Two officers were shot in front of the Ferguson Police Department early Thursday, authorities said, as demonstrators gathered after the resignation of the city's police chief in the wake of a scathing Justice Department report alleging bias in the police department and court.Sure glad that the Justice Department released that report. It really calmed things down.
A 32-year-old officer from nearby Webster Groves was shot in the face and a 41-year-old officer from St. Louis County was shot in the shoulder, St. Louis County Police Chief Jon Belmar said at a news conference. Both were taken to a hospital, where Belmar said they were conscious. He said he did not have further details about their conditions but described their injuries as "serious."
"I don't know who did the shooting, to be honest with you," Belmar said, adding that he could not provide a description of the suspect or gun.
He said his "assumption" was that, based on where the officers were standing and the trajectory of the bullets, "these shots were directed exactly at my officers."
Thursday, March 12, 2015
This is going well
Dateline: Ferguson, MO:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
62 comments:
Took a look at the DOJ's report, and more or less it argues that (a) the town viewed law enforcement as a revenue source and (b) they arrested a disproportionate number of blacks. As if either would be surprising to find in any police department in the nation, especially any city police department.
Heckuva job, Holder.
The animosity many feel toward cops has as much to do with cop behavior as it does with the anti cop agitators.
Nobody is forcing them to take a tax collector job, after all.
The animosity many feel toward cops has as much to do with cop behavior as it does with the anti cop agitators.
Totally get that, Gino. Doesn't mean someone should be shooting at them.
I equate it to the charlie hebdo thing... ride the tiger and you gonna get bit.
I hear Eric Holder is "sick to his stomach" at this incident. Seems fair; he was sick in the head when he wrote that report. He might as well have pulled the trigger himself.
Holder and Obama know what they are doing. they want the chaos. its an established pattern already.
and they know its hard to be sympathetic to even a 'good' guy who mans speed traps to collect money to cover his pay and benefit package.
in the streets, we call that armed robbery when the crips do it.
There is an easy way to avoid the problems that Holder finds "racist." Obey the laws and pay your tickets. Big objection to Ferguson police were that they were arresting people who didn't pay their tickets, some of whom turned out to be black. Likewise, there is a good way for young black men to avoid being shot by the police. Don't assault them.
are they police, working for the people?
or are they tax collectors, working for the govt class?
the lines are blurred, and thats not good for them or us.
Jerry, read this article, which explains the issue that Gino is discussing.
There's no doubt that Brown was a bad guy, but there's a problem in St. Louis.
Its everywhere. In california, a traffic cite will easily set you back $500, or more, for the most minor of infractions.
Thats why cops hide out near certain intersections where a stop sign is likely to get 'rolled through'... or set speed traps near the end of a downgrade.
OK, I read most of it. This is what struck me: "A town can’t put you in jail for lacking the money to pay a fine. But you can be jailed for not appearing in court to tell the judge you can’t pay — and fined again for not showing up." Now, what about this discriminates against black people? Yes, these towns may be running "cash and carry justice" but it isn't a race thing saying it is only makes the lawlessness worse.
Of COURSE the police target places where speeding or other traffic violations are common, and assess fines for breaking the law. What would you have them do, go sit on a quiet park bench and ignore their duty?
They could fight crime, instead of victimizing peaceful citizens on thier way home from work.
It doesn't discriminate against black people, but it really hurts poor people. A $500 hit hurts poor people especially. It's a bad way to fund a municipality.
A stop or red light light violation is actually $508. And no judge has the authority to adjust it.
So yeah... that image of cops as heros doesnt really fly well.
A stop or red light light violation is actually $508. And no judge has the authority to adjust it.
So yeah... that image of cops as heros doesnt really fly well.
Incentives matter. And the cops in a lot of jurisdictions are revenue collectors first and crime fighters second. And the reason for that is that local governments have decided that's how they want to finance themselves. We need to have a discussion about such things, and soon.
this discussion can start with the police unions. after all, they are willing collaborators in the highway robbery, and primary benefactors as well.
they have an image problem that will not change until they are willing to recognize, and address, their own misdeeds in all of this.
I hear a lot of complaints about this, but traffic laws, like all others, need to be enforced or they encourage a general disrespect for the law which creates bigger problems. My question is, what penalty do you suggest for breaking a traffic law, if not some sort of fine? You think jail time is a better deterrent? And isn't this under the control of each individual driver? Following all the traffic laws doesn't cost you a dime.
Jerry: you'd make a great cop.
and you probably take this as a compliment.
Gino, can I infer from your comment that you do not believe you would be a good cop, presumably because you would not enforce the law? I'm still puzzling over what you consider the alternative to enforcing the law, but allowing a little discretion and compassion?
Gino can answer for himself, but as for me, I would like to see more time spent on investigation of criminal activity and less time on penny antenna random traffic stops. If a driver is endangering public safety, stop him. If he's going a few miles over the speed limit, ignore it. Lately I've seen state troopers pull over random drivers on 35W during rush hour in south Minneapolis. There is no way to differentiate what the driver who gets pulled over was doing compared to the other drivers. The one constant seems to be the crappier the car, the more likely it is it will get the trooper's attention.
For law to be respected, it needs to be uniformly enforced. That's not happening and it's corrosive.
That should have said penny ante.
for starters, if i were a cop i wouldnt last long. i'd refuse to do some of the things cops are expected to do, like harass people and write tickets for bs things designed to increase the coffers.
and i'd probably take a bullet in the back from other cops after i'd refuse to cover and lie for one them when he beats a homeless man to death because he can.
i'm a good person. because of this, i could never be a 'good' cop.
Gino, I think you may be saying that badly. You imply that cops are not good people, and I cannot believe that. And I don't see enforcing the traffic laws as being somehow sufficiently unimportant that enforcement isn't required. Breaking the traffic laws can get people killed. Thank goodness there isn't enough other crime to involve them full time. Where they lack discretion or compassion, maybe you're right, but I haven't met one of those yet.
i have met them. all of my life i have met them.
cops are born bullies, using their 'hero' status among the likes of you in order to game the system that covers their crimes.
to me, they are just another street gang to be avoided.
Bourbon, MO, a small town just up highway 44 from my home town, managed to extend it's borders so they included the federal highway. They then proceeded to post city cops on the highway to issue tickets - some for 72 mph in a 70 mph zone - and I believe there was even an account of a businessman from my hometown getting tased for being too obstreperous after getting one of these tickets. Bourbon became known as one of the worst speedtraps in the country. They took in a lot of cash - enough to build a new city hall and courthouse and to hire more cops and cruisers. Then the State finally cracked down (there's a law limiting the amount of a city's budget that can come from fines)and the next thing you know Bourbon was laying off cops and appealing to nearby communities to send their cops to Bourbon to help them fight their crime (which had always received short shrift with most of the force in their shiny cars sitting on the shoulder of interstate 44). The last I read, my hometown was one of those communities who essentially used a Missouri expression and told Bourbon they could "suck eggs."
I will agree that some-- small towns, especially, and some in my memory-- use traffic law enforcement as a cash windfall business, but I refuse to tar all police departments with that dirty brush. From what I read of Ferguson, it doesn't seem outside the mainstream and doesn't deserve what is being said of them. What is being said is probably for crass politically motivated racist reasons.
the mainstream is the problem. arent you getting that yet?
Not without substantial evidence contrary to my own experiences and predispositions, no.
Regarding the article from the WashPo, it strikes me that the person I'm supposed to have sympathy for has made just about every bad decision in the book. Single mom, tons of tickets she admits she earned, worthless first degree and going for another, keeps driving when she knows she's got a record that will get her arrested whenever she's contacted.....
The article makes clear that she's had a lot of contact with public defenders and such, but it does not appear that she's ever clued into consequences of her actions. You want to help people like her, it's almost like you've got to say "we are getting a full list of your violations and we are going to go one by one to resolve them. By the way, here is a bus schedule--you're going to need it for the time being."
Sorry, but the WashPo article makes it clear that predatory policing is not the problem here.
By the way, red light ticket in St. Louis is $100, not $500. I suspect that the speeding violations are similar--my last one, and definitely one from a speed trap, was $120.
Condolences if you live in the land of fruits and nuts where they think they can cure bad driving with exorbitant fines, but in this case, the woman is not suffering that.
Since experiences matter to you, allow me to share an experience I had yesterday, Jerry.
I had my wife and son in the car, since we were returning from my son's school in Illinois. I was driving northbound on I-35 about five miles north of the Mason City/Clear Lake area, headed back to the Twin Cities. There was a large knot of vehicles, among them an 18-wheeler. I was in the left lane, getting ready to pass the 18-wheeler, when he suddenly swerved into the left lane. I had to swerve slightly and brake hard to avoid having a multi-ton hood ornament. Why did the 18-wheeler do this? He was attempting to avoid the state trooper walking along the right shoulder to give some schlub a speeding ticket. The guy who was driving behind me probably crapped his pants because he had to hit the brakes hard as well. It was a very close call — another half second and I'd be in the hospital or perhaps the morgue.
The truck driver could have been more attentive, but the cop also could have waited a minute or two for the traffic knot to pass before he got out of his car. It's possible that the driver who got pulled over was driving dangerously fast, but given how heavy the northbound traffic was on I-35, the state trooper's actions made the situation infinitely more dangerous. But I'm sure Iowa needs the money.
By the way, in the stretch from the Quad Cities to the Minnesota border, we saw at least a half dozen state troopers and 3-4 local cops pulling over drivers all along the route. Why? Well, it was a nice warm day and it was a chance to make revenue that you might not typically get in the middle of March. I've driven this stretch in the winter and never seen a state trooper. Maybe that's a coincidence.
For what it's worth, we didn't see any Minnesota state troopers out yesterday.
Wow, this thread got fun!
I'm with Gino. I'm sure there are good cops out there, but you're a hell of a lot safer assuming they are thugs in uniform and being pleasantly surprised to learn otherwise than the other way around. And that goes 100x if you are young, male, and not white.
As to traffic enforcement...I believe a PD is about public safety when I see them enforcing the speed limit in residential neighborhoods and issuing citations for running reds, rolling through stop signs, and (especially) failing to yield the right of way to pedestrians. Not when they are sitting on their ass waiting to hand out a ticket for doing 68 mph on a freeway engineered for 70.
Mark, you won't see a HWP around Cedar Rapids, either. They have cameras on practically every overpass, including the one at Hwy. J and 29 that got me two years ago. Waze does a pretty good job of documenting this, but you have to be alert and working the cruise control through there. (I also find CR a real pain for finding exits with fast food. There must be a local ordinance against billboards; the only way I've been able to find one is when Tiger Lilly is next to me doing a smart phone search). I'd bypass CR altogether but overall it takes a lot of time off of my trip to go through there.)
I don't believe all, or even most, officers are morally weak or thugs, but it does strike me that if a large part of the force spends most of its time handing out tickets in speed traps, you're going to end up with a force of lesser intellect and morals than if the police were actually solving real crimes where a moral issue was at hand.
I go through Cedar Rapids every time on our trips to Galesburg. We are careful and we haven't been ticketed. We've stopped for lunch there multiple times. We pretty much stick to 380 on the trip.
It does seem we see a lot more cops on traffic duty than we see them running down serial killers. Thank goodness! I hadn't thought about the fact that we might have "too many" cops just so that we can dedicate some of them to raising revenue, and I don't know that anybody has studied that sort of staffing question. What I keep wondering is why traffic laws should be enforced-- i.e. violations plainly ignored-- differently than the other laws, and how you think penalties for traffic offenses ought to differ from monetary fines? Seems to me they are being criticized for doing exactly what "law and order" would suggest they do.
In other words, what would be the likely result of pulling those extra cops off traffic duty?
It depends on how the police are deployed. If they are out in the community and making an effort to be helpful, it would help. If they're just in their cruisers, they won't do so well. As for traffic, I tend to agree with Brian. I don't have much patience for people who blow through stop signs or go cruising down residential streets at 50 mph, but on a four lane divided highway engineered for 70 mph, especially out in the country, pulling drivers over for driving 4-5 miles over the limit is silly. And I have zero tolerance for drunk drivers.
OK, let me suggest this: Draw a "line" anywhere you like, somewhere between rape and murder on the "crime" side and doing 38 in a 35 zone stuck up in the middle of main highway through a little town as the "nuisance" or "revenue policing" on the other. Now, let us do a little math. Assume that "real crimes" occur at the rate of 1 per day, and that each one requires one day to solve. The math says that, to avoid backlogs, you must have TWO cops to keep up, because these crimes occur at random. Therefore, part of the time, you have one or even two cops completely idle UNLESS you put them on traffic duty, trying to prevent crimes like excess speed, or reckless operation of various kinds that can get people hurt or killed.
Again, no doubt some police departments have so little real crime to deal with (or don't give it proper effort) that they become major revenue sources, by mismanagement or by design. That's wrong. I most seriously doubt that Ferguson is one of them. When someone can prove that law-breaking is evenly distributed across the races, then we'll be concerned about unevenly distributed policing. That will be hard to do. For example, a nearby largely-black public housing complex has 11 times the per-capita police calls as the rest of the city.
It's not a math problem, Jerry. It's a perception problem. I'd prefer it if people in communities like Ferguson didn't see the police as an occupying force. You can argue all day long that the police aren't an occupying force, but your arguments aren't going to carry much weight in Ferguson. And it's a very old problem — the "round up the usual suspects" line was in a movie released over 70 years ago. Somewhere along the way the Ferguson PD lost the respect of the community it serves. That's the perception in the community and it's a reason for why things played out as they have.
And I don't necessarily mind if a cop is sitting idle while on duty. Cops sit idle all the time anyway — the stereotype about cops spending time in donut shops is out there because it's a behavior that is easy to observe. We pay firefighters to handle problems as they arise, not to go looking for them.
Mark, I'd agree that the arguments aren't carrying the day in Ferguson, but it strikes me from the article you linked that the "heroine" simply has contempt for the law, and quite frankly for her own safety and the safety of others. We're not talking about 74 in a 70 zone in the boondocks, but rather driving with a suspended license, no insurance, no registration....and OK, if you can't afford $500/year for insurance and registration ($52 in MO), I'm guessing brake work, emissions, and tires with tread are also on the optional list for this demographic.
I don't mean to be mean here, but quite frankly, this kind of driver is one I'm happy to see taking the bus. What does it take before we start telling people that this kind of thing is not a "get the poor" issue but a safety issue? The only thing mentioned that is not about safety is the registration thing.
Bubba, you're addressing an argument I'm not making. No one believes the woman in the article is a heroine. What I'm arguing is that what's happening in St. Louis makes it tougher on people like the woman in question to get ahead. And she's not the only one in similar circumstances.
Mark, I just cannot see someone who drives with expired tags, no insurance, and a suspended license as a victim of anyone besides herself. If she cannot afford insurance and tags, she needs to take the bus and sell her car.
Sorry, but I've made do in harsher climates than St. Louis without driving.
Not saying she's a victim. Some people do fail because they can't hack the world. She might be one of them. Are we throwing obstacles in her path that aren't necessary? Maybe.
If we're going to demand accountability from people, we need to be mindful of what causes people to fail and think hard about the obstacles to success. It's highly likely you're a more tough-minded and capable person than she is. But you aren't necessarily the measuring stick, nor am I.
Of course we're not the measuring stick. But does one have to be that tough minded to decide to take the bus, walk, or bike rather than go to jail for traffic violations? I don't think we're talking about needing the endurance of an Olympic marathoner or the wisdom of Socrates to figure this out, to put it mildly.
It's like instead of, or in addition to, legal help, these people need someone to walk them through "this is how life works. It works this way for everybody, no matter what color their skin is."
Agreed, it's a perception problem. The math problem is easily solved. When there is no more high-priority crime, the police can pay attention to the lesser crimes of breaking the traffic laws and failing to make court appearances.
As for the perception problem, why should the police be blamed? It is at least a two-sided problem, with one side-- the black side-- largely responsible. If you are black and don't like cops arresting black people, start telling your black neighbors to quit committing crimes.
As for the perception problem, why should the police be blamed? It is at least a two-sided problem, with one side-- the black side-- largely responsible. If you are black and don't like cops arresting black people, start telling your black neighbors to quit committing crimes.
Easy for us to say. Too easy. We're all law-abiding, until someone decides we're not.
Additionally, we don't know what conversations take place among black neighbors, because we're not part of those conversations. Remember what Gino said -- the perception in a lot of communities is that the cops are just another street gang. That perception likely is wrong-headed, but if we don't take that perception into consideration, we are going to misread the situation. And the cycle will continue. It's frustrating as hell, because the perception seems like a false narrative, but we're not living in the same place and experiencing the same things.
Bubba, I get your point. Really, I do. But you answered your own question. There are a lot of people who aren't being taught properly and it ends up biting them in the ass. We do need to help them and while a "well, you'll have to take the bus" stance is correct from a legal standpoint, it's not going to teach the life lessons we intend. We have over a half century of evidence on that score.
cops do single out certain classes of people that they find to be easy marks, like Mr D said, the 'crappiest car' scenario.
they can find just as much illegal weed randomly pulling over BMWs as they can the rusted out Pintos, but they dont.
why?
because bullies, by nature, single out the weak.
similar situation in NY, with Mr Garner. the cops killed him over a pack of cigarettes, and he wasnt a threat to anybody or anything, except for their 'authority'.
Bullies. its what they do.
oh yeah... and let's talk about 'sobriety checkpoints' that have nothing at all to do with catching drunks, and more about cops getting easy overtime pay (this is documented), and impounding cars (the city takes a share of the impound fees, documented also, that are charged by the brother of the mayor who owns the tow business...)
if yer registration is out of date, your car is impounded. if your drivers license is a day or two expired, your car is impounded. these impound fees start at over 5 Benjamins on the first day, increasing every day thereafter...
guess which class of people is further victimized by these acts?
guess which class of people routinely lobbies for such checkpoints to pad their paychecks?
these dont occur after midnight, when the drunks are on the road. they happen tween 6-9 pm, when the most cars can be stopped and impounded.
so, yeah, yer a blue collar man, struggling to make your way, lucky enough to pick up a few hours OT that day (maybe to catch up on your registration fees?)... yer the one getting popped and impounded...
by the neighborhood 'heros'... er, i mean, bullies...
and all you did wrong was drive home from work.
I'm glad to see Bubba's on board with generous investments in public transportation. :)
Depending on where you are, "sell your car and take the bus" isn't necessarily a slam dunk in terms of saving money. The cost for me to take the bus to work and back would be $6.50/day. My quick (but reasonably well informed) estimate of what it costs me to drive is just shy of $20/day, but most of that is because I have a car payment. If the car were paid off (or if I'd bought a slightly older model outright) my cost would be...about $7.50/day*. And of course, the tradeoff in time would be at least an hour and a half per day.
This also assumes I'm only ever commuting to work and home, and nowhere else. And that I live in the same place and go to the same job...neither of which would likely be true in a "need to take the bus" scenario. I would likely live much, much less convenient to the downtown bus station and also not be working for the second largest private employer in my county (i.e., a place that rates a sweet spot on a reasonable bus route.)
I'd probably also be working more than one job, which means more bus rides AND a bigger cost imposition on my "free" time by transit.
I realize I've strayed rather far from the topic at hand, here, but I do have a point, and that is that it's easy to cluck your tongue and criticize the poor decisions of poor people, but it is much harder to structure political, economic, and social incentives to facilitate better choices. And it DEFINITELY helps no one when police practices like the ones Gino describes effectively criminalize being poor.
*Based on the cost of driving 22 miles round trip, $3/gallon gas, in a car that get 28 mpg, plus tax, tag, emissions, insurance, 3 oil changes, and a $500 maintenance estimate, spread out over 250 workdays in a year. Skimp on some maintenance and I could probably go for less than the bus.
I realize I've strayed rather far from the topic at hand, here, but I do have a point, and that is that it's easy to cluck your tongue and criticize the poor decisions of poor people, but it is much harder to structure political, economic, and social incentives to facilitate better choices. And it DEFINITELY helps no one when police practices like the ones Gino describes effectively criminalize being poor.
Exactly. If I were to try to get to my office without a car, I'd have to take a 35 minute bus trip to downtown Minneapolis, then transfer to either another bus or the light rail line to the Mall of America, then transfer again to another bus that heads to Burnsville, get off that bus and walk a half-mile. It would be, if everything went right, about a 2.5 hour commute each way. I can drive it in 35 minutes if the traffic cooperates. I don't personally have 5 hours a day for a commute. Do you?
I don't know what distance the woman that Bubba mentions is driving, or how much time it would take for her to make her various appointments via public transportation, but I would imagine it would be exceptionally difficult for her to do many of the things she's trying to do. And I would also imagine it would be tempting for her to say the hell with it and just sit back at home and take public assistance instead. Would that improve her circumstances?
We have to think about such questions.
Seems to me that the whole "bullies" argument rests on the truth or falsity of the statement "they can find just as much illegal weed randomly pulling over BMWs as they can the rusted out Pintos, but they dont." I seriously doubt that such a study has been done, especially with such specificity, but if it was I would guess that neither one would be the most common pot rod. And if you talked cocaine it might be completely different. Besides, random stops are illegal; there is supposed to be probable cause.
"We have to think about such questions."
Sure, go ahead, but how about asking these folks to think about the consequences of breaking the law before they do it? For example, I've often thought that the purpose of the DWI laws were not to deter it, nor to punish it, but to stop it. Suppose everybody knew that the penalty for a first offense would be that you lose your license and you lose your car and you can't ever drive again? Do you suppose people would think twice before stopping into a bar on the way home?
Tell you what: I'm willing to consider making at least some of the traffic laws punishable by a sliding scale fine, based on income (with a max). I know, way out of the box, but would that help?
Regarding the cost of driving vs. that of taking the bus; a month bus pass in St. Louis is $87. Contrast that with $40-60 for insurance, $5 for registration, plus gas, depreciation, and maintenance. Plus, ahem, tickets.
No argument that a lot of what police do has little to do with justice. It just occurs to me that the test case they presented has nothing to do with that.
And yes, I'm fine with some funding for buses--not trains, but definitely buses.
Regarding the cost of driving vs. that of taking the bus; a month bus pass in St. Louis is $87. Contrast that with $40-60 for insurance, $5 for registration, plus gas, depreciation, and maintenance. Plus, ahem, tickets.
The issue isn't cost, it's time. There are multiple ways to save money. Saving time is more difficult.
For example, I've often thought that the purpose of the DWI laws were not to deter it, nor to punish it, but to stop it. Suppose everybody knew that the penalty for a first offense would be that you lose your license and you lose your car and you can't ever drive again? Do you suppose people would think twice before stopping into a bar on the way home?
Sure. Drunk driving is a different issue. I don't have any tolerance for that. Registrations, busted tail lights, things of that sort? A much different issue.
Besides, random stops are illegal; there is supposed to be probable cause.
ROTFLMOA...............
dude, do you ever leave the house?
i'm talking real world. climb aboard.
I didn't say it never happens, just that your assumption seems to be that it ALWAYS happens. And maybe "probable cause" isn't as clear as it should be in every case, or is sometimes abused, but don't those cases tend to get tossed? If not, why not?
Because its your word against the cop and the cop always wins. Dude... ive lived the life. I know the way it works.
The cases don't get tossed because there's money to be made. We would all like to believe that law enforcement is honest, and in some places it is. Not enough, though.
the only time 'probable cause' comes up in court if if there is a case involving felony crime.
99% of the time, the cops are just fishing. pull over the 'usual suspect', because you can... and see what you can find.
i been there. had my car searched so many times i knew better than to keep something they might want to find in a place where they could find it.
when asked why, they just say: oh, you matched the description of a suspect... or, you were driving too slow... or you were swerving... they make shit up.
because... that is what they do.
there was one case of honesty: 3am, i got pulled, tested, searched, the whole nine... their excuse: its a slow night. i told them to f off. yes, i did.
Post a Comment