliff:
http://www.the33tv.com/videobeta/4cdb001e-f831-45d0-b696-0f45a348a9e2/News/11/03/10--tobias-mackey

Do Blacks and Whites Benefit Equally from the Word and Concept of "Race"

There is an informative article in The Root  by Professor Lawrence D. Bobo, W. E. B. Du Bois Professor of the Social Sciences at Harvard University, confirming that enormously expensive state and federal "tough on crime" programs have mostly been tough on Blacks:

For the first time in more than 30 years, state prison populations have shown a slight decline. But the federal prison population continues to grow. And the heavily disproportionate incarceration of minorities, especially poor blacks, for low-level drug offenses continues largely unabated.

However, I wrote the letter below to Professor Bobo, challenging his use of the word "race" in the article:

Professor Lawrence D. Bobo, Ph.D.
W. E. B. Du Bois Professor of the Social Sciences
Harvard University

Dear Professor Bobo:
 
I am a Black blogger researching the use of the word "race" among America's Blacks.  I would like to pose a question regarding your use of the word "race" in an article at The Root entitled, "Time to End the Criminal-Punishment Binge."  

I concur with the position of your article.  However, in your sentence as follows, what difference would it make if you removed the word "race" and inserted the term "skin color" instead?

Let us be the generation that undoes the connection between race and who populates our jails and prison.

I ask this question because if there is one thing that white supremacists and Black intellectuals can agree upon, it is the continued fundamental nature and necessity of the word and concept of "race." For example, here's what the white supremacist Nationalist Party USA says about "race:"

The Nationalist Party embraces the differences in Cultures and races, and allows for each group to embrace their own heritage -- while recognizing the right to live separately, if we choose; and to preserve our unique Culture and heritage. Nationalist Party USA (Emphasis added.)

Clearly the Nationalist Party's belief in different "races" rationalizes, in their minds, their belief in and advocacy for segregation and white supremacy. And why not? Do we not segregate the dog species from the cat species at the dog pound?

It seems to me that as soon as we concede that we and whites are from different "races," we supply intellectual and moral support for white supremacists' belief in segregation, with separate and unequal roles for whites, Blacks and Latinos in society. 

Here's another quote from the same website:

"The question is not why anyone would believe the races are unequal, but why anyone would believe them equal."

As Prof. Levin points out, a book like Why Race Matters should not have to be written. The only sensible conclusion to be drawn from simple observation is that races differ: "To put the matter bluntly, the question is not why anyone would believe the races are unequal in intelligence, but why anyone would believe them equal." For centuries, people as different as Arabs and Englishmen have judged Africans to be unintelligent, lascivious, jolly, and keen on rhythm. Today, in whatever corner of the globe one looks, blacks behave in certain consistent ways." Nationalist Party USA  (Emphasis Added.)

There you have it. White supremacists agree with many Black intellectuals, including Harvard University professor Lawrence D. Bobo, Ph.D., that Blacks and whites are from separate "races."  With white supremacists and Black intellectuals in agreement on this point, why should we even bother to consult the relatively new and opposite findings of the  U.S. Department of Energy's Human Genome Program which says:

The U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE) Human Genome Program devoted 3% of its annual Human Genome Project (HGP) budget toward studying the ethical, legal, and social issues (ELSI) surrounding the availability of genetic information. Some of these projects studied potential effects of ELSI, and others sought to educate professionals through literature, conferences, workshops, and multimedia. Among the programs funded by DOE ELSI were educational materials for physicians, educators, students, clergy, and judges and other legal professionals. 

DNA studies do not indicate that separate classifiable subspecies (races) exist within modern humans. While different genes for physical traits such as skin and hair color can be identified between individuals, no consistent patterns of genes across the human genome exist to distinguish one race from another. There also is no genetic basis for divisions of human ethnicity. People who have lived in the same geographic region for many generations may have some alleles in common, but no allele will be found in all members of one population and in no members of any other.

Ari Patrinos, Director for Biological and Environmental Research, Office of Science, US Department of Energy, says on behalf of the DOE, in 'Race' and the Human Genome,

With very rare exceptions, all of us in the US are immigrants. We bring with us a subset of genes from our homelands, and for many Americans, often first-generation but more commonly second-generation, the plural noun 'homelands' is appropriate. From this perspective, the most immediately obvious characteristic of 'race' is that describing most of us as Caucasian, Asian or African is far too simple. Despite attempts by the US Census Bureau to expand its definitions, the term 'race' does not describe most of us with the subtlety and complexity required to capture and appreciate our genetic diversity. Unfortunately, this oversimplification has had many tragic effects. Therefore, we need to start with the science

( . . . )

In the end, each person must be treated as an individual with his or her own medical issues, rather than as an exemplar of a race. We anticipate a future in which accurate predictive medicine, based on one's individual genetic profile, will promote longer and healthier lives and a better ability to manage interactions with our environment and the challenges it constantly presents, be they allergens, diseases or environmental hazards. If nothing else, among so many potential benefits, the kind of solid science presented and discussed in this issue and at the Howard conference is providing proof that oversimplified concepts of race simply don't work in any objective realm. It's bad medicine, and it's bad science.   'Race' and the Human Genome,
 

Clearly what we have called "race" does not exist as a matter of science, yet the premise of "race" continues to be the single most fundamental commonality between white supremacists' arguments and those of Black intellectuals.  Do white supremacists and Blacks benefit equally from the ubiquitous use of the word "race'?  Historically, did we all benefit equally from the "N" word, whose use is just about as old as the word and concept of "race"? 

Words and concepts can empower and disempower whole classes of people.  We must either believe that whites gave Blacks the word "race" to empower us, or whites gave themselves the word "race" to empower whites. 

I propose that we Blacks challenge white supremacists, as well as journalists, newspapers and websites of all skin colors to cease and desist using the word "race," based on the new Human Genome Project declarations.  Rather than agree with white supremacists about "race," our strongest political high ground comes from insisting, based on new genomic science, that the word "race" be must be dropped from all public discussion of skin color, because the word "race" is nothing more than a pseudo-scientific and highly controversial political synonym for "skin-color group." 

Those who insist on continuing to use of the word "race" are "racists."

Sincerely,

Atty. Francis L. Holland
Brazil

Justice Sonia Sotomayor Criticizes Majority Ruling on Miranda Rights

The US Supreme Court majority, in WARDEN v. THOMPKINS, decided June 1, 2010, has effectively withdrawn much of the protection that Miranda once provided, by requiring a "clear statement" of an arrested person of his his/her decision to remain silent, before police must stop questioning a suspect.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote a strongly dissenting defense of the system that has been in place for two generations, denouncing the Supreme Court majority's new requirement that a suspect must clearly say that he will not say anything, in order to invoke his right to remain silent.  Justice Sotomayor criticized the US Supreme Courts June 1 WARDEN v. THOMPKINS decision, saying:

Today’s decision turns Miranda upside down. Criminal suspects must now unambiguously invoke their right to remain silent—which, counterintuitively, requires them to speak. At the same time, suspects will be legally presumed to have waived their rights even if they have given no clear expression of their intent to do so. Those results, in my view, find no basis in Miranda or our subsequent cases and are inconsistent with the fair-trial principles on which those precedents are grounded. Today’s broad new rules are all the more unfortunate because they are unnecessary to the disposition of the case before us. I respectfully dissent. WARDEN v. THOMPKINS

I personally hope this case indicates that Justice Sotomayor (soon to be joined by Justice Kagan on the Court) will defend the rights of public when faced by often brutal, atrocious and coercive police officers.

A Critical Look at TASER Policy and Effects

Thanks to Eddie G. Griffin (BASG) for providing the following:

http://www.examiner.com/x-48240-NY-Public-Policy-Examiner~y2010m5d10-A-Critical-Look-at-TASER-Policy-and-Effects?cid=exrss-NY-Public-Policy-Examiner

May 10, 2:54 AM · Edward Nelson - NY Public Policy Examiner

With the recent Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision in Bryan v. McPherson, 590 F.3d 767 (9th Cir. 2009), law enforcement heads across the nation are gradually revising their use of force policies surrounding TASER deployment.

The Bryan Court dealt with a 21-year-old Carl Bryan who exited his vehicle at a distance of 20 to 25 feet away from Officer Brian McPherson who had pulled Carl Bryan over for a traffic violation. Standing on the asphalt ground Carl Bryan was wearing tennis shoes and boxer shorts and was positioned with his back facing Officer McPherson. At that point, Officer McPherson deployed his TASER causing Carl Bryan to suffer a non-minor injury as a result of falling face first onto the asphalt fracturing four of his teeth and damaging his face. Finding that a jury could conclude that Officer McPherson used excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment, the court allowed Carl Bryan’s lawsuit to proceed to trial and denied Officer McPherson’s request for summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds. A reasonable officer would have known that in a situation where force is at its lowest, the target is a nonviolent and stationary misdemeanant, would have concluded that deploying intermediate force without warning was not justified.

If you didn’t know, TASER is an acronym for Thomas A. Swift’s Electronic Rifle.

What’s significant about the Bryan Court’s decision is that it recognized that TASERs can actually cause death. In the past, TASER International, Inc. had a practice of suing researchers for making that conclusion. In fact, some researchers have accused TASER International, Inc. of employing intimidation tactics to discourage and prohibit them from publishing research that contends with the “less than lethal” stigmatization strategically associated with TASERs. Normally, researchers make findings and subject their work to the criticisms of their peers if their findings cannot be replicated. Why does that concept not apply to TASERs? Rick Smith, CEO of TASER International, must evaluate his SWOT analysis to include a new externality. America’s courts are now an externality that Mr. Smith must recognize as one of TASER International’s weaknesses and threats. The author John Grisham shows how easy it is for a company to purchase a judge to favor its position in his latest book titled, “The Appeal.” However, that would be a serious invocation of Game Theory on the part of TASER International.

Nationally, TASER International has placed itself in a powerful, yet, unique position of steering policy for law enforcement agencies nationwide. Law enforcement heads are forced to rely entirely on TASER International’s training and policies on use, deployment, and research methods. Unfortunately, the Chiefs of Police that use TASERs have delegated their duty to protect the public to a Fortune 500 business like TASER International whose sole concern is its bottom line. A government functions on inputs that maximize outputs. Apparently the TASER is the input and the death of a citizen is the output. Even an insignificant number like 1% of the nation dying from in custody death syndrome and excited delirium syndrome is too much. Stated another way, the trade off is more officers living and a marginal number of citizens dying. As government officials, law enforcement administrators should be concerned with protecting the individual rights of each individual citizen; a publicly traded IPO company like TASER International, trading under the ticker symbol TASR, is not concerned with individual rights.

While TASER International can write-off the deaths of 334 citizens mentioned by Amnesty International between 2001 and 2008 as collateral damage, law enforcement administrators must consider the individual rights of each person on a case-by-case basis. If not, they are deliberately indifferent to the Constitutional rights of the population of citizens they are hired to serve. Everyday anecdotal evidence is mounting and increasingly shows that TASERed citizens are dying in the custody of police officers. However, with TASER International steering the policies of law enforcement on TASER usage and training, the in custody death syndrome immediately following TASER usage is remarkably written-off as if death is the cost of not complying with police officers. If the officer, victim, or bystander is not facing an imminent threat from a subject, the deployment of a TASER would be unreasonably excessive. On March 3, 2010, an officer TASERed a 17 year old Philadelphia Phillies fan simply for running on the baseball field. The incident has caused a lot of public clamor because the officer, a victim, nor bystander was threatened by the 17 year old when he ran onto the baseball field. Unfortunately, the lesson behind the incident is that it shows how officers arbitrarily and capriciously use their TASERs.

Law enforcement officials have tenaciously maintained that TASERs save lives. Agreed! When used appropriately, TASERs can save lives. But an inappropriate use of a TASER by law enforcement is a rare finding. Statistically, the chance of finding a citizen dead from in custody death syndrome is greater than finding an officer improperly used a TASER. Even law enforcement officers have sued TASER International claiming that they were injured by a TASER during their training. In another instance, an officer’s TASER malfunctioned as he pursued a perpetrator and he was shot six times. TASER International was sued as a result. Therefore, the claims against TASER International and law enforcement aren’t isolated to members of the public. Moreover, it begs the question of whether TASER International knows, or, expects deadly malfunctions in its TASER product prior to marketing.

TASER International has warned that TASERs can contribute in death if the following variables are present within a TASERed subject:

• alcohol intoxication
• cocaine
• methamphetamine
So why are officers deploying TASERs on drug abusers when there is a real possibility of death occurring? If law enforcement agencies have no policy directing officers to refrain from deploying their TASERs on the above category of individuals, the answer is clear: It’s because their municipality has become deliberately indifferent to the individual rights of intoxicated /drugged citizens. A well informed law enforcement agency would know from anecdotal evidence collected on excited delirium syndrome and in custody death syndrome that those citizens who are intoxicated, high on cocaine or methamphetamine fall within a category of individuals that are likely to die post-TASER deployment. Unfortunately, post-TASER deployment has a medical aspect that makes most law enforcement administrators appear acutely obtuse and woefully incapable of understanding the injurious nature of TASER weaponry. Over the years, a medical examiner’s finding of excited delirium syndrome or in custody death syndrome is the only justification required to relieve an officer of liability for a citizen’s death. Today, excited delirium syndrome is a questionable medical condition in the medical community.

Lawyers that are worth their salt have quickly learned that the preparation of litigation against TASER International and law enforcement requires that they be as savvy as TASER’s medical experts regarding excited delirium syndrome and in custody death syndrome. Commonly, the coups de grace in TASER litigation involves a showing of death or non-minor injury resulting from brain injury, cardiac arrest, short term loss of memory, cardiac infarction, and metabolic acidosis proximately caused by a TASER. As alluded to earlier, TASER International is an aggressive publicly traded company concerned about its bottom line and answers to a board of directors. To maintain a pristine public image, TASER International strategically uses sneaky semantics, omissions, lawsuits, dry threats, scandalous and vexatious comments to fend off any undesired comments that can potentially have a negative economic impact on its TASER product. TASER International has successfully sued medical examiners to change the cause of death on a death certificate from being associated with a TASER to being “accidental.”

Unlike most weapons that cause visible superficial wounds, the TASER permeates the human body internally using voltage and amperes to overwhelm neurotransmitters emanating from the brain. In other words, it has a subtle way of causing damage to the body’s internal biological functions. It’s the fluctuating AC (alternative current) power source that causes the muscles within the body to experience a condition called tetany. Meaning the AC power source actually causes the muscles within the body to contract when in contact with an AC power source. However, a DC (direct current) power source pushes a person away when contact is made. The electricity from a TASER travels through the body looking for a place to ground. However, for the brief moment that it takes residence within the human body, the electricity from the TASER quickly transforms plasma glucose into lactic acid which ultimately forms a condition called metabolic acidosis. It’s important to note that a primary source of energy for the brain is glucose. Now imagine your brain’s primary source of energy being transformed into lactic acid. That’s a problem! Even a person with minimal medical experience would know that the heart is the biggest muscle in the body. Yet, researchers are divided as to whether a TASER can cause cardiac arrest.

Comparatively, TASER litigation reminds me of the long and hard fight attorneys had with cigarette companies. Remember the days when cigarette companies said their product was safe? Well, the federal government must have the same feeling because the National Institute of Justice is currently soliciting to fund research for a “less-lethal” weapon that is safer than a TASER. This article is dedicated to the memory of all those American citizens who gave their lives so law enforcement officers could enjoy deploying their new toys in the absence of perceiving an imminent threat to themselves, bystanders or victims. It’s because all of you existed that others are inspired to find the truth concerning your deaths. May your souls find rest!

Are Small Town Rhode Island Police Officers Overzealous With Traffic Fines?

In a little-city suburb of Providence, Rhode Island, there is a police officer who is notorious for sitting in his squad car, hidden at the side of the road, and waiting for drivers to pass by, traveling at rates as little as two miles per hour above the speed limit. He writes an extraordinary number of speeding citations for minor deviations from the speed limit, and he writes an extraordinary number of other citations for offenses that many local citizens consider to be de minimus infractions.

Can any reader tell me the name of the town, the name of the officer, and the name of the judge(s) who review these tickets when these cases are appealed and come before the courts?

Is this officer appropriately zealous in protecting the public by enforcing traffic regulations to the letter of the law? Or is he giving Rhode Island government and law enforcement a bad name by harassing law-abiding citizens who are doing their best to drive safely and whose only meaningful "offense" has been to drive down the same road where this allegedly over-zealous police officer is hidden in waiting?

If you have an experience to recount about small-town Rhode Island traffic enforcement and you would like to do so anonymously, please feel free tell your experiences anonymously in the comments below, but please do include the name(s) of the town(s), location(s), policing officer(s), judge(s) and traffic court(s) with jurisdiction over traffic citations.

Please feel free not to include names of private citizens, who do have a right to their privacy and should not be targeted for retribution.

If we find that there is a pattern (or patterns) of over-zealous and inappropriate persecution of mild-mannered small-town Rhode Island drivers, who are going about their own business conscientiously way, then maybe some readers would like to report their experiences using their names for attribution (or send a confidential e-mail to this blog at francislholland at gmail.com (remember to include the @).

My belief is that Rhode Island newspapers like the Providence Journal will investigate over-zealous officers, if they read significant numbers of sufficiently specific complaints in blogs such as this one, about those officers who are supposed to protect and to serve, particularly when they wear a badge and operate under color of law.

No one wants to make herself the target of an already-over-zealous police officer, so please feel free to comment anonymously, including as much detail as you comfortably can.

Although I am a trained attorney who has practiced law in the United States, I am not currently admitted to the Bar of any state and cannot offer legal advice in public or in private. I write and discuss police brutality with readers strictly in my capacity as a citizen journalist.

Whatever your experience with Rhode Island traffic police, please remember the brighter side: at least you didn't end up looking like Esteban Carpio did when Providence police officers brought him to court with his face turned to virtual hamburger, which police covered with an (to my experience) unprecedented white Batman mask.

NYC Minorities Frisked More but Arrested at Same Rate

The New York Times says in a very informative article about the overwhelming difference between stop and frisk rates of whites and others in New York City:

Blacks and Latinos were nine times as likely as whites to be stopped by the police in New York City in 2009, but no more likely to be arrested.
( . . .)
According to the analysis of the 2009 raw data by the Center for Constitutional Rights, nearly 490,000 blacks and Latinos were stopped by the police on the streets last year, compared with 53,000 whites.

But once stopped, the arrest rates were virtually the same. Whites were arrested in slightly more than 6 percent of the stops, blacks in slightly fewer than 6 percent. About 1.7 percent of whites who were stopped were found to have a weapon, while 1.1 percent of blacks were found with one. NYT

What I find most troubling is this: If police are able to find just as much reason to arrest whites even when whites are stopped and frisked only 1/10th as much as Blacks and Latinos, then if police INCREASED the stop and frisk rate of whites then they would probably also increase the rate of arrests made of whites.

Look at it this way, in the land of driverless white and black drone cars: If ALL cars have weapons in them but the white cars are stopped half as often, then police will find the same rate of weapons among both groups of cars, but white cars will proceed with weapons unmolested, even though increasing stops of white cars would increase the number of weapons found in white cars.

Or, let's look at it another way: In spite of an all out effort to find crime among Blacks, targeting Blacks almost ten times as much as whites, police have been unable to show that Blacks are more likely to have weapons than whites. Perhaps if the police stopped every single Black person who left his house, the police still wouldn't find more reasons to arrest Blacks than whites. And that's what these statistics are showing.