Mr. Putin knows that President Obama and his first secretary of State, who would like to succeed him, are appeasers of the first order
By Monica Crowley
PoliticalMavens.com
August 26, 2016
The guns of August — a phrase first used to describe the outbreak of World War I — is a real phenomenon. Maybe it’s the heat, but there’s something about the eighth month that seems to inspire armed conflict. Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait in August 1990. The collapse of the Soviet Union began with a coup attempt against Mikhail Gorbachev in August 1991. Reports of North Vietnamese attacks against U.S. destroyers in the Gulf of Tonkin in August 1964 gave President Lyndon Johnson the pretext to win broad congressional approval for an expansion of the war. Adolf Hitler readied the invasion of Poland in August 1939 and attacked on Sept. 1.
And now, as Russian President Vladimir Putin masses more than 40,000 Russian troops near the Ukrainian border, we once again hold our breath during the last full month of summer.
Mr. Putin has already annexed Crimea and holds sway over large areas of eastern Ukraine. He has recently ordered stepped-up military and naval exercises in the eastern Mediterranean and Black Sea. And he has accused Ukrainians of “terrorism,” presumably as a pretext for more aggressive Russian action.
No one should be surprised if Mr. Putin pushes further into Ukraine, perhaps even with a full-blown invasion. Why shouldn’t he? There is nothing and no one to stop him — certainly not the American president or the craven Europeans.
After all, Mr. Putin knows that President Obama and his first secretary of State, who would like to succeed him, are appeasers of the first order.
During the 2008 campaign, Mr. Obama criticized the Bush administration for damaging relations with the Russians through “provocative” acts such as promising our Eastern European allies a missile defense shield and criticizing Russia for its invasion of democratic Georgia. Mr. Obama promised that he’d work to restore relations with Russia through an incentives offensive. Mr. Bush had used sticks; Mr. Obama would use carrots. How could the Russians not want to give up their national interests for a new partnership with Mr. Obama? Through Mrs. Clinton, he would “reset” the bilateral relationship.
In March 2009, she presented Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov with a red plastic button. Stamped on top was the Russian word for “RESET.” Or so she thought. “We worked hard to get the right Russian word. Do you think we got it?” she asked eagerly. Mr. Lavrov took one look at the button and suppressed an eye-roll. “You got it wrong,” he replied. He then told the U.S. secretary of hope and change that the Russian translation of the word on the button wasn’t “RESET,” but “OVERCHARGE.”
Mrs. Clinton laughed nervously and said, “We won’t let you do that to us.”
Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton then proceeded to do exactly that, by showering the Russians with unprecedented concessions — from canceling the Bush administration’s plans to deploy a missile defense shield in Eastern Europe to promising no “first use” of nuclear weapons to refusing to expand and modernize our nuclear arsenal to completing the disastrous U.S.-Russia Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty — to show them that we could be partners.
The Russian response? Instead of embracing the Obama administration as farsighted, enlightened anti-Bushes, the Kremlin stepped up its stonewalling on Iranian sanctions, didn’t resume compliance with the Conventional Forces in Europe agreement, and threatened to target U.S. missile defense sites in Europe with their offensive missiles unless Mr. Obama dropped all missile defense plans. It also threatened to withdraw from the New START Treaty completely if Mr. Obama didn’t accede to its demands.
Mr. Putin then went further, accusing the United States (and reportedly, specifically Mrs. Clinton) for allegedly stoking protests against his party, United Russia, after a suspect parliamentary election win in late 2011. And a top Russian general warned of a new “arms race.”
Mr. Obama gave the Russians a yard and predictably, they took a mile.
His naive approach ignored several things. First, the Cold War didn’t end when the Soviet Union collapsed. It simply changed form.
Second, Russia has its own national interests, which are diametrically opposed to ours, and that reality will never change.
And third, Mr. Obama's “I HeartRussia” approach ignored the fact that Russia had become far more authoritarian under Vladimir Putin and Dmitry Medvedev, had killed those who dared to speak about rampant corruption and oppression, was seeking to reassert control within the former Soviet Union, and was intervening in the Middle East on the side of bad guys like Iran and Syria.
Instead of confronting Mr. Putin on these issues, Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton waved him through.
Mr. Obama once said, “I don’t think countries around the world are interested in testing our credibility when it comes to these issues.”
Well, testing our credibility is the only thing our enemies are interested in. Enemies poke and prod us, and when we bend, ignore or appease them, they believe we are weak. When we fail that credibility test, they then step up their aggression. Witness: Pearl Harbor, the entire history of the Cold War and Sept. 11.
Mr. Putin knows the Obama-Clinton drill: American power is being drawn down to near unprecedented levels. And he is taking full advantage of it. It’s a tragedy that their deliberate failure of leadership is costing so many others their sovereignty, freedom and lives.
Tuesday, August 30, 2016
TRUMP PERFORMS A MAGIC TRICK
Donald and Hillary meet at a bakery on the campaign trail.
As soon as they enter the bakery, Hillary steals three pastries and puts them in her pocket.
She says to Donald, "See how clever I am? The owner didn't see anything and I don't even need to lie.” I will definitely win the election.
The Donald says to Hillary, "That's the typical dishonesty you have displayed throughout your entire life … trickery and deceit. I am going to show you an honest way to get the same result."
Donald goes to the owner of the bakery and says, "Give me a pastry and I will show you a magic trick."
Intrigued, the owner accepts and gives him a pastry.
Trump swallows it and asks for another one.
The owner gives him another one.
Then Donald asks for a third pastry and eats that, too.
The owner is starting to wonder where the magic trick is and asks, "What did you do with the pastries?"
Trump replies, "Look in Hillary's pocket"
As soon as they enter the bakery, Hillary steals three pastries and puts them in her pocket.
She says to Donald, "See how clever I am? The owner didn't see anything and I don't even need to lie.” I will definitely win the election.
The Donald says to Hillary, "That's the typical dishonesty you have displayed throughout your entire life … trickery and deceit. I am going to show you an honest way to get the same result."
Donald goes to the owner of the bakery and says, "Give me a pastry and I will show you a magic trick."
Intrigued, the owner accepts and gives him a pastry.
Trump swallows it and asks for another one.
The owner gives him another one.
Then Donald asks for a third pastry and eats that, too.
The owner is starting to wonder where the magic trick is and asks, "What did you do with the pastries?"
Trump replies, "Look in Hillary's pocket"
AN ARKANSAS DOG WENT TO COLLEGE
A young man from Arkansas goes off to college. Halfway through the semester, having foolishly squandered all of his money on his girlfriend, he calls home.
"Dad," he says, "You won't believe what modern education is developing! They actually have a program here at university that will teach our dog, Ole Blue how to talk!"
"That's amazing," his Dad says. "How do I get Ole Blue in that program?"
"Just send him over here with $1,000," the young says "And I'll get him in the course."
So, his Father sends the dog and $1,000.
About two-thirds of the way through the semester, the money again runs out. The boy again calls home.
"So how's Ole Blue doing son?" his Father asks.
"Awesome, Dad, he's talking up a storm," he says, "But you just won't believe this -- they've had such good results they have started to teach the animals how to read!"
"Read!?" says his Father, "No kidding! How do we get Ole Blue in that program?"
"Just send $2,500, I'll get him in the class."
The money promptly arrives. The young man and his girlfriend are able to buy enough marijuana to last the whole semester.
But, the young fellow has a problem. At the end of the year, his Father will find out the dog can neither talk, nor read. Even though he was always pretty much able to lie his way out of trouble, he asked his girlfriend to help him think of a really good lie to tell his Dad. She very quickly came up with a plan for him.
She has him shoot the dog.
When he arrives home at the end of the year, his Father is all excited.
"Where's Ole' Blue? I just can't wait to see him talk and read something to me!"
"Dad," the boy says," I have some grim news. Yesterday morning, just before we left to drive home, Ole’ Blue was in the living room, kicked back in the recliner, reading the Wall Street Journal, like he usually does. Then Ole' Blue turned to me, and asked, so, is your Daddy still messing around with that little redhead who lives down the street?"
The Father went white and exclaimed, "I hope you shot that lying sonuva bitch before he talks to your Mother!"
"I sure did, Daddy!"
"That's my boy!"
The kid married his girlfriend and they both went on to law school.
He became Governor of Arkansas and President of the United States, and you already know what a liar his girlfriend turned out to be!
"Dad," he says, "You won't believe what modern education is developing! They actually have a program here at university that will teach our dog, Ole Blue how to talk!"
"That's amazing," his Dad says. "How do I get Ole Blue in that program?"
"Just send him over here with $1,000," the young says "And I'll get him in the course."
So, his Father sends the dog and $1,000.
About two-thirds of the way through the semester, the money again runs out. The boy again calls home.
"So how's Ole Blue doing son?" his Father asks.
"Awesome, Dad, he's talking up a storm," he says, "But you just won't believe this -- they've had such good results they have started to teach the animals how to read!"
"Read!?" says his Father, "No kidding! How do we get Ole Blue in that program?"
"Just send $2,500, I'll get him in the class."
The money promptly arrives. The young man and his girlfriend are able to buy enough marijuana to last the whole semester.
But, the young fellow has a problem. At the end of the year, his Father will find out the dog can neither talk, nor read. Even though he was always pretty much able to lie his way out of trouble, he asked his girlfriend to help him think of a really good lie to tell his Dad. She very quickly came up with a plan for him.
She has him shoot the dog.
When he arrives home at the end of the year, his Father is all excited.
"Where's Ole' Blue? I just can't wait to see him talk and read something to me!"
"Dad," the boy says," I have some grim news. Yesterday morning, just before we left to drive home, Ole’ Blue was in the living room, kicked back in the recliner, reading the Wall Street Journal, like he usually does. Then Ole' Blue turned to me, and asked, so, is your Daddy still messing around with that little redhead who lives down the street?"
The Father went white and exclaimed, "I hope you shot that lying sonuva bitch before he talks to your Mother!"
"I sure did, Daddy!"
"That's my boy!"
The kid married his girlfriend and they both went on to law school.
He became Governor of Arkansas and President of the United States, and you already know what a liar his girlfriend turned out to be!
Monday, August 29, 2016
PAY THE UNGRATEFUL ASSHOLE OFF AND THROW HIM OUT OF THE NFL
San Francisco Forty-Niners quarterback Colin Kaepernick refuses to stand for the national anthem
Born to a white mother and absentee black father, Colin Kaepernick was adopted by a white family. During his high school years Kaepernick excelled in baseball. football and basketball. He is now the starting quarterback of the NFL’s San Francisco Forty-Niners.
During the pre-season games, Kaepernick has refused to join his teammates in standing while the national anthem is played. He explains:
“I am not going to stand up to show pride in a flag for a country that oppresses black people and people of color. To me, this is bigger than football and it would be selfish on my part to look the other way. There are bodies in the street and people getting paid leave and getting away with murder.”
It seems obvious that Kaepernick is talking about the police getting away with murder.
What an ungrateful asshole. This country has rewarded him, a half-black man, with a multi-million dollar salary for playing games. If this country oppressed people of color as he claims, Kaepernick would be lucky to have a job digging ditches.
I say, pay off the ungrateful asshole's $9 million contract and throw him out of the NFL!
Unfortunately that’s not going to happen. 49ers coach Chip Kelly says his quarterback has the right as a citizen to protest by not standing during the playing of the national anthem and he does not intend to take any action against Kaepernick.
The NFL released a statement saying, “Players are encouraged but not required to stand during the playing of the national anthem.” Encouraged, my ass … they should be required to stand!
Yes, Kaepernick has the right to express himself freely, but free expression can have unwanted consequences. Obviously, there are no consequences in the NFL when a player dishonors our great nation and calls our cops murderers.
Fuck Colin Kaepernick, Chip Kelly, the Forty-Niners and the National Football League! God Bless America!
Born to a white mother and absentee black father, Colin Kaepernick was adopted by a white family. During his high school years Kaepernick excelled in baseball. football and basketball. He is now the starting quarterback of the NFL’s San Francisco Forty-Niners.
During the pre-season games, Kaepernick has refused to join his teammates in standing while the national anthem is played. He explains:
“I am not going to stand up to show pride in a flag for a country that oppresses black people and people of color. To me, this is bigger than football and it would be selfish on my part to look the other way. There are bodies in the street and people getting paid leave and getting away with murder.”
It seems obvious that Kaepernick is talking about the police getting away with murder.
What an ungrateful asshole. This country has rewarded him, a half-black man, with a multi-million dollar salary for playing games. If this country oppressed people of color as he claims, Kaepernick would be lucky to have a job digging ditches.
I say, pay off the ungrateful asshole's $9 million contract and throw him out of the NFL!
Unfortunately that’s not going to happen. 49ers coach Chip Kelly says his quarterback has the right as a citizen to protest by not standing during the playing of the national anthem and he does not intend to take any action against Kaepernick.
The NFL released a statement saying, “Players are encouraged but not required to stand during the playing of the national anthem.” Encouraged, my ass … they should be required to stand!
Yes, Kaepernick has the right to express himself freely, but free expression can have unwanted consequences. Obviously, there are no consequences in the NFL when a player dishonors our great nation and calls our cops murderers.
Fuck Colin Kaepernick, Chip Kelly, the Forty-Niners and the National Football League! God Bless America!
IS SEARS GETTING READY TO ROLL OVER AND DIE?
By Bob Walsh
Regular readers will remember I recently wrote a piece speculating that K-Mart (sometimes known as KrapMart of K-Fart) might be going belly up. This was based on speculation in a news piece provided mainly by line staff who were commenting on lack of stock, lack of staff, etc.
I worked in retail for a fair number of years. I realize that the cash register jockeys might not see the big picture, but they certainly know what is going on in the trenches better than the suits at headquarters.
There is a pretty extensive piece by Haley Peterson in the Business Insider that says that Sears (part of Sears Holding which owns both Sears and K-Mart) is bleeding cash and is running their stores seriously understaffed. Many of the stores that are still semi-functional have very new, marginally trained and almost totally inexperienced staff in the stores. Some stores only have one or two functional checkouts for the entire store. Building maintenance is not being done. Total
items sold has dropped by two-thirds in some stores. Their Shop Your Way Rewards program has been somewhere close to an unmitigated disaster.
Some new hires last only a month. Turnover is very high and retention of senior staff is a serious issue.
Some of the staff who gave quotes for the article speculated that Sears brick-and-mortar operation may go the way of the Dodo bird relatively soon. They could, at least in theory, turn into an on-line only operation. I admit I don’t know how workable that would be, but it will be interesting to see how they do this coming Christmas season. For a lot of retail Christmas covers the overhead for the rest of the year. If you don’t have a good Christmas you can’t keep the doors open in April.
Regular readers will remember I recently wrote a piece speculating that K-Mart (sometimes known as KrapMart of K-Fart) might be going belly up. This was based on speculation in a news piece provided mainly by line staff who were commenting on lack of stock, lack of staff, etc.
I worked in retail for a fair number of years. I realize that the cash register jockeys might not see the big picture, but they certainly know what is going on in the trenches better than the suits at headquarters.
There is a pretty extensive piece by Haley Peterson in the Business Insider that says that Sears (part of Sears Holding which owns both Sears and K-Mart) is bleeding cash and is running their stores seriously understaffed. Many of the stores that are still semi-functional have very new, marginally trained and almost totally inexperienced staff in the stores. Some stores only have one or two functional checkouts for the entire store. Building maintenance is not being done. Total
items sold has dropped by two-thirds in some stores. Their Shop Your Way Rewards program has been somewhere close to an unmitigated disaster.
Some new hires last only a month. Turnover is very high and retention of senior staff is a serious issue.
Some of the staff who gave quotes for the article speculated that Sears brick-and-mortar operation may go the way of the Dodo bird relatively soon. They could, at least in theory, turn into an on-line only operation. I admit I don’t know how workable that would be, but it will be interesting to see how they do this coming Christmas season. For a lot of retail Christmas covers the overhead for the rest of the year. If you don’t have a good Christmas you can’t keep the doors open in April.
YOU GOTTA WATCH OUT FOR THOSE DAMN SNEAKY BAPTISTS
By Bob Walsh
There is a very interesting piece in the local fishwrapper (Stockton RECORD) today by their principle columnist, Michael Fitzgerald. He goes into some detail about the cozy relationship between the Lodi Unified School District and the First Baptist Church of Lodi. He describes it as having the appearance of a “school to Jesus pipeline.” He is almost certainly right.
A local atheist group, the Stockton Area Atheists and Freethinkers, submitted two FOIA requests to the district in order to dig into its relationship with the church. The group found the following.
There is a program called 180 Teen Center which is an arm of the First Baptist Church. It is a line-item on the church’s budget and describes its employees as “missionaries.” This group does get funding from other sources and keeps its own bank accounts and its own payroll, but it is without a doubt an arm of the church.
The 180 Teen Center is allowed to send staff into at least some middle schools and high schools in the district. They invite teens to the center. Their written material and their Facebook page say nothing about a religious connection, though the religious connection is very obvious when you actually enter the building.
The founding director of the 180 Teen Center is now a pastor at the First Baptist Church. His wife is now the Teen Center’s director.
The Teen Center recently purchased a very nice 35 foot Winnebago from Lodi Unified for less than 20% of its fair market value. The guy who handled the sale was at the time the Director of Personnel for Lodi Unified. He is now a Principal in the district. He is also on the board of the First Baptist Church.
Over three years the school district paid the Teen Center over $111,000 to provide “counselors” [proselytizers] to the school district.
The Teen Center staffers liberally plaster posters advertising Upwards Sports Programs around the schools. This group advertises itself as “promoting the discovery of Jesus through sports.”
As Fitzgerald said, this may not, strictly speaking, be a violation of the Second Amendment but it may very well be what the lawyers (other than Hillary Clinton) would call “excessive entanglement.” It is a recognized valid legal concept.
EDITOR’S NOTE: Here in East Texas the woods are thick with them Baptists. It looks to me like this is a clear violation of separation of church and state. Anyone other than a Baptist or Evangelical would resent their tax dollars being used to further a Baptist church.
This story reminds me of my favorite bumper sticker:
JESUS LOVES YOU
Everyone else thinks you’re an asshole
There is a very interesting piece in the local fishwrapper (Stockton RECORD) today by their principle columnist, Michael Fitzgerald. He goes into some detail about the cozy relationship between the Lodi Unified School District and the First Baptist Church of Lodi. He describes it as having the appearance of a “school to Jesus pipeline.” He is almost certainly right.
A local atheist group, the Stockton Area Atheists and Freethinkers, submitted two FOIA requests to the district in order to dig into its relationship with the church. The group found the following.
There is a program called 180 Teen Center which is an arm of the First Baptist Church. It is a line-item on the church’s budget and describes its employees as “missionaries.” This group does get funding from other sources and keeps its own bank accounts and its own payroll, but it is without a doubt an arm of the church.
The 180 Teen Center is allowed to send staff into at least some middle schools and high schools in the district. They invite teens to the center. Their written material and their Facebook page say nothing about a religious connection, though the religious connection is very obvious when you actually enter the building.
The founding director of the 180 Teen Center is now a pastor at the First Baptist Church. His wife is now the Teen Center’s director.
The Teen Center recently purchased a very nice 35 foot Winnebago from Lodi Unified for less than 20% of its fair market value. The guy who handled the sale was at the time the Director of Personnel for Lodi Unified. He is now a Principal in the district. He is also on the board of the First Baptist Church.
Over three years the school district paid the Teen Center over $111,000 to provide “counselors” [proselytizers] to the school district.
The Teen Center staffers liberally plaster posters advertising Upwards Sports Programs around the schools. This group advertises itself as “promoting the discovery of Jesus through sports.”
As Fitzgerald said, this may not, strictly speaking, be a violation of the Second Amendment but it may very well be what the lawyers (other than Hillary Clinton) would call “excessive entanglement.” It is a recognized valid legal concept.
EDITOR’S NOTE: Here in East Texas the woods are thick with them Baptists. It looks to me like this is a clear violation of separation of church and state. Anyone other than a Baptist or Evangelical would resent their tax dollars being used to further a Baptist church.
This story reminds me of my favorite bumper sticker:
JESUS LOVES YOU
Everyone else thinks you’re an asshole
FAMILY OF DEAD FIREARMS INSTRUCTOR SUES RANGE
By Bob Walsh
Regular readers will remember this incident. A nine-year old girl shot and killed a firearms instructor at a range in Arizona two years ago. The instructor allowed the nine-year old to fire a fully automatic Uzi with (IMHO) inadequate supervision and preparation. In any event the man is dead and his survivors are suing the gun range.
The family asserts (probably correctly) that the mini-Uzi should never have been placed in the girls hands. The lawyer asserts that Charlie Vacca, the firearms instructor, was killed because that act was fundamentally unsafe. That is also probably correct.
I suspect that much of this will hinge on whether or not the instructor or some other person at the range allowed the youngster to shoot and what authority, if any, the instructor had over the situation. My inclination, based on very little information, would lead me to believe that the instructor was largely responsible for the situation ASSUMING that he had control over the situation and veto power over who was allowed to shoot under his direction.
I actually have significant training and experience in this area and I would certainly never have let a physically small, young child fire a fully automatic weapon with zero preparation and orientation.
EDITOR’S NOTE: I think it’s a stretch for the family to sue the range when it was the stupidity of their loved one in allowing a 9-year-old to fire an Uzi that caused his death.
Every firing range I’ve ever been to where there was an instructor present, that instructor was in charge, not the range operators. Now this another stretch, but maybe the family would have a better legal standing by suing the range for employing an idiot instructor.
Regular readers will remember this incident. A nine-year old girl shot and killed a firearms instructor at a range in Arizona two years ago. The instructor allowed the nine-year old to fire a fully automatic Uzi with (IMHO) inadequate supervision and preparation. In any event the man is dead and his survivors are suing the gun range.
The family asserts (probably correctly) that the mini-Uzi should never have been placed in the girls hands. The lawyer asserts that Charlie Vacca, the firearms instructor, was killed because that act was fundamentally unsafe. That is also probably correct.
I suspect that much of this will hinge on whether or not the instructor or some other person at the range allowed the youngster to shoot and what authority, if any, the instructor had over the situation. My inclination, based on very little information, would lead me to believe that the instructor was largely responsible for the situation ASSUMING that he had control over the situation and veto power over who was allowed to shoot under his direction.
I actually have significant training and experience in this area and I would certainly never have let a physically small, young child fire a fully automatic weapon with zero preparation and orientation.
EDITOR’S NOTE: I think it’s a stretch for the family to sue the range when it was the stupidity of their loved one in allowing a 9-year-old to fire an Uzi that caused his death.
Every firing range I’ve ever been to where there was an instructor present, that instructor was in charge, not the range operators. Now this another stretch, but maybe the family would have a better legal standing by suing the range for employing an idiot instructor.
AMERICA’S BAIL SYSTEM IS A WAR ON THE POOR. LET’S GET RID OF IT
by Rachel Marshall
Vox
August 24, 2016
The Department of Justice did something groundbreaking last week: It declared our nation’s bail system unconstitutional. In a brief filed in support of a class-action lawsuit challenging the bail system, the DOJ held that jailing people who are facing charges unless they can afford to post bail impermissibly discriminates against the poor.
As a public defender in Oakland, I know all too well how much our bail systems are used as a way to lock up the poor while allowing the wealthy to avoid jail. Every day, I see jails full of people who would be free if they simply had a few more dollars to post bail. Our nation’s bail system allows those with money to buy their way to freedom while others sit in cells simply because they are poor.
The bail system is founded on a simple but flawed concept: People need a monetary incentive to ensure they return to court. When someone comes to court after being arrested, a judge reviews the charges, the person’s prior convictions, the person’s likelihood of fleeing, and any public safety risks, and then decides whether to release the person on his own promise to return to court, whether to deny bail altogether, or whether to grant bail. If bail is set, an accused person can post cash to get out of jail, and so long as he makes his court appearances, he will get the money back at the end of the case.
Of course, most people don’t have large sums of money readily available to post bail. As a result, in many parts of the country those in jail rely on the commercial bond industry. A bondsman will post bail on someone’s behalf but will charge 10 percent of the total amount even if the person beats the case.
And there are many people who cannot afford even the bail bondsman’s 10 percent rate — and so must stay in jail for days or weeks as they await trial. Today there are almost 750,000 people in local jails (not prisons), most of whom are awaiting trial. Our jails swell with poor people never convicted of anything.
“Jane”: A case study in how the bail system hurts poor people
Let me tell you a story about a former client of mine, whom I will call Jane (not her real name; although she has given me permission to share her story, I have changed all names and some identifying details). Jane was dating a man who, unbeknownst to her, was married. Late one night, Jane was at her boyfriend Bob’s home when he left on an errand. Moments later, Jane heard pounding on the door and windows, and screams outside the house.
The terrified Jane grabbed a knife to protect herself. She heard a window break and people outside. When she opened the door, two women angrily confronted her in the dark. “Who are you?” one of them demanded. “I’m Bob’s girlfriend,” Jane explained. “Well, I’m his wife!” the woman responded. A violent fight broke out — Jane claimed the two women attacked her first, and they claimed she attacked them — and things got bloody.
Jane had a great self-defense case. Although there was dispute over who started the fight, Jane was the one alone and inside when multiple people confronted her in the dark after banging on the doors. There was a great deal of helpful evidence on Jane’s behalf, including the fact that she was the one to run out to a neighbor’s house to call 911.
Jane’s family was able to post her bail of $35,000 for her with a bond agency early in her case. But a judge then raised her bail after the prosecutor pointed out that the alleged victim’s injuries were severe. Jane was taken back into jail, where I met her for the first time. I could only talk to her through a glass wall.
Jane was devastated by her arrest. She was set to graduate from adult school in a few weeks, and she had an 8-year-old daughter to whom she was desperate to get home. But her family simply could not afford the new bail amount of $130,000.
Because Jane was eager to get out of jail as soon as possible, she was adamant about moving the case along as quickly as possible. So we set it for a speedy preliminary hearing. Jane stayed in custody as we fought the case aggressively at a preliminary hearing with the information my investigator had gathered quickly. Jane sat next to me at the hearing, wearing a jail jumpsuit. After the hearing, in which a judge found enough evidence to set her case for trial, Jane wanted to continue to fight her case. Yet just a few weeks after the hearing, a prosecutor offered her a deal: Plead guilty and get out of jail immediately.
Jane faced two choices. She could get out of jail right away by pleading guilty to a crime she knew she did not commit — and which she was confident she could win at trial. Or she could fight the case and stay in jail for months until her case could go to trial. The choice was simple for her — she chose the route that would get her back right away to her daughter and home and school.
As a result, she not only has a felony on her record but is on felony probation, which means she is vulnerable to being sent to state prison if a judge (without a jury) finds that there is even just a 51 percent chance (a much lower standard than the “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard) that she had violated probation in any way, no matter how minor.
“Joan”: A case study in how a middle-class person can navigate the bail system just fine
Now imagine a very different story: the story of a hypothetical client I will call Joan (a composite drawn from numerous cases). Joan was involved in an incident nearly identical to Jane’s. But Joan is from a middle-class family that was able to come up with the money to post bail. When the judge later raised her bail because of the severe injuries, Joan agreed to pay for an ankle monitor to allow her to remain out of jail, rather than posting more money. The monitor cost $20 a day, which Joan could afford.
Since Joan was out of jail and there was a great deal of investigation to do, she and her lawyer decided at her first court date to waive her right to a speedy preliminary hearing until they had all the necessary information. They also set up a meeting to talk about the case and her options, and to visit the scene of the crime together.
Meanwhile, Joan went back to school. Just a month after her arrest, she received her high school degree. Her lawyer brought to court photographs of the smiling Joan in her cap and gown hugging her daughter while holding her diploma. Upon her lawyer’s recommendation, Joan also began doing community service. She began looking for a full-time job now that she had her degree.
Meanwhile, the investigator had located a neighbor of Bob’s, who had a surveillance camera that caught part of the incident. It captured the two women pounding on the door for what turned out to be 15 full minutes.
Joan came to court dressed in a suit for her next court date. She handed her lawyer a stack of character letters, all of them describing her as a wonderful community member. There was one from her daughter’s teacher, one from her pastor, and even one from an ex-boyfriend, who talked about how he never saw Joan display any violence in her life.
Her lawyer showed the prosecutor the letters and the video, but the prosecutor still wanted Joan to plead to a felony. He offered her a felony with no jail time, but Joan wasn’t interested. “I can’t have a felony on my record. I am looking for a job,” she explained. Her lawyer set the case for another court date to try again.
Meanwhile, Joan continued to thrive and her lawyer continued to build her defense. The defense investigator had finally succeeded in locating Bob, who had been dodging her, and he admitted that he had invited Joan over that night. He provided a helpful statement, which the defense turned over to the prosecutor. The investigator also secured a statement from the neighbor who had called 911. He stated that he’d observed on numerous occasions that Bob’s wife had a violent temper.
At the next court date, based on the new information, the prosecutor offered Joan a misdemeanor with no jail time. Joan turned down the offer, and her lawyer set the case for a preliminary hearing. At the hearing, her attorney was able to attack the prosecution evidence with the information she’d gathered. Although a judge did find enough evidence to go forward with the case, he made a long record about what a close call it was and how it seemed like it could have been self-defense. The case was set for trial.
Meanwhile, Joan had gotten a full-time job, and her employer submitted a character letter for her. On the day of trial, the prosecutor agreed to allow her to attend some anger management classes and then have her case dismissed in one year if she stayed out of trouble. A year later, Joan’s record was clean.
Although Joan is not a real person but a composite of many of my clients who fought their cases out of jail because they could afford to post bail (or were released on their own by a judge), the contrast between Jane and Joan is real. The only difference between them is money. Every day, innocent people plead guilty simply because they cannot afford bail. Every day, people who are out of jail get better plea deals than people in jail. Every day, people with money receive better results from the criminal justice system than do the poor.
The different outcomes of Jane and Joan can be blamed on our country’s bail system.
Bail is not the only way to prevent an accused person from fleeing
If bail is truly designed to prevent an accused person from fleeing, there are far more efficient and equitable ways to do so. After all, some places, like Washington, DC, have almost eliminated monetary bail altogether. Instead, a pretrial services program evaluates individual risk levels and decides what kind of supervision to provide to ensure someone returns to court.
For example, if someone is deemed a flight risk, he can be ordered to wear an ankle monitor, which will track his location with far more precision than just seeing if he appears on the day of court. Ankle monitors — which in Oakland cost around $20 to $30 a day — are far less costly than incarceration; in Alameda County, it costs an average of more than $142 a day to jail someone. And electronic monitors carry the added advantage of alerting the system to someone skipping town immediately — as opposed to having to wait until a next court date to see if an accused appears.
The truth is if someone is looking to flee, he is probably going to flee regardless of whether there is money at stake. Indeed, for someone with a lot of money, the money posted for bail may be insignificant. For another who struggled to post bail through a bondsman, he probably wouldn’t be able to pay the bondsman the remaining 90 percent of the bond anyway, even if he did skip town, so even if the bondsman comes after him for the rest of the money, it will be difficult to recover it from someone with nothing.
Indeed, it is not as though the only consequence of missing court is forfeiting one’s bail. When someone misses court or flees an area, a judge not only places a warrant out for his arrest but that person can be charged with a new crime for failing to appear in court, or absconding. Certainly the threat of having to do jail time and facing a new charge is far worse than losing money. So it is clear that bail isn’t really about ensuring court appearances.
But even if one believes money can be a sufficient incentive to get people to court, how do we justify a system that sets standard bail without considering a person’s actual ability to pay? If we want to set bail amounts based on the nature of a person’s criminal history and the severity of the charged offense, why not tie those factors to a percentage of someone’s assets and income, rather than on a static number? Instead of establishing one amount of bail per crime, we should do an evaluation of what percentage of that person’s income provides sufficient incentive to come to court.
Sure, there are some crimes (like murder) that society may determine should never merit bail, regardless of income. But for most crimes, don’t two people with identical criminal histories and charges who only differ based on their economic statuses deserve different bail amounts? If Jane had a total income of $20,000 and Joan had an income of $200,000, wouldn’t it be far more equitable — as well as effective — to set bail at $2,000 for Jane and $20,000 for Joan than to set it at $20,000 for each of them?
By establishing a one-size-fits-all bail system, what we have really done is set up a one-size-fits-the-rich system, whereby those with money have little difficulty posting bail, while the poor have no ability to pay and are trapped in jails as a result. If we really believe people need a financial incentive to come to court and want to ensure that all people have an interest in returning to court, a proportionate bail system would be the answer.
Our bail system perpetuates our nation’s war on poor people
What becomes painfully clear from looking at our bail system is that it is not designed to be either efficient or fair. Instead, our bail system exists as a way to perpetuate our nation’s war on poor people. Our criminal justice system “trusts” the wealthy more and gives them benefits my clients never see. Chief among them is the farce of a fair and equal bail system that ultimately lets the wealthy out of jail for nearly all but the most serious crimes, while poor people remain in jail for even the most minor ones.
What makes this all the more infuriating is that the right to be free from “excessive bail” is so fundamental to our nation’s values that our founders included it in our Bill of Rights. How did we get to a place so far from what our founders envisioned?
This year marks 40 years since the passage of the 1966 Bail Reform Act, which was intended to ensure that the criminal justice system didn’t jail people facing charges simply because they were poor. The bill shifted the factors federal judges considered in setting bail and created a presumption that those charged with non-capital offenses should be released. If a judge determined that the person needed additional incentives to come to court, the judge could impose additional conditions designed to ensure attendance in court.
Yet the 1970 and ’80s brought with them heightened fear of crime, and in 1984 a new federal bail reform bill passed, this time allowing judges more leeway to consider things like “community safety” in setting bail or even denying bail altogether. The bill changed the presumption away from release in certain offenses and led to increased bail for many people. Meanwhile, each of the 50 states developed their own vastly different approaches to bail, ranging from cash bail systems to bondsmen-centered industries to the DC. approach that barely uses bail at all.
Why we need to get rid of our bail system altogether
Forty years after the Bail Reform Act, the DOJ’s powerful statement against the bail system is mobilizing a new push for bail reform. But we need to go further than reform. We need to eliminate our bail system altogether.
By eliminating our bail system, we need to create a presumption of release for those arrested for all but the most serious offenses. To support that release, we need rigorous and well-resourced pretrial services agencies whose sole task is ensuring that the accused show up in court. Well-funded pretrial service programs — like those used in DC — can best evaluate individuals charged with offenses and determine what those individuals need to return to court.
Some will need little incentive to return, and a gathering of some contact information in case they miss court will suffice. Others may require an assigned pretrial services employee to monitor them regularly and check in to ensure they are attending required programs or classes while their case is pending. Still others may compel electronic monitoring so that the courts can keep close tabs on them as their case progresses.
The focus, however, needs to be not on imposing requirements for the sake of them (after all, these are people who have not been found guilty of any crime, so punitive requirements are inappropriate) but on meeting each individual’s needs to get them back to court. To do this successfully, pretrial service programs need to be well-staffed and well-resourced, with the focus always on helping people make their court dates and not on burdening them with unnecessary requirements.
Although this dramatic change would require a great deal of upfront costs, the success of DC’s program demonstrates it is well worth it. Since DC instituted its pretrial services program in the 1990s, about 90 percent of those facing charges show up to their court dates and 98 percent avoid any arrests for violent offenses while their cases are pending.
And DC has saved close to $400 million a year by avoiding jailing costs for those who are facing charges. Indeed, these kinds of pretrial services programs may even prevent future crime by connecting people to housing and treatment that make them less likely to commit future offenses.
Robert F. Kennedy (who was United States attorney general at the time) named our current problem back in 1964, when he testified, “The rich man and the poor man do not receive equal justice in our courts. And in no area is this more evident than in the matter of bail.” As Kennedy said, “One factor determines whether a defendant stays in jail before he comes to trial. That factor is not guilt or innocence. It is not the nature of the crime. It is not the character of the defendant. That factor is, simply, money.”
Forty years later, not enough has changed, and my clients remain in jail simply for being poor. Yet the DOJ’s briefing is a huge step toward progress in the area of bail. Let’s embrace their call for radical change and push for the elimination of bail altogether. It’s time to start a real war on poverty — and end the war on the poor.
Vox
August 24, 2016
The Department of Justice did something groundbreaking last week: It declared our nation’s bail system unconstitutional. In a brief filed in support of a class-action lawsuit challenging the bail system, the DOJ held that jailing people who are facing charges unless they can afford to post bail impermissibly discriminates against the poor.
As a public defender in Oakland, I know all too well how much our bail systems are used as a way to lock up the poor while allowing the wealthy to avoid jail. Every day, I see jails full of people who would be free if they simply had a few more dollars to post bail. Our nation’s bail system allows those with money to buy their way to freedom while others sit in cells simply because they are poor.
The bail system is founded on a simple but flawed concept: People need a monetary incentive to ensure they return to court. When someone comes to court after being arrested, a judge reviews the charges, the person’s prior convictions, the person’s likelihood of fleeing, and any public safety risks, and then decides whether to release the person on his own promise to return to court, whether to deny bail altogether, or whether to grant bail. If bail is set, an accused person can post cash to get out of jail, and so long as he makes his court appearances, he will get the money back at the end of the case.
Of course, most people don’t have large sums of money readily available to post bail. As a result, in many parts of the country those in jail rely on the commercial bond industry. A bondsman will post bail on someone’s behalf but will charge 10 percent of the total amount even if the person beats the case.
And there are many people who cannot afford even the bail bondsman’s 10 percent rate — and so must stay in jail for days or weeks as they await trial. Today there are almost 750,000 people in local jails (not prisons), most of whom are awaiting trial. Our jails swell with poor people never convicted of anything.
“Jane”: A case study in how the bail system hurts poor people
Let me tell you a story about a former client of mine, whom I will call Jane (not her real name; although she has given me permission to share her story, I have changed all names and some identifying details). Jane was dating a man who, unbeknownst to her, was married. Late one night, Jane was at her boyfriend Bob’s home when he left on an errand. Moments later, Jane heard pounding on the door and windows, and screams outside the house.
The terrified Jane grabbed a knife to protect herself. She heard a window break and people outside. When she opened the door, two women angrily confronted her in the dark. “Who are you?” one of them demanded. “I’m Bob’s girlfriend,” Jane explained. “Well, I’m his wife!” the woman responded. A violent fight broke out — Jane claimed the two women attacked her first, and they claimed she attacked them — and things got bloody.
Jane had a great self-defense case. Although there was dispute over who started the fight, Jane was the one alone and inside when multiple people confronted her in the dark after banging on the doors. There was a great deal of helpful evidence on Jane’s behalf, including the fact that she was the one to run out to a neighbor’s house to call 911.
Jane’s family was able to post her bail of $35,000 for her with a bond agency early in her case. But a judge then raised her bail after the prosecutor pointed out that the alleged victim’s injuries were severe. Jane was taken back into jail, where I met her for the first time. I could only talk to her through a glass wall.
Jane was devastated by her arrest. She was set to graduate from adult school in a few weeks, and she had an 8-year-old daughter to whom she was desperate to get home. But her family simply could not afford the new bail amount of $130,000.
Because Jane was eager to get out of jail as soon as possible, she was adamant about moving the case along as quickly as possible. So we set it for a speedy preliminary hearing. Jane stayed in custody as we fought the case aggressively at a preliminary hearing with the information my investigator had gathered quickly. Jane sat next to me at the hearing, wearing a jail jumpsuit. After the hearing, in which a judge found enough evidence to set her case for trial, Jane wanted to continue to fight her case. Yet just a few weeks after the hearing, a prosecutor offered her a deal: Plead guilty and get out of jail immediately.
Jane faced two choices. She could get out of jail right away by pleading guilty to a crime she knew she did not commit — and which she was confident she could win at trial. Or she could fight the case and stay in jail for months until her case could go to trial. The choice was simple for her — she chose the route that would get her back right away to her daughter and home and school.
As a result, she not only has a felony on her record but is on felony probation, which means she is vulnerable to being sent to state prison if a judge (without a jury) finds that there is even just a 51 percent chance (a much lower standard than the “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard) that she had violated probation in any way, no matter how minor.
“Joan”: A case study in how a middle-class person can navigate the bail system just fine
Now imagine a very different story: the story of a hypothetical client I will call Joan (a composite drawn from numerous cases). Joan was involved in an incident nearly identical to Jane’s. But Joan is from a middle-class family that was able to come up with the money to post bail. When the judge later raised her bail because of the severe injuries, Joan agreed to pay for an ankle monitor to allow her to remain out of jail, rather than posting more money. The monitor cost $20 a day, which Joan could afford.
Since Joan was out of jail and there was a great deal of investigation to do, she and her lawyer decided at her first court date to waive her right to a speedy preliminary hearing until they had all the necessary information. They also set up a meeting to talk about the case and her options, and to visit the scene of the crime together.
Meanwhile, Joan went back to school. Just a month after her arrest, she received her high school degree. Her lawyer brought to court photographs of the smiling Joan in her cap and gown hugging her daughter while holding her diploma. Upon her lawyer’s recommendation, Joan also began doing community service. She began looking for a full-time job now that she had her degree.
Meanwhile, the investigator had located a neighbor of Bob’s, who had a surveillance camera that caught part of the incident. It captured the two women pounding on the door for what turned out to be 15 full minutes.
Joan came to court dressed in a suit for her next court date. She handed her lawyer a stack of character letters, all of them describing her as a wonderful community member. There was one from her daughter’s teacher, one from her pastor, and even one from an ex-boyfriend, who talked about how he never saw Joan display any violence in her life.
Her lawyer showed the prosecutor the letters and the video, but the prosecutor still wanted Joan to plead to a felony. He offered her a felony with no jail time, but Joan wasn’t interested. “I can’t have a felony on my record. I am looking for a job,” she explained. Her lawyer set the case for another court date to try again.
Meanwhile, Joan continued to thrive and her lawyer continued to build her defense. The defense investigator had finally succeeded in locating Bob, who had been dodging her, and he admitted that he had invited Joan over that night. He provided a helpful statement, which the defense turned over to the prosecutor. The investigator also secured a statement from the neighbor who had called 911. He stated that he’d observed on numerous occasions that Bob’s wife had a violent temper.
At the next court date, based on the new information, the prosecutor offered Joan a misdemeanor with no jail time. Joan turned down the offer, and her lawyer set the case for a preliminary hearing. At the hearing, her attorney was able to attack the prosecution evidence with the information she’d gathered. Although a judge did find enough evidence to go forward with the case, he made a long record about what a close call it was and how it seemed like it could have been self-defense. The case was set for trial.
Meanwhile, Joan had gotten a full-time job, and her employer submitted a character letter for her. On the day of trial, the prosecutor agreed to allow her to attend some anger management classes and then have her case dismissed in one year if she stayed out of trouble. A year later, Joan’s record was clean.
Although Joan is not a real person but a composite of many of my clients who fought their cases out of jail because they could afford to post bail (or were released on their own by a judge), the contrast between Jane and Joan is real. The only difference between them is money. Every day, innocent people plead guilty simply because they cannot afford bail. Every day, people who are out of jail get better plea deals than people in jail. Every day, people with money receive better results from the criminal justice system than do the poor.
The different outcomes of Jane and Joan can be blamed on our country’s bail system.
Bail is not the only way to prevent an accused person from fleeing
If bail is truly designed to prevent an accused person from fleeing, there are far more efficient and equitable ways to do so. After all, some places, like Washington, DC, have almost eliminated monetary bail altogether. Instead, a pretrial services program evaluates individual risk levels and decides what kind of supervision to provide to ensure someone returns to court.
For example, if someone is deemed a flight risk, he can be ordered to wear an ankle monitor, which will track his location with far more precision than just seeing if he appears on the day of court. Ankle monitors — which in Oakland cost around $20 to $30 a day — are far less costly than incarceration; in Alameda County, it costs an average of more than $142 a day to jail someone. And electronic monitors carry the added advantage of alerting the system to someone skipping town immediately — as opposed to having to wait until a next court date to see if an accused appears.
The truth is if someone is looking to flee, he is probably going to flee regardless of whether there is money at stake. Indeed, for someone with a lot of money, the money posted for bail may be insignificant. For another who struggled to post bail through a bondsman, he probably wouldn’t be able to pay the bondsman the remaining 90 percent of the bond anyway, even if he did skip town, so even if the bondsman comes after him for the rest of the money, it will be difficult to recover it from someone with nothing.
Indeed, it is not as though the only consequence of missing court is forfeiting one’s bail. When someone misses court or flees an area, a judge not only places a warrant out for his arrest but that person can be charged with a new crime for failing to appear in court, or absconding. Certainly the threat of having to do jail time and facing a new charge is far worse than losing money. So it is clear that bail isn’t really about ensuring court appearances.
But even if one believes money can be a sufficient incentive to get people to court, how do we justify a system that sets standard bail without considering a person’s actual ability to pay? If we want to set bail amounts based on the nature of a person’s criminal history and the severity of the charged offense, why not tie those factors to a percentage of someone’s assets and income, rather than on a static number? Instead of establishing one amount of bail per crime, we should do an evaluation of what percentage of that person’s income provides sufficient incentive to come to court.
Sure, there are some crimes (like murder) that society may determine should never merit bail, regardless of income. But for most crimes, don’t two people with identical criminal histories and charges who only differ based on their economic statuses deserve different bail amounts? If Jane had a total income of $20,000 and Joan had an income of $200,000, wouldn’t it be far more equitable — as well as effective — to set bail at $2,000 for Jane and $20,000 for Joan than to set it at $20,000 for each of them?
By establishing a one-size-fits-all bail system, what we have really done is set up a one-size-fits-the-rich system, whereby those with money have little difficulty posting bail, while the poor have no ability to pay and are trapped in jails as a result. If we really believe people need a financial incentive to come to court and want to ensure that all people have an interest in returning to court, a proportionate bail system would be the answer.
Our bail system perpetuates our nation’s war on poor people
What becomes painfully clear from looking at our bail system is that it is not designed to be either efficient or fair. Instead, our bail system exists as a way to perpetuate our nation’s war on poor people. Our criminal justice system “trusts” the wealthy more and gives them benefits my clients never see. Chief among them is the farce of a fair and equal bail system that ultimately lets the wealthy out of jail for nearly all but the most serious crimes, while poor people remain in jail for even the most minor ones.
What makes this all the more infuriating is that the right to be free from “excessive bail” is so fundamental to our nation’s values that our founders included it in our Bill of Rights. How did we get to a place so far from what our founders envisioned?
This year marks 40 years since the passage of the 1966 Bail Reform Act, which was intended to ensure that the criminal justice system didn’t jail people facing charges simply because they were poor. The bill shifted the factors federal judges considered in setting bail and created a presumption that those charged with non-capital offenses should be released. If a judge determined that the person needed additional incentives to come to court, the judge could impose additional conditions designed to ensure attendance in court.
Yet the 1970 and ’80s brought with them heightened fear of crime, and in 1984 a new federal bail reform bill passed, this time allowing judges more leeway to consider things like “community safety” in setting bail or even denying bail altogether. The bill changed the presumption away from release in certain offenses and led to increased bail for many people. Meanwhile, each of the 50 states developed their own vastly different approaches to bail, ranging from cash bail systems to bondsmen-centered industries to the DC. approach that barely uses bail at all.
Why we need to get rid of our bail system altogether
Forty years after the Bail Reform Act, the DOJ’s powerful statement against the bail system is mobilizing a new push for bail reform. But we need to go further than reform. We need to eliminate our bail system altogether.
By eliminating our bail system, we need to create a presumption of release for those arrested for all but the most serious offenses. To support that release, we need rigorous and well-resourced pretrial services agencies whose sole task is ensuring that the accused show up in court. Well-funded pretrial service programs — like those used in DC — can best evaluate individuals charged with offenses and determine what those individuals need to return to court.
Some will need little incentive to return, and a gathering of some contact information in case they miss court will suffice. Others may require an assigned pretrial services employee to monitor them regularly and check in to ensure they are attending required programs or classes while their case is pending. Still others may compel electronic monitoring so that the courts can keep close tabs on them as their case progresses.
The focus, however, needs to be not on imposing requirements for the sake of them (after all, these are people who have not been found guilty of any crime, so punitive requirements are inappropriate) but on meeting each individual’s needs to get them back to court. To do this successfully, pretrial service programs need to be well-staffed and well-resourced, with the focus always on helping people make their court dates and not on burdening them with unnecessary requirements.
Although this dramatic change would require a great deal of upfront costs, the success of DC’s program demonstrates it is well worth it. Since DC instituted its pretrial services program in the 1990s, about 90 percent of those facing charges show up to their court dates and 98 percent avoid any arrests for violent offenses while their cases are pending.
And DC has saved close to $400 million a year by avoiding jailing costs for those who are facing charges. Indeed, these kinds of pretrial services programs may even prevent future crime by connecting people to housing and treatment that make them less likely to commit future offenses.
Robert F. Kennedy (who was United States attorney general at the time) named our current problem back in 1964, when he testified, “The rich man and the poor man do not receive equal justice in our courts. And in no area is this more evident than in the matter of bail.” As Kennedy said, “One factor determines whether a defendant stays in jail before he comes to trial. That factor is not guilt or innocence. It is not the nature of the crime. It is not the character of the defendant. That factor is, simply, money.”
Forty years later, not enough has changed, and my clients remain in jail simply for being poor. Yet the DOJ’s briefing is a huge step toward progress in the area of bail. Let’s embrace their call for radical change and push for the elimination of bail altogether. It’s time to start a real war on poverty — and end the war on the poor.
Sunday, August 28, 2016
MAINE GOVERNOR CALLS DEMOCRATIC LAWMAKER A ‘LITTLE SON OF A BITCH SOCIALIST COCKSUCKER’
Republican Gov. Paul LePage became enraged when he thought State Rep. Drew Gattine had called him a racist
During a town hall meeting in North Berwick on Wednesday, Maine’s Republican Governor Paul LePage thumbed through a three-ring binder which he said contained the photographs of drug dealers arrested by the police and that 90 percent of them were black or Hispanic.
LePage was criticized as being racially insensitive for making those remarks.
On Thursday he left the following voicemail message with Democratic State Representative Drew Gattine:
“Mr. Gattine, this is Gov. Paul Richard LePage. I would like to talk to you about your comments about my being a racist, you cocksucker. I want to talk to you. I want you to prove that I'm a racist. I've spent my life helping black people and you little son-of-a-bitch, socialist cocksucker. You … I need you to, just friggin. I want you to record this and make it public because I am after you. Thank you.”
LePage didn’t stop there. He invited reporters to the governor’s mansion and told them he wished it was 1825 so he could challenge Gattine to a duel.
“When a snot-nosed little guy from Westbrook calls me a racist, now I'd like him to come up here because, tell you right now, I wish it were 1825. And we would have a duel, that's how angry I am, and I would not put my gun in the air, I guarantee you, I would not be [Alexander] Hamilton. I would point it right between his eyes because he is a snot-nosed little runt and he has not done a damn thing since he's been in this Legislature to help move the state forward.”
Gattine denies he called LePage a racist.
Now there are calls for LePage to resign. And there are also calls for the police to conduct a criminal investigation into his remarks.
And then there are the civil libertarians who say that the photographs in his binder prove that the police in Maine are guilty of racial profiling.
As for me, I think it’s kind of refreshing to have a governor use some colorful language in saying what’s really on his mind.
During a town hall meeting in North Berwick on Wednesday, Maine’s Republican Governor Paul LePage thumbed through a three-ring binder which he said contained the photographs of drug dealers arrested by the police and that 90 percent of them were black or Hispanic.
LePage was criticized as being racially insensitive for making those remarks.
On Thursday he left the following voicemail message with Democratic State Representative Drew Gattine:
“Mr. Gattine, this is Gov. Paul Richard LePage. I would like to talk to you about your comments about my being a racist, you cocksucker. I want to talk to you. I want you to prove that I'm a racist. I've spent my life helping black people and you little son-of-a-bitch, socialist cocksucker. You … I need you to, just friggin. I want you to record this and make it public because I am after you. Thank you.”
LePage didn’t stop there. He invited reporters to the governor’s mansion and told them he wished it was 1825 so he could challenge Gattine to a duel.
“When a snot-nosed little guy from Westbrook calls me a racist, now I'd like him to come up here because, tell you right now, I wish it were 1825. And we would have a duel, that's how angry I am, and I would not put my gun in the air, I guarantee you, I would not be [Alexander] Hamilton. I would point it right between his eyes because he is a snot-nosed little runt and he has not done a damn thing since he's been in this Legislature to help move the state forward.”
Gattine denies he called LePage a racist.
Now there are calls for LePage to resign. And there are also calls for the police to conduct a criminal investigation into his remarks.
And then there are the civil libertarians who say that the photographs in his binder prove that the police in Maine are guilty of racial profiling.
As for me, I think it’s kind of refreshing to have a governor use some colorful language in saying what’s really on his mind.
A BRIDGE OVER HISTORICALLY IMPORTANT WATERS
By Bob Walsh
Yesterday a new bridge over the Bosporus opened up. It is billed as the widest suspension bridge in the world, at 192 feet. The bridge, which cost about $3 billion, is hoped to ease the ungodly traffic jams in Istanbul.
The straight, which separates Europe from Asia was (according to legend) first bridged with a pontoon bridge by Alexander the Great while he was busy conquering pretty much all of the known world.
It is humbling to know that by the time Alexander was my age he had been dead 30 years.
Yesterday a new bridge over the Bosporus opened up. It is billed as the widest suspension bridge in the world, at 192 feet. The bridge, which cost about $3 billion, is hoped to ease the ungodly traffic jams in Istanbul.
The straight, which separates Europe from Asia was (according to legend) first bridged with a pontoon bridge by Alexander the Great while he was busy conquering pretty much all of the known world.
It is humbling to know that by the time Alexander was my age he had been dead 30 years.
JUDGE REFUSES TO ALLOW DISEASE-RIDDEN CHILDREN TO ATTEND SCHOOL
By Bob Walsh
OK, that is maybe a SLIGHT overstatement. This year California began to require standard vaccinations of rugrats attending both public and private school. The old stand-by snivel of “personal belief” is no longer valid. In order to get around it you need a physician’s letter asserting that there is a valid medical reason for your linoleum lizard to not have his or her shots.
U. S. District Court Judge Dana Sabraw in San Diego County has just refused to block implementation of the law. The judge noted that it was not the court’s place to question the wisdom or lack thereof of any particular piece of legislation.
OK, that is maybe a SLIGHT overstatement. This year California began to require standard vaccinations of rugrats attending both public and private school. The old stand-by snivel of “personal belief” is no longer valid. In order to get around it you need a physician’s letter asserting that there is a valid medical reason for your linoleum lizard to not have his or her shots.
U. S. District Court Judge Dana Sabraw in San Diego County has just refused to block implementation of the law. The judge noted that it was not the court’s place to question the wisdom or lack thereof of any particular piece of legislation.
MORONIC JUDGE CHANGES GEARS
By Bob Walsh
The Honorable Aaron Persky, who tossed a near-freebie to a Stanford University jock convicted of raping a passed-out woman, has voluntarily removed himself from the criminal docket in Santa Clara and moved to the civil bench.
Judge Persky has in fact served on the civil bench before, and the move is reviewable annually. It will take place on September 6.
The Honorable Aaron Persky, who tossed a near-freebie to a Stanford University jock convicted of raping a passed-out woman, has voluntarily removed himself from the criminal docket in Santa Clara and moved to the civil bench.
Judge Persky has in fact served on the civil bench before, and the move is reviewable annually. It will take place on September 6.
CALIFORNIA RIGHT-TO-DIE SURVIVES FIRST COURT CHALLENGE
By Bob Walsh
In the formerly great state of California you now have the right to off yourself legally, with certain restrictions.
Riverside County Judge Daniel Ottolia declined to suspend the law, though did allow a group of physicians to continue to pursue legal actions against the new legislation. The physicians group maintains that the law lacks adequate legal safeguards.
Both sides will be back in court December 5 to continue arguments.
EDITOR’S NOTE: I’ve long favored legal assisted suicides similar to Oregon’s Death with Dignity Act.
In the formerly great state of California you now have the right to off yourself legally, with certain restrictions.
Riverside County Judge Daniel Ottolia declined to suspend the law, though did allow a group of physicians to continue to pursue legal actions against the new legislation. The physicians group maintains that the law lacks adequate legal safeguards.
Both sides will be back in court December 5 to continue arguments.
EDITOR’S NOTE: I’ve long favored legal assisted suicides similar to Oregon’s Death with Dignity Act.
ARGENTINIAN STUDENTS WEARING NAZI ARMBANDS ATTACK JEWS IN ‘MENGELE VILLAGE’
One of the Jewish students who was attacked reported they shouted “fuck Jews” and proudly showed off their Nazi symbols
By James Badcock
The Telegraph
August 26, 2016
Students from a German school in Buenos Aires wearing swastika armbands and fake Hitler moustaches attacked pupils from a Jewish school in a resort where several Nazi war criminals lived for decades after the Second World War, including Dr Josef Mengele, Auschwitz’s “Angel of Death”.
The incident drew swift condemnation for the pupils and the parents who were accompanying them during the school’s end-of-course trip to San Carlos de Bariloche, in the Andes.
The town became a haven for fleeing Nazis who were welcomed by the sympathetic Peronist regime.
According to witnesses, pupils from the Lanús German School arrived at a party in a nightclub dressed as Nazis.
“Some of them were in leathers with swastikas painted on their chests and backs,” Dan, one of the students who was attacked, told Argentina’s TN television channel.
“We wanted them to be thrown out of the club but they shouted 'f------ Jews’ at us and proudly showed off their symbols.”
When bouncers at the club refused to eject the pupils in fancy dress, there was a “confrontation” which turned into a fight, according to Dan.
The boys dressed as Nazis were finally expelled from the club.
Silvia Fazio, the principal of the Lanús German School, apologised, saying the incident was “absolutely indefensible” and that the children involved would be punished.
“They will have to make some act of atonement for the damage caused,” said Ms Fazio, starting with a visit to Buenos Aires’s Holocaust museum alongside students from the Jewish school.
“There is much to reflect on,” she added.
She stressed that the trip to San Carlos de Bariloche was not organised by the school, but arranged privately.
“There were many adults who made mistakes, such as the parents who were with the children, the trip coordinators [and] the club staff.”
However, Ariel Cohen Sabban, president of the Argentinian Delegation of Israelite Associations, said: “We think the real root of the problem is in what goes on at the institution these boys attend, because these kind of attitudes must be prevented by educational means.
“This is not a joke or a laugh. These symbols reflect an ideology that culminated in the Nazis’ assassination of six million Jews.”
He said if the boys involved are aged 16 or over, they could face prosecution for using Nazi symbols and propagating theories of racial superiority.
Adrián Moscovich, executive director of Buenos Aires’s ORT school whose pupils were victims in the attack, said the incident underlined the importance of continuing to teach children about the Holocaust and other crimes against humanity.
He said that “reflecting on these facts is a vital exercise in order to understand the present and build a future in which democratic and pluralist values are consolidated”.
EDITOR’S NOTE: In addition to harboring Nazi war criminals, Argentina had earlier opened its doors to large numbers of Jewish refugees,, and it did so when most other countries, including the U.S., turned a deaf ear and blind eye toward Hitler’s persecution of the Jews.
By James Badcock
The Telegraph
August 26, 2016
Students from a German school in Buenos Aires wearing swastika armbands and fake Hitler moustaches attacked pupils from a Jewish school in a resort where several Nazi war criminals lived for decades after the Second World War, including Dr Josef Mengele, Auschwitz’s “Angel of Death”.
The incident drew swift condemnation for the pupils and the parents who were accompanying them during the school’s end-of-course trip to San Carlos de Bariloche, in the Andes.
The town became a haven for fleeing Nazis who were welcomed by the sympathetic Peronist regime.
According to witnesses, pupils from the Lanús German School arrived at a party in a nightclub dressed as Nazis.
“Some of them were in leathers with swastikas painted on their chests and backs,” Dan, one of the students who was attacked, told Argentina’s TN television channel.
“We wanted them to be thrown out of the club but they shouted 'f------ Jews’ at us and proudly showed off their symbols.”
When bouncers at the club refused to eject the pupils in fancy dress, there was a “confrontation” which turned into a fight, according to Dan.
The boys dressed as Nazis were finally expelled from the club.
Silvia Fazio, the principal of the Lanús German School, apologised, saying the incident was “absolutely indefensible” and that the children involved would be punished.
“They will have to make some act of atonement for the damage caused,” said Ms Fazio, starting with a visit to Buenos Aires’s Holocaust museum alongside students from the Jewish school.
“There is much to reflect on,” she added.
She stressed that the trip to San Carlos de Bariloche was not organised by the school, but arranged privately.
“There were many adults who made mistakes, such as the parents who were with the children, the trip coordinators [and] the club staff.”
However, Ariel Cohen Sabban, president of the Argentinian Delegation of Israelite Associations, said: “We think the real root of the problem is in what goes on at the institution these boys attend, because these kind of attitudes must be prevented by educational means.
“This is not a joke or a laugh. These symbols reflect an ideology that culminated in the Nazis’ assassination of six million Jews.”
He said if the boys involved are aged 16 or over, they could face prosecution for using Nazi symbols and propagating theories of racial superiority.
Adrián Moscovich, executive director of Buenos Aires’s ORT school whose pupils were victims in the attack, said the incident underlined the importance of continuing to teach children about the Holocaust and other crimes against humanity.
He said that “reflecting on these facts is a vital exercise in order to understand the present and build a future in which democratic and pluralist values are consolidated”.
EDITOR’S NOTE: In addition to harboring Nazi war criminals, Argentina had earlier opened its doors to large numbers of Jewish refugees,, and it did so when most other countries, including the U.S., turned a deaf ear and blind eye toward Hitler’s persecution of the Jews.
Saturday, August 27, 2016
THAT’S WHY THEY CALL A BADGE THE SHIELD
California officer's Badge Deflects Bullet During Shootout
By Hailey Branson-Potts
Los Angeles Times
August 26, 2016
HUNTINGTON BEACH, California -- A man who shot at Huntington Beach police officers, hitting one officer in the badge, led police on a high-speed chase through three counties before dying in a fiery crash in the Cajon Pass, authorities said.
Just after midnight Friday, Huntington Beach police responded to a domestic violence call at a home near Bushard Street and Yorktown Avenue. As two officers in two separate cars were pulling up, a man was getting into his vehicle to leave the residence, said Officer Jennifer Marlatt, a spokeswoman for the Huntington Beach Police Department.
The officers followed the man, who made a U-turn, drove toward the officers and started firing at them from his vehicle, Marlatt said.
A bullet ricocheted off the police badge worn by one of the officers, who was treated at a hospital and released Friday morning. He was in good condition, Marlatt said.
The other officer returned fire, and the man, whose name has not been released, kept driving, initiating the pursuit.
He drove through Costa Mesa and Santa Ana, then got onto the freeways, leading California Highway Patrol officers through Orange, Riverside and San Bernardino counties.
For "reasons that are still under investigation," the man drove off the Cleghorn Road offramp on the northbound 15 Freeway, said CHP Officer Steve Carapia.
The driver veered to the right and went down into an embankment, where his white Nissan Altima burst into flames, Carapia said. The car was consumed by the fire, and the man died. He was the car's only occupant, authorities said.
The crash happened in an area affected by the Blue Cut wildfire, and there were burned spots all around, Carapia said. Firefighters responded quickly to keep the fire from spreading and extinguished the fire.
The Cleghorn offramp on the northbound 15 Freeway was closed Friday morning, as was one lane of the freeway, Carapia said. The offramp would likely be closed for several hours, he said.
"This investigation is complex," he said. "There are many agencies involved, so it's going to be a while. It's going to last through the afternoon."
The Huntington Beach Police Department declined to release details about the gunman or the domestic violence call.
The investigation into the officer-involved shooting, as well as the pursuit and the domestic violence incident, would be handled by the Orange County Sheriff's Department, Marlatt said.
By Hailey Branson-Potts
Los Angeles Times
August 26, 2016
HUNTINGTON BEACH, California -- A man who shot at Huntington Beach police officers, hitting one officer in the badge, led police on a high-speed chase through three counties before dying in a fiery crash in the Cajon Pass, authorities said.
Just after midnight Friday, Huntington Beach police responded to a domestic violence call at a home near Bushard Street and Yorktown Avenue. As two officers in two separate cars were pulling up, a man was getting into his vehicle to leave the residence, said Officer Jennifer Marlatt, a spokeswoman for the Huntington Beach Police Department.
The officers followed the man, who made a U-turn, drove toward the officers and started firing at them from his vehicle, Marlatt said.
A bullet ricocheted off the police badge worn by one of the officers, who was treated at a hospital and released Friday morning. He was in good condition, Marlatt said.
The other officer returned fire, and the man, whose name has not been released, kept driving, initiating the pursuit.
He drove through Costa Mesa and Santa Ana, then got onto the freeways, leading California Highway Patrol officers through Orange, Riverside and San Bernardino counties.
For "reasons that are still under investigation," the man drove off the Cleghorn Road offramp on the northbound 15 Freeway, said CHP Officer Steve Carapia.
The driver veered to the right and went down into an embankment, where his white Nissan Altima burst into flames, Carapia said. The car was consumed by the fire, and the man died. He was the car's only occupant, authorities said.
The crash happened in an area affected by the Blue Cut wildfire, and there were burned spots all around, Carapia said. Firefighters responded quickly to keep the fire from spreading and extinguished the fire.
The Cleghorn offramp on the northbound 15 Freeway was closed Friday morning, as was one lane of the freeway, Carapia said. The offramp would likely be closed for several hours, he said.
"This investigation is complex," he said. "There are many agencies involved, so it's going to be a while. It's going to last through the afternoon."
The Huntington Beach Police Department declined to release details about the gunman or the domestic violence call.
The investigation into the officer-involved shooting, as well as the pursuit and the domestic violence incident, would be handled by the Orange County Sheriff's Department, Marlatt said.
MULTIPLE CROSSBOW MURDERS IN CANADA
By Bob Walsh
Three people were killed on Thursday and another seriously wounded in Scarborough, Ontario. They appear to have been shot with bolts fired from a crossbow.
Brett Ryan, 35, is under arrest on suspicion of these crimes. He was at one time a suspect in, and was charged, for a string of bank robberies though there is no solid information on the disposition of the charges.
There is a press blackout on this story in Canada so there is very little information available.
I wonder if Canada will now institute crossbow control.
Three people were killed on Thursday and another seriously wounded in Scarborough, Ontario. They appear to have been shot with bolts fired from a crossbow.
Brett Ryan, 35, is under arrest on suspicion of these crimes. He was at one time a suspect in, and was charged, for a string of bank robberies though there is no solid information on the disposition of the charges.
There is a press blackout on this story in Canada so there is very little information available.
I wonder if Canada will now institute crossbow control.
JAYCEE DUGARD LOSES IN FEDERAL LAWSUIT
By Bob Walsh
Ms. Jaycee Dugard, who was held captive and brutalized by federal parolee for many years, can NOT sue the federal government for failure to supervise Phillip Garrido properly.
That decision came in the form of a 2-1 vote by a three-judge panel of the U.S. Ninth District, based on the Federal Tort Claims Act. This ruling upholds a lower court decision in the matter.
Ms. Jaycee Dugard, who was held captive and brutalized by federal parolee for many years, can NOT sue the federal government for failure to supervise Phillip Garrido properly.
That decision came in the form of a 2-1 vote by a three-judge panel of the U.S. Ninth District, based on the Federal Tort Claims Act. This ruling upholds a lower court decision in the matter.
COLORADO COPS LOSE TRAINING JOBS OVER ON-DUTY POKEMON GO GAMES
They were supposed to teach other officers how to be good cops, but two trainers at Commerce City Police Department apparently decided to play Pokemon during part of the training session
By Tom McGhee
The Denver Post
August 23, 2016
Police work isn’t supposed to be fun and games.
And a pair of Commerce City police training officers learned that lesson the hard way and are no longer training recruits after superiors discovered they were leading their charges on Pokemon Go expeditions instead of showing them the law enforcement ropes.
The officers were removed from field training duties last week.
Instead of looking for bad guys, the officers and recruits were using their mobile device’s GPS capability to track down virtual critters, called Pokémon, who appear on game player’s screens, as if they are nearby.
“When supervisors discovered this performance issue, it was immediately addressed; the officers’ training duties were removed and these duties have yet to be restored,” Julia Emko, Commerce City spokeswoman, said on Tuesday. “The city takes reports of misconduct very seriously and investigates such claims, taking decisive action when appropriate.”
The news comes after the U.S. Department of Justice agreed to a request from the Commerce City Police Department to review that will include a look at hiring and recruiting practices.
The department requested the review after incidents of officer misconduct. Two officers were charged with crimes committed while on duty. Kevin Lord pleaded guilty to evidence tampering after making a false report that he had been shot, and John Reinhart faces three misdemeanor counts of unlawful sexual contact for allegedly touching women during traffic stops.
By Tom McGhee
The Denver Post
August 23, 2016
Police work isn’t supposed to be fun and games.
And a pair of Commerce City police training officers learned that lesson the hard way and are no longer training recruits after superiors discovered they were leading their charges on Pokemon Go expeditions instead of showing them the law enforcement ropes.
The officers were removed from field training duties last week.
Instead of looking for bad guys, the officers and recruits were using their mobile device’s GPS capability to track down virtual critters, called Pokémon, who appear on game player’s screens, as if they are nearby.
“When supervisors discovered this performance issue, it was immediately addressed; the officers’ training duties were removed and these duties have yet to be restored,” Julia Emko, Commerce City spokeswoman, said on Tuesday. “The city takes reports of misconduct very seriously and investigates such claims, taking decisive action when appropriate.”
The news comes after the U.S. Department of Justice agreed to a request from the Commerce City Police Department to review that will include a look at hiring and recruiting practices.
The department requested the review after incidents of officer misconduct. Two officers were charged with crimes committed while on duty. Kevin Lord pleaded guilty to evidence tampering after making a false report that he had been shot, and John Reinhart faces three misdemeanor counts of unlawful sexual contact for allegedly touching women during traffic stops.
URBAN GUN VIOLENCE AS SEEN BY A BLACK SECOND AMENDMENT ACTIVIST
Guns are everywhere in my neighborhood. I want my community to know what bullets can do — and how they can exercise their rights
By Maj Toure as told to Mike Spies
The Trace
August 19, 2016
Polls show that an overwhelming majority of African Americans see gun violence as a raging crisis — more urgent than mass incarceration, or abusive policing — and tougher gun laws as the solution. But the policy reforms that might reduce shootings are excruciatingly slow to arrive, which is perhaps why more than half of blacks, according to the same surveys, trust personal firearms ownership to make them safer.
Maj Toure, a 29-year-old African American man, agrees that the United States has a gun violence problem, but he has found his calling among those who reject stricter regulation and embrace guns themselves as the answer. He is a lifelong resident of Philadelphia, where, according to a recent analysis of city police data, a person is shot every six hours on average. Growing up, Toure witnessed gun death up close. As an adult, he joined the Republican Party and the NRA.
Over time, Toure came to believe that the residents of his North Philly neighborhood would inevitably come into contact with firearms, often at a young age. He reasoned that if they learned the proper way to handle the weapons, and understood and obeyed the rules that govern them, Philadelphia might see a reduction in violence.
In August 2015, Toure sought to test his theory, launching a group called Black Guns Matter, which, despite the name’s similarity, is not affiliated with Black Lives Matter. To ensure that he reaches as many people as possible, he teaches free firearms training classes at the Philadelphia Firearms Academy. Next month, he will take his program on the road, holding seminars in 13 cities, including Baltimore, New Orleans, and Oakland.
Here’s Maj Toure in his own words, as told to Mike Spies of The Trace.
I’ve seen someone get shot, okay? It’s an unfortunate situation. Seeing people get shot is not glamorous or exciting. TV makes it like a guy flies through a window. No, it’s not like that. I’ve seen people’s heads open up. Frankly, I wouldn’t explain to someone what it feels like to see someone get shot. I don’t want to traumatize them. They don’t need that gruesome experience inside of them. I want to offer them training so they don’t ever have to get there.
Black Guns Matter is about training. We’ve been going for a year, but because of incidents with law enforcement over the last six months, it’s picked up a lot of steam. We’re getting much more attention. The ratcheting up is both good and bad. It’s bad because it’s due to murders. It’s good because it means more information is getting into the hood.
Our goal is to educate all hoods across America about the Second Amendment rights they have. A lot of times in my community, firearms are available before you have the information to even handle them properly. You can run across a gun at 15. What we want to do is, if anyone runs a across a gun at a young age, we want them to know what to do and not to do. It’s about making sure people from my demographic aren’t doing the wrong thing.
If you’re ignorant about firearms but are also exposed to them at a young age, it will lead to stupid decisions. When I was growing up in Philly, I saw a clear difference between those who had respect for the tool and those who didn’t. I was lucky and had uncles in the military; I saw their attachment to their rifles was different. They respected the tool; they knew how to fieldstrip and care for it. The military mindset is very regimented and very organized. Some of my homies obviously didn’t have that structure.
That’s why I got more and more involved in the Second Amendment fight: I saw too many friends going to jail for the same thing — they were missing the information; they didn’t know the rules. It’s the not knowing that causes them to not take the extra step. Sometimes they’ll be like, “I already have the gun. I bought it. Forget the paperwork.” But not going through the right procedures to carry it can get you five years in jail. Five years based on ignorance. And a lot of guys, they just don’t know you need a license to carry a concealed gun. But they’re not criminals. They work at a job and they take care of their family. They bought that gun legally.
Look, man. Black Guns Matter isn’t just for black people — it’s for anyone who has been disenfranchised, oppressed, or slandered. We’re the ones on the streets, and we’re going to use the Second Amendment to defend ourselves against any tyrant. If police don’t want to protect us, we’ll protect ourselves. We’ll protect ourselves from the scumbags in our community. I don’t call the police, ever.
But violence can be easily avoided. Most of the time, conflict can be handled way before firearms are involved — I’m talking about conflict resolution. I mean, I’ve never had to shoot anyone. Having a firearm doesn’t mean you have the right to commit an act of violence. But unfortunately, if it comes to that — and it very rarely does — you need to be trained to handle the situation. Like when you have a .22 caliber handgun — a small firearm — even that, the first time you fire it, can be overwhelming. It gives you a certain level of respect for the tool. When you see what a .45 can do to a person’s face, or a watermelon, you have a whole new respect. But I don’t think people should go there; you only go there when someone gets violent and you have no choice but to defend yourself.
The rules guiding the use of deadly force are clear: Don’t point a gun at someone unless you fear for your life. But harassment? Harassment doesn’t mean you take someone’s life. If someone says, “Maj, I don’t like your hair,” well, you know what, I can walk away from that. Deadly force is only used in spaces where you have no other option. That’s why it’s key to understand conflict resolution. A lot of gun rights organizations are leaving that out: You only shoot when you have no other option. What George Zimmerman did, for example, was not acceptable.
And that’s why, if you’re going to exercise your Second Amendment right, you need training. I’m not saying you should or shouldn’t have a gun. I’m saying, if you’re going to carry a gun, you need to learn how to do it properly and legally.
By Maj Toure as told to Mike Spies
The Trace
August 19, 2016
Polls show that an overwhelming majority of African Americans see gun violence as a raging crisis — more urgent than mass incarceration, or abusive policing — and tougher gun laws as the solution. But the policy reforms that might reduce shootings are excruciatingly slow to arrive, which is perhaps why more than half of blacks, according to the same surveys, trust personal firearms ownership to make them safer.
Maj Toure, a 29-year-old African American man, agrees that the United States has a gun violence problem, but he has found his calling among those who reject stricter regulation and embrace guns themselves as the answer. He is a lifelong resident of Philadelphia, where, according to a recent analysis of city police data, a person is shot every six hours on average. Growing up, Toure witnessed gun death up close. As an adult, he joined the Republican Party and the NRA.
Over time, Toure came to believe that the residents of his North Philly neighborhood would inevitably come into contact with firearms, often at a young age. He reasoned that if they learned the proper way to handle the weapons, and understood and obeyed the rules that govern them, Philadelphia might see a reduction in violence.
In August 2015, Toure sought to test his theory, launching a group called Black Guns Matter, which, despite the name’s similarity, is not affiliated with Black Lives Matter. To ensure that he reaches as many people as possible, he teaches free firearms training classes at the Philadelphia Firearms Academy. Next month, he will take his program on the road, holding seminars in 13 cities, including Baltimore, New Orleans, and Oakland.
Here’s Maj Toure in his own words, as told to Mike Spies of The Trace.
I’ve seen someone get shot, okay? It’s an unfortunate situation. Seeing people get shot is not glamorous or exciting. TV makes it like a guy flies through a window. No, it’s not like that. I’ve seen people’s heads open up. Frankly, I wouldn’t explain to someone what it feels like to see someone get shot. I don’t want to traumatize them. They don’t need that gruesome experience inside of them. I want to offer them training so they don’t ever have to get there.
Black Guns Matter is about training. We’ve been going for a year, but because of incidents with law enforcement over the last six months, it’s picked up a lot of steam. We’re getting much more attention. The ratcheting up is both good and bad. It’s bad because it’s due to murders. It’s good because it means more information is getting into the hood.
Our goal is to educate all hoods across America about the Second Amendment rights they have. A lot of times in my community, firearms are available before you have the information to even handle them properly. You can run across a gun at 15. What we want to do is, if anyone runs a across a gun at a young age, we want them to know what to do and not to do. It’s about making sure people from my demographic aren’t doing the wrong thing.
If you’re ignorant about firearms but are also exposed to them at a young age, it will lead to stupid decisions. When I was growing up in Philly, I saw a clear difference between those who had respect for the tool and those who didn’t. I was lucky and had uncles in the military; I saw their attachment to their rifles was different. They respected the tool; they knew how to fieldstrip and care for it. The military mindset is very regimented and very organized. Some of my homies obviously didn’t have that structure.
That’s why I got more and more involved in the Second Amendment fight: I saw too many friends going to jail for the same thing — they were missing the information; they didn’t know the rules. It’s the not knowing that causes them to not take the extra step. Sometimes they’ll be like, “I already have the gun. I bought it. Forget the paperwork.” But not going through the right procedures to carry it can get you five years in jail. Five years based on ignorance. And a lot of guys, they just don’t know you need a license to carry a concealed gun. But they’re not criminals. They work at a job and they take care of their family. They bought that gun legally.
Look, man. Black Guns Matter isn’t just for black people — it’s for anyone who has been disenfranchised, oppressed, or slandered. We’re the ones on the streets, and we’re going to use the Second Amendment to defend ourselves against any tyrant. If police don’t want to protect us, we’ll protect ourselves. We’ll protect ourselves from the scumbags in our community. I don’t call the police, ever.
But violence can be easily avoided. Most of the time, conflict can be handled way before firearms are involved — I’m talking about conflict resolution. I mean, I’ve never had to shoot anyone. Having a firearm doesn’t mean you have the right to commit an act of violence. But unfortunately, if it comes to that — and it very rarely does — you need to be trained to handle the situation. Like when you have a .22 caliber handgun — a small firearm — even that, the first time you fire it, can be overwhelming. It gives you a certain level of respect for the tool. When you see what a .45 can do to a person’s face, or a watermelon, you have a whole new respect. But I don’t think people should go there; you only go there when someone gets violent and you have no choice but to defend yourself.
The rules guiding the use of deadly force are clear: Don’t point a gun at someone unless you fear for your life. But harassment? Harassment doesn’t mean you take someone’s life. If someone says, “Maj, I don’t like your hair,” well, you know what, I can walk away from that. Deadly force is only used in spaces where you have no other option. That’s why it’s key to understand conflict resolution. A lot of gun rights organizations are leaving that out: You only shoot when you have no other option. What George Zimmerman did, for example, was not acceptable.
And that’s why, if you’re going to exercise your Second Amendment right, you need training. I’m not saying you should or shouldn’t have a gun. I’m saying, if you’re going to carry a gun, you need to learn how to do it properly and legally.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)