Cop in the Hood

John Jay College student's killer get life without parole

2009-07-09T13:52:00.002-04:00

"Brooklyn Supreme Court Justice Abraham Gerges called Littlejohn, 44, an unrepentant 'predator' who should never taste freedom again."

The story in the Daily News

The Idea of "Juvenile"

2009-07-07T14:31:00.012-04:00

The state has an archaic system in which we operate under the misimpression that everyone under 18 can be rehabilitated for repeatedly committing violent crimes. We must find a way to provide rehabilitation, but also accountability and punishment.

That's kind of hardcore coming from, of all places, the office of Baltimore State's Attorney Patricia Jessamy. Her office, as I write about in my book, is often at odds with police officers.

I'm not against the concept of "juvenile justice." I do think that kids who commit crimes should be treated differently than adults. But 17-year-olds? Especially when they're fathers, murderers, and drug dealers? They're no longer kids. I can't tell you how many times I had to treat an arrested 16 or 17-year-old as a "juvenile" only to find no adults who could or were willing to deal with this violent man anymore.

These so-called kids certainly don't see themselves as kids. They don't look like kids. They certainly don't play like kids. Why treat them like kids? How many times does somebody have to locked up for violent crimes before they're kept off the street and away from other?

Maybe lowering the adult age to 16 would be good start. Given the environments some kids grow up in, childhood is an unfortunately idealistic concept as best. But at some point, for some kids, we simply gotta put them away. If you disagree, and it's touching if you do, I recommend you go to the juvie home and work on adopting an unloved teenager. But whatever problems have developed need to be headed off long before the teen years.

The issue here is Lamont Davis. He's been arrested 15 times since he was ten. Lamont is a very bad boy. In the past year and a half since Davis has been in custody of juvenile services, he's been arrested and charged in five incidents. God only knows how many times he hurt people and didn't get caught.

Recently Davis yoked (robbed and beat) a woman. He was arrested and plead guilty on July 1st.

On July 2nd, soon after Davis cut off his home monitoring bracelet, a five-year-old girl apparently got in the path of one of his bullets. She may not make it. Two other guys were hit as well.

Justin Fenton has the story in the Sun.

Willie Bosket comes to mind. I'm not a fan of prison. But some people need to be put away for a long time. I nominate Davis. And then let's come up with some ideas and be willing to spend some money to prevent such cases from happening again.

Mexican Immigration Problems

2009-07-07T02:06:00.001-04:00

Mexico Builds Border Wall To Keep Out US Assholes

Life Without Daddy

2009-07-06T22:39:00.004-04:00

At any given moment, more than 1.5 million children have a parent, usually their father, in prison.
...
Among those born in 1990, one in four black children, compared with one in 25 white children, had a father in prison by age 14. Risk is concentrated among black children whose parents are high-school dropouts; half of those children had a father in prison, compared with one in 14 white children with dropout parents.
...
In some cases children may benefit from a parent’s forced removal, especially when a father is a sexual predator or violent at home. But more often, the harm outweighs any benefits.

The whole story by Erik Eckholm in the New York Times.

I like making fun of the "think of the children" line. But in this case, shouldn't we? What's the answer?

Marion Barry: set up again?

2009-07-06T18:07:00.005-04:00

Mr. Marrion "that-goddamn-bitch-set-me-up" Barry has been arrested... yet again. Except for the crack, the not filing his tax returns thing, and the alleged stalking, he sure is a great elected representative for his people.

Here's the story about his latest arrest. It's complicated, of course. Who knows what really happened? Who cares?

But does anybody out there have the AUDIO from the famous video of his arrest for crack? I can find the video, but not with sound. I want to show it in my class as an example of entrapment. Make fun of hizonnor all you want, but in that case that g*dd*mn b*tch really did set him up!

Amsterdam Party People

2009-07-05T15:08:00.013-04:00

This account of the party scene in Amsterdam is from a person who enjoys such things. He’s lived in Amsterdam for the past 17 years.

The Sensation dance party, Wicked Wonderland, held in the city’s largest football stadium. The dress code was all white. The party goes from 10pm to 6am. Tickets cost about $100 (69 euros).

The placed is filled with thousands--probably tens of thousands people--dancing. [Update: there were 40,000 people on each of the two sold-out nights. Public transportation was excellent, night train schedules were posted in the bathrooms, and special free busses were running between 1 and 5am when the metro is shut down] Top DJs spin. It’s an upscale rave. Does that mean people are taking drugs? Of course.

Nobody overdoses. Nobody dies. A good time is had by all. Many if not most of the people are high on marijuana and/or ecstasy. There’s also a full bar.

[click on the picture to get an idea of the scale of this event. It is HUGE.]
Because of our war on drugs, there’s no equivalent to this DJ-music party scene in the US. It's actually illegal. Nobody can make money on such a large scale event because they all get shut down by police. It would be like closing down Yankee Stadium in the 1920s because people were drinking at baseball games.

In Europe, this party scene is a job-creating industry. This one sounded like fun.

Sensation White was the best or at least the most impressive dance music party I have even been to. It was at the Arena, but they did it up really nicely. The stage was in the center with four thrust parts going into the four corners. That meant that your section of the audience was broken up and smaller and there was stuff close to you.

They did the place up so well with details and hiring hundred’ of models to work there. Everyone was actually dressed all in white, and the atmosphere was superb. And so many hot 20 somethings. Mmmmm. And 30 somethings and 40 somethings too. It was an exciting mix actually. And it sounded good. There, it’s official, a stadium set-up can sound perfect. I want nothing less in the future, please.

Unlike two years ago where police in plainclothes were harassing party goers and arresting joint smokers (for what I’m not sure), this year they were present, helpful and in the background.

It should be noted that two years ago the Amsterdam police were not actually going so far as to take people to jail for drug use. But they were taking people out of the party and giving them citations. Taking any action for marijuana in Amsterdam is pretty much unheard of. Much less "harassing" people who otherwise were not causing trouble. This year was more laid back.

We did one e before getting on the metro and I had two more in my shoe. In the other shoe I had a joint and left a decoy joint in my pockets. When I took it out at the frisking, they said it wasn’t allowed. "Why?" I asked.

You are allowed to have 5 grams [about 1/5 of an ounce] of weed in a bag and roll your own. But not a pre-rolled joint because, “We don’t know what is in it.”

“You can go outside and smoke it right now if you want,” a second security helpfully offered.

I thought that was very reasonable, but let them take it. I smoked the secret one over the evening in their classy, not stuffed, not smoky smoking room. The football stadium had windows the opened!

I wrote back and said I was shocked that anybody in Amsterdam would have to resort to a “decoy joint.” It's "just not mokum," I said. His reply:

On one hand it is ridiculous that I would bring a decoy roach. And it’s not Amsterdam. On the other hand, I think it’s still nice that I can bring a decoy roach just to see what the police/security will do and not be worried that anything bad will happen. Of course I know they are not going to make me take off my shoes, so drugs get in.

Is this man a blight on society? A junkie? A long-haired hippy freak? Quite the contrary. This man, who may or may not be my brother, is a husband, a father, and employees lots of people. He is a businessman.

Were it not for the permissive and successful drug policy of the Netherlands, he would not be in Amsterdam providing jobs and paying taxes. He never would have visited in the first place.

Happy 4th of July

2009-07-04T17:13:00.000-04:00

Especially thinking of everybody stuck working it. Here's to you!

$12,500 in Seattle Taser Settlement

2009-07-03T13:27:00.003-04:00

A homeless felon in Seattle gets $12,500 for being tased twice simultaneously by two officers. That's just what I don't like my tax dollars going to. I'm not saying the cops didn't follow procedure and their training. I am saying that procedure and training are wrong.

[A] judge ruled that the two officers ... were too quick to use their Tasers after confronting Releford outside a Tukwila convenience store to arrest him on outstanding misdemeanor warrants.
...
Both officers ordered him to turn around. When he hesitated at the conflicting commands, the officers fired their stun guns simultaneously, knocking him to the ground with a combined 100,000 volts, the documents say.
...
She said the officers didn't adequately consider their other options before resorting to the use of Tasers.
...
"He didn't resist," she said. "They just didn't give him time to comply."
...
Releford — despite his size and a long history of run-ins with the law — had never been violent toward officers. In fact, she said, records showed that Vivet had arrested Releford six times in the eight months before the incident, all without incident.

The story by Mike Carter in the Seattle Times.

Bicycle Patrol

2009-07-03T13:02:00.003-04:00

I love the idea of cops on bikes. Nothing beats the speed and stealth. But I haven't really considered the benefits of paramedics on bikes. A couple of those saved a life in Chicago.

The rescue might not have been possible if not for the paramedics' bicycle team, which can weave in and out of crowded spaces like the Taste with life-saving defibrillators and other medical supplies in tow.
...
"You can't beat them. They're just invaluable," he said of the team, which is also used to patrol busy downtown areas.

The whole story by Monifa Thomas in the Chicago Sun Times.

New Haven Firefighters

2009-07-03T00:32:00.001-04:00

Interesting story in the New York Times about Ben Vargas, the lone Hispanic firefighter on the winning side of Ricci v. DeStafano.

Police Blogs

2009-07-02T21:41:00.002-04:00

Here's a police blogs that seem, at least at first glace, to be pretty interesting.Beat and Release:

To new supervisors, I have the following the advice: Dedication to your troops is what engenders respect. Willingness to back them engenders respect. Putting paper on them and chastising them for very minor infractions shows them you are a company man with no discretion and can't be trusted. Don't break the law or lie for them, but consider the totality of the circumstances in any given situation. I heard one of my guys trying to recruit another officer for the team. His selling point was, "I know he won't go to jail for us, but he will put his ass and his job on the line to keep you from getting screwed over."

And this post: Old Versus New.

Taxed Marijuana In Rhode Island?

2009-07-02T18:24:00.003-04:00

There's yet more rationality in the news today!

Let's stop quibbling about decriminalized marijuana for dying people and get to the heart of the matter: legalize, regulate, and tax. That's what they're looking into in Rhode Island. Katherine Gregg reports in the Providence Journal:

The measure poses a number of specific questions for study, among them: “Whether and to what extent Rhode Island youth have access to marijuana despite current laws prohibiting its use. ... Whether adults’ use of marijuana has decreased since marijuana became illegal in Rhode Island in 1918. ... Whether the current system of marijuana prohibition has created violence in the state of Rhode Island against users or among those who sell marijuana. ... Whether the proceeds from the sales of marijuana are funding organized crime, including drug cartels. ... Whether those who sell marijuana on the criminal market may also sell other drugs, thus increasing the chances that youth will use other illegal substances.”

The resolution also cites questions about the “dangers associated with marijuana resulting from it being sold on the criminal market, including if it is ever contaminated or laced with other drugs.”

The panel has until Jan. 31, 2010, to report its findings and recommendations to the Senate.

Man Burned at Burning Man Assumed Risk of Being Burned by Burning Man

2009-07-02T17:26:00.017-04:00

Sometimes the courts actual make the right decision.

It seems that if you go to Burning Man and get burned by the actual burning man by walking in fire, you can't sue.

Fair enough.

Lowering the Bar brought this important legal decision to my attention.

I went to burning man once. There's some incredibly cool art and ideas there (and no, it's not just topless women riding bikes--though you'll see that, too).

It's kind of amazing that more people don't get hurt, given the Mad Max artistic chaos and fire and drug fueled ambiance.

Given all the things Burning Man could have trouble with--drugs come to mind... and the fact there are tens of thousands of people congregate on what might be the least hospitable place on earth--it's nice that at least they're safe from this frivolous lawsuit.

But I still cringe just at the thought of all that gypsum dust.

[update: My wife said she thought the headline was an onion story. She adds, "I think when it says on the ticket that they're not responsible if you _die_, you pretty much have no case.]

Help Wanted

2009-07-02T16:38:00.003-04:00

There's a Craigslist help wanted ad for chief of the BPD's Criminal Investigations Division. Normally you would expect this position to be in internal promotion. Justin Fenton writes about this in the Sun.

Rain Prevents Crime

2009-07-02T13:38:00.004-04:00

Duh. All cops know that. Rain keeps all the sh*ts inside. But apparently it's breaking news to the New York Times.
But I also think, despite what the article says, that rain reduces domestics as well. I don't have the stats to back that up, but it's certainly what I saw. Domestics don't start because two people are cooped up all day. Somebody gets cut when somebody returns home. People fight because one person is out getting drunk and maybe a little "suh'um suh'um" and then comes home.

We it rained in Baltimore, not only would we not like getting wet, we didn't want our cars to get wet. And then you can't keep the windows open and talk. So we would move from 800 Chester to under the Amtrak tracks on Broadway and enjoy the quiet.

Raiding Gay Bars

2009-07-01T18:38:00.011-04:00

40 Years after Stonewall police are still raiding gay bars? Really?!

And looking for... er... drunk people? If you can't be drunk in bar, my God, where can you be drunk? Apparently some police were looking for gay men to beat up.

The Fort Worth police chief said, "You're touched and advanced in certain ways by people inside the bar, that's offensive.... I'm happy with the restraint used when they were contacted like that." Can you imagine if women started using that excuse? Meanwhile one guy was put in intensive care with a serious brain injury.

Dan Savage makes a good point related to the "Gay Panic Defense": "Gay men don't grope police officers when they enter gay bars."

I'll go a step further and say that gay men don't grope non-police officers when they enter gay bars.

I have a close gay friend I know from being a boat captain in Amsterdam. Zora and I have have made a little tradition of spending Thanksgiving with him and his boyfriend in Savannah. And then maybe once every other year Bob comes up to New York to visit me.

When Bob and I see each other we often end up in gay bars because 1) he likes gay bars, 2) I like bars, and 3) we both like pinball. Many gay bars still have pinball. So we end up at some place called Ramrod or Rawhide and drink cheap drinks. We talk and play pinball. I've never been groped.

I'm sure a lot of women wished straight men behaved so well.

Civil Service and Affirmative Action

2009-07-01T16:11:00.004-04:00

The Supreme Court ruled in Ricci v. DeStafano that a particularly bizarre form of affirmative action is unconstitutional. You can't just throw out a test because you don't like the results. In 2003 a firefighter’s promotional exam produced no black candidates. The city of New Haven threw out the whole exam and promoted no one.

I’m against racial discrimination and that includes many if not most forms of affirmative action. I think affirmative action does more harm than good.

But while I think affirmative action is generally wrong, I’m not willing to say it’s always wrong. Obama or not, we’re not living in a race-blind society. We notice race and we have to take account of race. I do think diversity is good there are some cases where race-based approaches are needed.

White people often say, “I didn’t get no benefits because of my race.” But you have. We all have.

Take college admissions. There are plenty of affirmative-action-like systems out there that benefits white folk. Having a parent who went to a college or held a certain job gives you a benefit. But often that college or job wasn’t open to non-whites a generation or two ago.

Should unqualified blacks get in over whites or Asians? No. But race should be one factor of many.

Athletes get affirmative action. And though some poor blacks benefit from this, it really benefits people who go to rich prep-schools bloated sports programs. Did your school have a lacrosse team and a swimming pool? Well a lot of schools don’t.

I went to the same college my father did. Did I get into college because my dad went there? I don’t know. Maybe. Maybe not. I certainly didn’t hurt my chances. And my father got in on affirmative action because he was from the state of New Mexico. That's geographic affirmation action. Colleges like Princeton want one student from each and every state. My dad was the token New Mexican. Perhaps, 37 years later, my wife was, too.

But race-based affirmative action is supposed to address historic discrimination in the US. And if that is all it were, I would approve. Legal racial discrimination wasn’t that long ago. Even slavery wasn’t that long ago. To argue that centuries of racism had no lasting negative impact is crazy. And to push people to the bottom and then ask why they can’t lift themselves up is disingenuous at best.

But... I think affirmative action should only be for black people who can trace their roots back to Slavery. Immigrants should never get affirmative action. Period. The idea that a Spanish sounding last name would give you any benefit at all is simply absurd. And women aren't “minorities” (though a good argument could be an argument made for affirmative action for women based on historical discrimination).

Affirmative action, when it is practiced, has become so broad that it no longer helps those people for whom it was designed. Simply being biased against white men isn't the answer. And of course this creates resentment. Significant, real resentment.

But when it comes to civil-service hiring and promotions, I think there are other issues. Civil-service promotional exams are as dumb if not dumber than affirmative action programs. To say that affirmative action isn’t fair somehow implies that civil-service exams are themselves fair. I don’t buy it.

Civil service exams are a horrible way to decide, say, who should be a police sergeant (or a police officer. If you study hard for a civil-service exam you’ll do better. But does doing better on a test mean you’re a better worker? I don’t think so.

A written exam tells you nothing what kind of cop or firefighter you will be when lives are on the line. These tests test nothing about leadership potential or collegial respect. I don’t think it matters one damn bit, in term of your competence to do the job of police officer, whether you score a 96 or a 98 on a civil service exam.

Perhaps hiring and firing in the police and fire department should be done more like normal businesses do it. Let the bosses decide. Or ask the coworkers. While nobody is liked by everybody, if somebody is disliked by everybody, there is probably a problem there. People on the workforce tend to know who is good worker and who isn’t.

In the meantime, I’m happy with the court’s decision. Picking on people because of their race is simply wrong. There has to be a better way.

[update: very interesting story in the New York Times about Ben Vargas, the lone Hispanic firefighter on the winning side of Ricci v. DeStafano.]

I've been Pepper Sprayed

2009-06-29T00:22:00.011-04:00

There are probably hundreds of police blogs out there. Too much chaff and not enough wheat. The only police blog I actually read is Pepper Spray Me. Each post is interesting and it's all very well written and professionally presented. I hope and assume a book is on the way. Remember the equation: police book = movie-rights staring Denzel Washington = $$$ (except of course, like in my case, when it doesn't).

I'm sure there are some other gems of law enforcement blogging out there, but I don't have the patience to find them. If you know other good police blogs--not too many posts, not too few, not predictable, tells me something I don't already know--let me know!

Anyway, the author of pepper spray is a bit like Bat Man to me. We run into each other every now and then in the comments section, but I don't know who he is or where he works. But I know he's on the side of good.

He wrote an excellent (dare I say even touching) review of my book. Thanks, One Time! I'm glad you liked it. Keep up the good writing and stay safe.

In 1999, Peter Moskos was a graduate student at Harvard University. He wanted to study cops, and figured the best way to do that was to cross the Thin Blue Line.
...
Moskos proclaims the War on Drugs a messy failure. He tells why, from his front line experience as a grunt in the war, we’re losing the fight.

Cops and sociologists alike can be difficult people to understand. This might lead you to believe that Cop in the Hood will be twice as hard to follow. Not so. Moskos strips away hard to decipher copspeak and sociological mumbo jumbo and presents something easily digestible by the average reader.

Whether you agree or disagree with Moskos’ views on the War on Drugs, he cannot be dismissed as your average know-nothing academic. Moskos is a veteran of a war he disagrees with. But he has walked the walk, respects the brotherhood and, as far as I’m concerned, still bleeds blue.

Read the whole review here.

C.I. vs. Criminal Bribery: Ethics

2009-06-26T18:11:00.005-04:00

In answer to the comment section on the ethics of not helping law enforcement, my friend writes:

1. We expect that a customer has the same right to privacy that he enjoys in his home. It's that simple. Plus, heck from a transaction perspective... it is the same as renting an apt or an office.

2. We actually do screen our customers more closely than any hotel (for example) in this city.

3. We do ask customers to sign a form that, basically, states that they're going to comply with any and all laws.

4. If the authorities want access to any information about a customer at all... they need a warrant/subpoena. It's that simple. No gray. I don't care if it's just your address or video footage of you in our building.

5. Most often the 'man' wants us to provide access to a customer's room... which we can't do. We don't have keys. They want this done without a warrant.

6. Or, they want to provide a name and then want us to acknowledge if the person is renting and then provide the person's contact information, visitation information, etc. We typically will acknowledge if someone's a customer, in particular if the 'man' has something that links the person to us... but that's it.

7. Or, they want to bring a K9 unit to sniff outside the person's unit so they can try to get a warrant that way. Again, my answer is no.

Testifying Crime Lab Techs

2009-06-26T16:07:00.003-04:00

In the Supreme Court round up, I'm happy that 13-year-olds can't be forced to strip for suspicion of carrying ibuprofen. Clarence Thomas once again comes out as the dufus court jester in the 8-1 decision: “Preservation of order, discipline and safety in public schools is simply not the domain of the Constitution.” No, Sir. But strip searches are.

What is shocking (really) is the decision, overturning 90 years of precedent, that lab analysis must testify in court. Leaving aside the constitutional issues for now, this is a huge decision. And the court broke down in a very unusual way in its 5-4 decision.

According to the New York Times 500 employees of the FBI laboratory in Quantico conduct more than a million tests a year. Justice Kennedy wrote in dissent: “The court’s decision means that before any of those million tests reaches a jury, at least one of the laboratory’s analysts must board a plane, find his or her way to an unfamiliar courthouse and sit there waiting to read aloud notes made months ago.” Just like a cop. And then the will be postponed.

Constitutionally, from my amateur perspective, it seems like a sound decision (Remember that just because you don't like something doesn't mean the constitution is or should be on your side).

For the majority, Scalia writes, "the best indication that the sky will not fall after today’s decision is that it has not done so already. Many States have already adopted the constitutional rule we announce today." I hope he's right. But the sky really may fall, at least at bit.

How from the lab is supposed to testify? One person? Everybody?

On this I believe the dissent when they say, “Requiring even one of these individuals to testify threatens to disrupt if not end many prosecutions where guilt is clear but a newly found formalism now holds sway.”

Compare that with the majority opinion, “Nor will defense attorneys want to antagonize the judge or jury by wasting their time with the appearance of a witness whose testimony defense counsel does not intend to rebut in any fashion.” Really? That ain’t how it is in the Eastside District Court.

Regardless, the court writes:

The Confrontation Clause [of the 6th Amendment] may make the prosecution of criminals more burdensome, but that is equally true of the right to trial by jury and the privilege against self-incrimination. The Confrontation Clause--like those other constitutional provisions--is binding, and we may not disregard it at our convenience.

I wish he was just as strict in interpreting the Fourth Amendment. I'm not a fan of the Confrontation Clause in the U.S. It makes it too hard to convict and thus contributes to a system plea bargains where innocent people plea guilty and guilty people go free. It would be better if a signed affidavit counted as an officer's appearance. If there were need to question the officer's report, then call in the officer.

In other countries, like the Netherlands, police generally don't go to court (unless something is very wrong). For this (and many other reasons) their court system works much better than ours, both to convict the guilty and protect the innocent.

But we do have the 6th Amendment and now the Confrontation Clause is stronger than ever.

So what might happen? Somehow, of course, the system will adapt.

More than 95% of prosecuted cases never go to trial. So perhaps for them, nothing. But even for plea-bargained cases, the state might have to be ready to go for two or three appearances before the plea bargain is accepted. Now, along with having an officer present, a lab tech will have to be present. This will cost money and further slow down justice.

There might be more smaller labs doing work closer to the court. And there might be the need for a lot more crime lab techs who suddenly discover the wonders of court overtime pay. And you'd hate to think of overtime pay influencing their work. But remember that this whole case came about because of bad lab tech work.

Maybe a lot more people will be charged with offenses related to drug. Maybe a lot more cases will be dropped. Maybe more defendants will demand jury trials and the whole system will grind to inglorious halt. Or maybe, just maybe, the sham that passes for criminal justice will continue without pause, no matter what the Supreme Court says the Constitution means, in theory.

A dysfunctional justice system benefits nobody.

Right-Wing Talk Radio

2009-06-26T15:21:00.003-04:00

I want to listen to right-wing radio more. To hear what you guys are saying. But it's hard. Public radio is better. And doesn't have all those damn commercials.

I don't mind listening to people I disagree with. Actually I love it. It's boring to preach to the choir. Give me a William Buckley or a Milt Rosenberg or an Andrew Sullivan or a Pat Buchanan. They're all too conservative for me, but they're smart and their intellectual discussions make the world a better place.

My problem isn't with conservatives. It's with conservatives who make things up and then rally against it. I don't like listening to idiot liberals. So why do some conservatives like to listen to idiot conservatives?

I listed to a bit of Michael Savage yesterday but I just can't take him. Not because he's crazy. But because he's full of sh*t.

I'm all for free speech. Let Limbaugh and Savage speak all they want. But it's the listeners I worry about. If you listen, do you really believe what they say or is it pure entertainment? I'm sure Father Charles Coughlin was entertaining too. But he was also scary.

Many hate filled people and groups are entertaining. Just think of the Illinois Nazis in The Blue Brothers.

A laugh riot.... Man I love that movie. But real people who spew hate and lies should be called out, dismissed, and then ignored as best as possible.

Specifically, for starters, Obama is not a fan of Stalin and Nancy Polesi is not trying to turn the U.S. into the old Soviet Union. And I'd be, well, genuinely shocked if global cooling was a bigger problem than global warming (but I can't vouch for that one personally).

But the part of Savage that was really off the deep end of the deep end was when he came out against Michael Jackson lying in state in the capitol rotunda. What?!

Savage was so disgusted with the idea that he promised that if that ever came to be, he would leave the country. I mean, can you believe those communists might honor that pederast in the capitol. Disgusting! Except, of course, nobody has ever proposed that Michael Jackson should be honored by congress.

You can't make sh*t up and then come out against it! Did I miss something?

I'm against Michael Savage torturing puppies and selling their mutilated genitals online. It's horrible. Disgusting. Just perverted. And I'm sure that crap wouldn't be allowed in the old Soviet Union!

C.I. Payments vs. Criminal Bribery [continued]

2009-06-26T14:15:00.009-04:00

I’ve still very curious about all this and your comments make it all the more interesting.

Here’s the law again:

BRIBERY NOT INVOLVING PUBLIC SERVANTS

S 180.00 Commercial bribing in the second degree.

A person is guilty of commercial bribing in the second degree when he confers, or offers or agrees to confer, any benefit upon any employee, agent or fiduciary without the consent of the latter`s employer or principal, with intent to influence his conduct in relation to his employer`s or principal`s affairs.

Commercial bribing in the second degree is a class A misdemeanor.

S 180.03 Commercial bribing in the first degree.

...and when the value of the benefit conferred or offered or agreed to be conferred exceeds one thousand dollars and causes economic harm to the employer or principal in an amount exceeding two hundred fifty dollars.

Commercial bribing in the first degree is a class E felony.

There's a similar law for the person receiving such a bribe.

Here are some comments I’ve gotten:

I ran this by narco rangers and they said it's pretty common practice. Same in the Intel division re: terrorists. Vetted by lawyers, those people we depend on for moral rectitude. ... I'd be genuinely shocked if the people who make a living defending criminals haven't already challenged this. It's as old as the hills.

I’m rarely shocked, at least not genuinely. (Did you hear that Michael Jackson died!? I mean, he looked so healthy.)

And this:

The DEA is not attempting in any way to alter or influence the firm's business transactions, only learn about them in order to build a case against a criminal. ... Compensating a low-level employee for providing the info seems like a sound move, providing it doesn't circumvent 4th Amendment requirements, which is a different concern than bribery.

Of course in the past police have also threatened these employees with arrest if they don't "help" the investigation.... But let's ignore that bullying behavior for now and just focus on the use of paying employees as C.I.s to turn over business information they have access to.

There is not debate about "benefit" being offered and the lack of the employer's consent. It all comes down to the last part of the law: “With intent to influence his conduct in relation to his employer`s or principal`s affairs.”

Many businesses--from the phone company to apartment rental agencies to car rentals to self-storage to banks--depend on both implicit and explicit (legal) guarantees or trust and privacy. If a bank or any business was known for low-level employees telling me, after I paid $1,000, about what was going on in the business--information I could not find out simply by standing outside the place, information only an employee has access to--how could that not be "in relation" to the employer’s "affairs"?!

Would it not be a bribe if you had stocks and somebody in the firm managing your stocks, against firm policy, sold your information to a third party? If the owner of the firm wanted to give it, or even be paid for it, that might be his or her right. But it's not a right of the employee. And in the case I'm actually talking about, the owner doesn't want to give the information because turning over customer's information would violate trust and hurt business.

Besides, given past experience, he or she simply doesn't trust the police to snoop around on their whim. That is what we have search warrants for.

Or take this scenario:

What if we asked the liquor store worker the contents of Stone Killa's special orders, because we know when he gets the VSOP it means a party that Friday night where all the local Killas are invited? So we pay the worker and he calls us each week with the special orders, and pay him $50 a week for this. When we collar. The Killas at the party, the liquor store loses all Killa's business for the next eight years...

Personally, I think it's clever but also straight-up commercial bribery. Why wouldn't it be? Just because you caught the Killa doesn't really matter with regards to the bribery.

Let’s say you’re the patrol officer responding to a call for commercial bribery (as if). After going, “commercial what!?” you find the entire district down and your supervisor not be disturbed (screwing his mistress or something).

You arrive at the Kim’s Liquor and Kim says his employee was paid money by a private citizen, let’s say me, Peter Moskos, to turn over a list of all the delivery orders or the names on credit cards of something. Let’s say I want this because I’m curious if my wife is spending all my money here. Or I run a rival liquor store and want the database. Or I’m doing academic research. Or I want Stone Killa’s address. Whatever my motives, I don’t think they matter one bit for the legal debate.

The point is I am there, have the business information in my pocket, and confess to giving the employee $1,000 plus one penny for the information. The employee confesses, too. Mr. Kim presents a letter from an angry customer canceling a $251 order (thus meeting both monetary requirements for felony Commercial Bribing in the First Degree).

Mr. Kim, unmoved by our remorse and tears, wants us both locked up. What do you as the responding officer do? Make two easy felony arrests. Case closed.

And if it would be a crime for a private citizen, why would it not be a crime for law enforcement?

[Of course if somebody said, "give me money so I can buy illegal drugs and then use them," it would be considered a crime for most people--but not narcs in the C.I. business--to give money.]

If you dig deeper I am confident you will see that this is law enforcement practice that has been approved of and indemnified by government counsel, and that there is probably even case law that makes this clear.

Maybe. I am trying to dig deeper. I just can't see how this wouldn't be commercial bribery. It is against both the letter and the spirit of the law.

Not so fine a line after all

2009-06-25T01:08:00.005-04:00

Looks like the line between paying a C.I. and criminal bribery isn't so fine after all. Thanks to Marc S. for commenting on this post and informing me that what the DEA agent did is in fact a crime. It's called commercial bribing in the second degree and in New York State it's a class A misdemeanor. Had the $1,000 offer been one cent higher, it would have been a felony. That makes me think that the guy offering the bribe knew the law a lot better than I did.

A person is guilty of commercial bribing in the second degree when he confers, or offers or agrees to confer, any benefit upon any employee, agent or fiduciary without the consent of the latter`s employer or principal, with intent to influence his conduct in relation to his employer`s or principal`s affairs.

God's Middle Finger

2009-06-24T17:06:00.018-04:00

One of the nice thing about school being out and traveling a bit is it gives me more time to read books for fun. My favorite genre is probably the travelogue. Mark Twain, P.J. O’Rourke, Paul Theroux? I love them all. And I’ll even define travelogue broadly to include historical fiction, like my favorite books by Louis de Bernières. Even New Jack by Ted Conover is a travelogue of sorts, since it took me to Sing Sing, a place I’ve never been. Hmmm, I guess by this logic Cop in the Hood could be called a travelogue. But I don’t think it is. But I do like my book.

In the past month, along David Sedaris’s When You Are Engulfed In Flames, I’ve been able to read Gerald Brennan’s South From Granada, which is a very good anthropological-like account of 1920s life in a Spanish village. But perhaps you might only care about life in Yegan if you happen to be hiking through the Spanish Alpujarras.

Chris Stewart writes about the same region in present times in a much more light-hearted and readable way. I read the third of his trilogy, The Almond Blossom Appreciation Society. Good stuff. And I've told myself, somewhat unconvincingly, that I'll buy and read the first two.

In a different genre, I was not Swayed by Sway. It does not succeed at being the Malcolm Gladwell book it wants to be. Some of Sway was interesting, but I don’t need a rehash of one dumb psych experiment after another to tell me that economic rational-choice theory doesn’t have all life's answers. I wanted more discussion and relevance to the real-world.

So maybe I should stick with travelogues. For some reason I think the British are the best at this genre. Maybe it’s the old colonialist in them. Maybe they’re don't mind being culturally chauvinistic. They're certainly less concerned with style killing political correctness. Perhaps these attitudes are no way to rule an empire, but it makes for good reading.

Most travelogues either start happy and end happy ("what a wonderful trip with great people and food!"), start unhappy and end unhappy ("oh, my woeful journey into the heart of darkness... and I would kill for a good cup of tea!"), or start unhappy and end happy ("I just couldn't be happy until I learned to let go of my neurotic hang-ups and be at one with these wonderful if somewhat simple people!").

It's the rare travelogue that starts happy and ends unhappy. And this brings me to the best book I’ve read since Maximum City: Richard Grant's God’s Middle Finger: Into the Lawless Heart of the Sierra Madre.

Talk about unhappy! This book ends--and I don't think I'm spoiling anything because the book starts with a sort of flash forward so you know where it's going, but skip the next paragraph if you don't want to read the last line in the book:

I never wanted to set foot in the Sierra Madre again. The mean drunken hillbillies who lived up there could all feud themselves into extinction and burn in hell. I was out of courage, out of patience, out of compassion. They were sons of their whoring mothers, who had been fornicating with dogs.

The first line of the book is, "So this is what it feels like to be hunted." Why does this man, Richard Grant, travel into the lawless, wild, and narco-controlled Mexican Sierra Madre mountains? Well, for some of the same reasons that many sociologists enjoy research and some of the reasons I enjoyed policing:

We drank four or five gourds each and got nicely buzzed there on the rim of Sinforosa Canyon and it occurred to me that this was more or less the moment I had been looking for when I set out on this journey. Here I was in the heart of the Sierra Madre, about as far from consumer capitalism and the comfortably familiar as I could get, drinking tesguino with a wizened old Tarahumara and feeling that edgy, excited pleasure in being alive that follows a bad scare. It was an uncomfortable realization. To put it another way, here I was getting my kicks and curing my ennui in a place full of poverty and suffering, environmental and cultural destruction, widows and orphans from a slow-motion massacre. I tried to persuade myself that I was going to write something that would make a difference and help these people, but my capacity for self-delusion refused to stretch in that direction.

God's Middle Finger needs no rationalization to read, but I could justify my time reading because I wanted to learn about drug production in Mexico. It's not a pretty picture. And it closely resembles the destructive prohibition-caused drug culture I saw as a cop in Baltimore's Eastern District.

Why did drug cultivation increase the murder rate? “Because drugs give people money to buy gun, alcohol, and cocaine,” said Isidro.

He didn’t think that statement required any elaboration but I asked him to elaborate anyway. “People get more aggressive and paranoid. They kill more easily and then the dead man’s family has to avenge the killings.

I was reading a fascinating book with a similar thesis. Its title translates as The Sierra Tarahumara, A Wounded Land, The Culture of Violence in the Drug-Producing Zones. Its author, a professor in Jaurez called Carlos Mario Alvarado Licon, based his ideas on prison interviews conducted with convicted murderers from the Sierra. He found that they were nearly all model prisoners, with no prior criminal record, and no remorse or regret for what they had done. ... They told of their crimes “serenely” and were convinced they had done the right thing.
In the Sierra homicide is no dishonor. Killing is a part of life, a circumstantial action, generally vengeance for another killing. However, on occasion it is a symbol of pride, when vengeance was done and the law taken into one’s own hands.... Homicide is a form of maintaining the social order where the official authority is absent, unjust or corrupt, and particularly where it fails to punish aggression or offense to the family.
...
When Isidro’s father was killed, his mother implored him to take vengeance. “It was very hard, but I decided not to because if I avenged my father, I would end up losing my brothers and maybe my uncles. It wouldn’t bring back my father and would bring more sorrow into my family. My mother didn’t understand. She never really forgave me.”

Don't go thinking that drug decriminalization in Mexico for personal possession is going solve this. The problem isn't possession. It's wholesale prohibition of drug production, distribution, and sales.

The fine line between confidential informant and bribe

2009-06-24T14:17:00.006-04:00

A friend of mine, who only wants to be broadly identified as being in a form of "real estate business" in New York City, routinely complains to me about police trying, without a search warrant, to bully and threaten his employees in order to gain access to clients' private property or information on someone or something.

My friend is more than happy, even eager, to work legally with law enforcement. In the same law-abiding spirit, he has a very healthy respect for the Bill of Rights, the 4th Amendment in particular.

Well I get this email today:

Yesterday, a DEA agent tried to bribe one of my employees to provide him with access to customer information and to provide tips in the future.

I was pretty pissed. We always cooperate on this stuff to the letter of the law. Then the agent asked to speak to the employee in private and pulled this stunt.

$1,000 was the amount offered, probably dependent on future information.

It's dirty, but as long as the employee was properly signed up as a confidential informant and there was paperwork for it all, it could all be legal and by the book.

I asked why he thought the employee didn't take the money. My friend said three reasons: "1. He's a good guy; 2. He knows we always follow the law; 3. He knows we'd fire him if we found out."