Yes! There ARE TOO Damned Many Laws And These Provoke Cop Interference!

Let us rationally try to trace to the source the actual reason for the too frequent use of excessive force by cops. At root, if we think about it, it's because of too damned many pennyante,  pissant laws that congress critters, mendacious state legislators and others have put on their books. Let's fix ideas by examining the words below of Nick Gillespie, from a piece on The Daily Beast.  This is to do with the cops coming down on Eric Garner:

"Clearly, something has gone horribly wrong when a man lies dead after being confronted for selling cigarettes to willing buyers."

Noting that it is totally irrelevant what Garner was charging for each "loosie" - whether 50 cents each or a buck. Doesn't matter! He had willing buyers, willing to pay what he was asking! And to Gillespies' further point, he didn't deserve to even have a police record for previous infractions because the law itself was an ass. The creation of dubious laws by lawmakers grafting for extra bucks (mucho extra bucks) who actually (in NY) socked on a $5.85 tax per pack of cigs was an outrage. This made them so expensive as to drive them underground which left those like Eric to take advantage of nonsense while making a few bucks on the side. But the Staten Island cops treated it like murder one coming down on him, or peddling smack to kids.

Look, I am no fan of cigs and if I had my way all would be outlawed for reasons I've given in earlier posts. They are not only a blight on the environment - when people toss butts away- but a continuing source of serious health problems.

However, if a person wants to shorten his or her life by puffing the damned things, let them - so long as it's not in my face or in my house. In this scheme of things, Garner should never had been pulled up for such a rinkydink  "crime" and absolutely shouldn't have lost his life from an over  the top cop takedown. I mean, good god, Garner wasn't selling coke or crank! It was freakin' LOOSE cigarettes - which are lawful entities, not prohibited under federal "controlled substance"  laws.

But as Stephen Carter has noted in a recent Denver Post op-ed ('Law Puts Us All In Same Danger as Eric Garner', Dec. 6):

"The problem is actually broader. It's not just cigarette tax laws that can lead to the death of those the police seek to arrest. It's every law. Libertarians argue that we have far too many laws, and the Garner case offers evidence that they're right"

Carter goes on to point out that better training "won't lead to perfection" but "fewer laws would mean fewer opportunities for official violence."

On this he is correct, and although I disagree with Libertarians on multiple issues, it is inevitable that there would be concordance on at least one or two. I mean, even a broken clock is right twice each  day! It also stands to reason: the more laws on the books, especially those enforced to the letter- no matter how idiotic or trite - the greater the potential for police entry and violence.

This can range from the facial beating of a homeless elderly woman in LA - merely for walking across an expressway ("jaywalking") to the case of a 22 yr. old kid in Louisiana being jumped by cops (and facing 20 years) for possession of 1 oz. of  marijuana - which would be legal here in Colorado. To the case of a wheel chair -bound father of two in Tampa, FL, whose home was violated by a SWAT team that dragged him out as his wife and kids became hysterical (this was featured on a 'Penn & Teller' Bullshit Episode dealing with the law). His "crime"? He had 90 days of prescription pain killer meds - prescribed by his physician for unabated pain from a previous road accident - while Florida's absurd law only allowed a 30-day supply. He was therefore convicted as a drug pusher!

Legal scholar Douglas Husak, in, 'Overcriminalization: The Limits of Criminal Law', observes that federal law alone includes more than 3,000 crimes - fewer than half of which are found in the Federal Criminal Code.  All the rest are scattered through other statutes Thus, even a citizen who wants to faithfully abide by the law  - hence be a "lawful citizen" - is up against it. The reason? Because of this legal mish mash - or 'muck', take your pick of parlance - he has no way to ascertain what the actual laws are.

As Carter emphasizes, this "is a violation of the principle that the state cannot punish without due notice."

Yet the record shows the state does do this and uses the rubric that "ignorance of the law is no excuse". But this is nutso baloney. Obviously, if one doesn't know the law he cannot be guilty of intentionally violating it.  If there is no intention, there is no crime! If I travel to Barbados, and am unaware of that nation's law that prohibits the wearing of camo pants - I cannot be held to account or brought up on charges if I show up in them. One has to be given a warning first, say upon one's arrival at Grantley Adams Airport.

This is basic common sense, but of course, as most Libertarians and anarchists will point out, in many cases the law pivots on precious little common sense - as in the case of going after those selling loosies like Garner was.

Husak also notes that in addition to the  above cited federal legal morass, an astonishing 300,000 or more federal regulations which may be enforceable through criminal punishment at the discretion of the relevant administrative agency.  Incredibly, no one knows the actual number and many citizens only learn when they come up against it - say on passing through customs - when they are caught bringing in some entity or other that is prohibited.

Husak himself estimates that more than 70 percent of American adults are guilty of committing a crime that could lead to imprisonment. On citing this, he then quotes the legal scholar William Stuntz to the effect we "are moving toward a world in which the laws on the books makes everyone a felon."

So maybe it's no surprise that cops look on the public suspiciously, as if everyone is a likely felon.

Added to this is the reckless law-making process cited by  Husak which pinpoints a growing tendency of state legislatures- including congress- to toss in a criminal sanction at the end of countless bills to do with countless issues. Quoting Stephen Carter on this phenomenon:

"It is as though making an offense criminal shows how much we care about it."

The trouble is - in the words of Carter again:

"Well, maybe so. But making an offense criminal means the police will go armed to enforce it. "

But as in the case where numerous innocent people are scooped up in police dragnets, and some even imprisoned (or executed) based on false charges or mistaken identity, Husak notes the costs of facing criminal sanction are so high - often because criminal law can't sort out the law abiding from the non-law abiding. After all, if 70 percent of Americans may not even know they are lawbreakers, then how are you going to distinguish them from real lawbreakers.

Think now of how much less money and time would be squandered in prosecutions, incarcerations etc. if half or more of existing laws were removed from the book as useless. These would include picayune fare like having an ounce of MJ on one's person, or possessing a particular type of sex toy  - which earns you slammer time in Virginia or Texas.

Think of how much less money (in lawsuits) police departments would have to shell out to widows and other family members for killing relatives viciously taken down "in the line of duty" for going after a ridiculous "crime" like selling loose cigarettes to willing buyers on street corners, or loitering. Think about that and then tell me you don't agree with Husak's take on over criminalization.

Carter himself is generous to the cops - at least the normal ones, not the hyper-aggressive macho men who subscribed to "take down" over "talk down" when confronting an unarmed civilian- when he writes:

"The criticism is of a political system that takes such bizarre delight in creating new crimes for the cops to enforce. It's unlikely the New York legislature, in creating the crime of selling untaxed cigarettes, imagined that anyone would die violating it".

Indeed, but now one has: Eric Garner. And sadly he is now being cited in some blogs as "having a criminal record" for what?  Well, violating the same stupid law several times earlier! But to me, Garner remains blameless because the law itself is absurd.

Maybe now, given the NY cops  yen to protect each other to the hilt in grand jury testimony, the state legislature will use Garner's death to act and remove that idiotic loosie law.

They might also consider altering the format of the whole grand jury system, which has been shown to be at the mercy of the DA or prosecutor in any given case - deciding which evidence to present, which witnesses to allow, and which charges to let the grand jury decide. In the Garner case, as Chris Hayes has pointed out, the most likely charge by which to nail Pantaleo - reckless endangerment - was taken off the table. Allowed only the two most extreme charges, the jury punted.

Until states and the feds change the legal landscape to make laws more rational and open, we will be seeing more "Eric Garners" in our future and much more civil unrest.  Call it the law of "inaction and reaction".

See also:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/12/04/1349342/--Comply-or-Die-policing-must-stop?detail=email#

So Is the "Bully Epidemic" in the USA Really a Myth?

The currently showing documentary film "Bully", with its young star Aaron Cheese, is certain to gain momentum as it draws necessary attention to what statistics appear to show (the film says "over 13 million American kids bullied this year") is an epidemic in this country. The production of the film itself followed a number of high profile cases (e.g. Phoebe Prince) who were evidently bullied by peers to take their own lives. This bullying often manifested not just in the hallways of schools, but also on social media sites such as Facebook, and Twitter.

The same film "Bully" estimates anywhere from 20%- 70% of students are bullied in a given year. This is an astounding proportion (even the lower one) and it is inevitable that some might find the figures "overblown" or "exaggerated". Such a person is Nick Gillespie who recently wrote a piece "The Panic Over Bullies" (WSJ, March 31- April 1, p. C1 and C2) in which he insists the real panic or epidemic is not over actual bullying but the panicked perceptions of assorted "helicopter parents" unable to feel secure if their charges are out of their sight for five minutes. Hence, it is the parents' overblown, unjustified, neurotic anxiety which transmogrifies normal situations into "bullying".

According to Gillespie (p. C1):

"I have no interest in defending the bullies who dominate sandboxes, extort lunch money and use Twitter to taunt classmates...but there is NO growing crisis! Childhood and adolescence in America have never been less brutal.

Even as the country's overprotective parents whip themselves into a moral panic about kid-on-kid cruelty the numbers don't point to any explosion of abuse."

What are these "numbers"? And let us be aware as with most critical indicators in this nation, from the unemployment rate, to the inflation rate, to debt as percentage of GDP to the poverty rate, nearly every statistic is gamed for political benefit or PR-spin. Thus, unemployment rate, poverty rate and inflation rate are always lowballed from their real rates, even as the debt as % of GDP is overly inflated (usually by Repuke thinktanks).

Anyway, the numbers Gillespie relies on to make his case that the numbers of the bullied are actually falling, are culled from the National Center for Educational Statistics (NCES). He notes (p. C2)):

"According to the National Center for Educational Statistics, between 1995 and 2009 the percentage of students who reported "being afraid of attack or harm in school" declined from 12% to 4%. Over the same period, the victimization rate per 1,000 students declined fivefold."

This entices the question of how there could be such a vast gap between statistics and perceived reality? Is it the case that the incidents of bullying, though fewer, are more vicious and horrendous? And that this more vicious slant contributes to the perception that there's a higher frequency?

Or, could it be the statistics themselves somehow don't capture the true extent of bullying? At the heart of this is exactly how the statistics are assembled, quantified. This is usually based on whether a limited "random sample" was taken by the NCES, or whether all students from as many schools as possible gave inputs. If only random samples were used, then there is the high probability of bias error, or selective filtering. In such cases, say by taking a sample of 150 students out of 2,500 at a high school, the low numbers mean higher probability of false negatives.

Let's say 150 sample forms are distributed at High School X with an enrollment of 2,500, and the selected students are asked to convey them back to the teachers after a day. It is common knowledge that with such a small sample nearly every kid will know by the end of the day who received the forms and hence who is giving input (even if the forms allegedly ask for anonymity). At the same time, the popular kids that got them will quickly be able to parse their own numbers and deduce who the kids most likely to give "victimized" responses are. The latter also know this, and aware they may add to their bully burden, they opt to punt and give "not afraid" responses in much higher frequency than if there was more control or if ALL the kids at HS X received the forms.

This is often why such stats are not worth the paper they're printed on and why the NCES studies, though possibly well-meaning, may not convey the full extent of bullying or victimization.

Never mind, to Gillespie, the NCES stats holds weight, as well as The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education' claim that anti-bully laws (like New Jersey's Lautenberg-Holt proposal) threaten "free speech rights of students" because "its definition of harassment is vague, subjective and at odds with Supreme Court precedent."

Thus, it is not much of a surprise when Nick bloviates:

"Now that schools are peanut-free, latex-free, and soda-free, parents, administrators and teachers have got to worry about something. Since most kids now have access to cable TV, the internet, unlimited talk and texting...it seems the adults have responded by becoming ever more protective and thin-skinned."

Really, it's that simple? While I myself do have problems with many American parents being overly protective (I've blogged before about parents turning little Johnny or Jane loose on their college careers - then texting them or phoning them every second) I don't think that necessarily applies in the case where a kid is being slugged repeatedly in the back or the head, called every permutation of f-words, and spat upon. And.....has to endure that treatment every day.

But to Nick it's no biggie. Even the torment experienced by Aaron Cheese in the movie "Bully" isn't apparently a result of bullying per se, but Aaron's willingness to accept being the victim. As Gillespie puts it:

"Our problem isn't a world where bullies are allowed to run rampant, it's a world where kids like Aaron are convinced they are powerless victims."

Maybe. But maybe it's also a case that the most severely bullied kids like Aaron know when the odds are stacked against them, and when any overt move toward "self defense" might well be their last.