Policing The Hovel

I'm going to tell you a little story about my encounters with the police over the years. For most of my life I've had little interaction with police. And the few that I've had were pretty innocuous - traffic tickets mostly. But for a few years in the early 2000's I lived in an apartment that I have dubbed "The Hovel", and saw a different side of the police. 

One of the things that things that has been talked about in light of the revelations that the five Memphis police officers charged with murder were Black, is that it's not simply a matter of White cops killing Black people. It is, but that simplistic narrative ignores the related narrative that it's all police preying on anyone who is looked down upon, who has no influence, no power, who is at the bottom of society. Usually that means White cops brutalizing young Black men, because (1) the majority of cops are White and (2) Young Black Men are perceived to fall into the "bottom" category, whether they deserve to be or not. Black cops often absorb the mindset and are certainly not going to go pulling over rich White people to harass. 

The Hovel was an old railroad apartment on the 100 block of South 17th Street. It was falling down and had myriad code violations. I moved in after my first wife threw me out of the house because I needed a cheap place to live, fast. The twelve apartments housed a motley collection of souls, most on some sort of government assistance, but to my knowledge only one instance of actual law-breaking. But for some reason the Lincoln Police were regular visitors to our building, knocking (actually, "pounding") on doors in the middle of the night, harassing tenants as they came and went and stomping through the halls at all hours. Having had fairly cordial relations with the police for my whole life, I at first assumed that they must have a legitimate reason to be in the building, I couldn't imagine that they were treating the residents poorly because they were poor and powerless, and automatic suspects because of the horrible living conditions. On a few occasions when I encountered the police during daylight hours I would attempt to be friendly and saw that there was no "they", there was just "us". I could tell from how I was being treated that not only was living in this rundown building evidence to the police of some criminal activity, but that I was suspect as well...just because of where I lived. 

Neither I, nor any of my fellow Hovel residences (okay, there was one) were criminals, or caused any problems for the police, yet it was assumed, because we lived in slum-like conditions in a "bad" neighborhood, that we must be up to something nefarious. To my knowledge, the police presence never escalated into violence during my time there, but their assumption that we were somehow beneath them stuck with me. 

I have no problem believing that the attitude is widespread and not at all unique to that time and that place.

Stop Resisting!

This post is an expansion on a Facebook post made earlier this week. It's not about any alleged crimes the recipients of police brutality may have committed, or whether running away justifies said brutality, but whether what has become the common mode of restraint by many police invites resistance by its very nature.  

My perceptions may be skewed by what I see when arrests turn into executions, but it seems like no one gets arrested by simply putting them in the back of a police car, or even my handcuffing them while they are standing up. No, it looks like the prefered method of detention upon arrest is to put the detainee face down on the ground with his arms behind him. And not just violent suspects, I've seen this with what appeared to be compliant and cooperative arrestees, even children. 

The first time I became aware of this was during the Occupy protests in the early 2010's. Once a decision was made to clear out an Occupy encampment, occupiers were not just evicted, or simply rounded up and arrested, but the whole face down on the ground & handcuffed arrest seemed to be the norm. It's become the norm since then. 

Police know that they are given the benefit of the doubt when they can claim that someone who they are attempting to restrain is resisting arrest. Of course some extra roughness and aggression is called for if a suspect is violently resisting an arrest - or so we are led to believe. But where is the line? What is the definition of "resisting" that can be used to determine if an arrest needs to escalate physically? 

In most situations people try to avoid discomfort. In ordinary life we try to find the most comfortable position in a chair, make sure our shoes and clothes fit comfortably, and don't walk barefoot on hot sand or sharp gravel. Much of our comfort-seeking is unconscious. As I have typed the last few sentences I have changed position in my desk chair several times. What about when someone is lying face down on the asphalt, with their arms wrenched behind and a knee digging into their spine while a cop tries to handcuff them? Not to mention their face pushed into ground and their neck twisted into an unnatural angle? I imagine that would be, not merely uncomfortable, but painful. Wouldn't that cause one to unconsciously try to shift position into one that is less painful? Squirm one's body so that it's not so contorted? Meanwhile, the 200 pound man on your back is screaming at you to stop resisting while causing you more pain and discomfort. 

It sure seems like the police in these situations are looking for an excuse to escalate, looking to set up a pretense for them to get a beating in. The most recent killing by cop in Memphis even included the victim being told to show his hands, then being maced in the face, which of course caused him to protect his face with his hands, which the cops characterized as "failing to comply". These are no-win scenarios for someone who is stopped by police who are looking for trouble. 

What's Happening in Atlanta?

If you follow the news via social media, and haven't blocked out the right-wing, you're probably hearing about how "Antifa" and "BLM" should be designated as domestic terrorist organizations because of their violent actions in Atlanta on Saturday. What's going on in Atlanta?

In the Autumn of 2021 the Atlanta City Council proposed building a police training facility in 300 acres of forest north of the city. There was much public opposition to the idea, for a variety of reasons. One man who attended the council meeting where public comments were solicited estimated that 70% of the comments were opposed to the project. Once the final vote of 10-4 in favor of the facility was in, grass roots protests began to form. The core of opposition coalesced into a loosely organized group known as the "Forest Defenders" who camped out in the forest, some of them in treehouses. Other than a few vehicles that were set afire, these protest were peaceful and mainly consisted of people simply living on the land to prevent the development from beginning. (Some sources claim that one of the vehicle fires was set with the owner inside - this is disputed by the Forest Defenders and since the owner is still alive...)

The violence began with a raid on the encampment on December 13, 2022. In an attempt to break up the occupation police attacked the protesters with pepper balls and tear gas.  No one died in this attack, but amazingly five of the protesters were charged with domestic terrorism. The occupation continued after the raid. 

Last week one of the Forest Defenders was killed after police claimed that he fired at them. No body-cam footage has been released, and with the police record on firing on people when "fearing for one's life", I would be skeptical of their claim that the Forest Defender fired first. (The police officer in question was shot). The march on Saturday in Atlanta was to protest that police shooting. It started peacefully but turned violent when some protesters began breaking windows and setting a police car on fire. Several arrests turned up explosives in the protesters' possession.

I'm not going to argue that the violence was justified unless I hear that the police did something that provoked a retaliation, which I have not heard. But people who have just had one of their number killed are on edge, and it wouldn't take much. Arrest the people that you can catch and charge them with whatever property damage felonies that are applicable. Unfortunately, in many peaceful protests, the risk that a small number (and by all accounts it was a small number, for a brief time during the otherwise peaceful march) will disrupt things with vandalism or violence is ever present. That small number can be outside agitators wanting to make a group look bad, it could be opportunistic troublemakers who are piggybacking on the protest for the sole reason of destruction, or sadly, it could be a sub-group within the larger group who want to take things further.

What it isn't, as the chicken littles of the right wing claim, "Antifa", or more ridiculously, Black Lives Matter. Antifa has become the all-encompassing bogeyman of the right wing, supposedly responsible for every act of violence, for every disruptive protest, and even for being behind right wing protests in disguise. Republican leaders want to designate "Antifa" as a terrorist organization. The problem is that there is no "Antifa". Not as a centralized organization. It's a mindset, it's a movement of loosely connected people, connected only by a hatred of fascism. I don't you could find any two anti-fascists who would agree with each other on what today's manifestation of fascism looks like or what to do about it. Charge individuals who commit crimes that meet the definition of terrorism with terrorism, but making "Antifa" illegal is like shooting at a cloud. It may be there, but you sure can't put your hands (or handcuffs) on it. 

On the other hand, there is an organization called "Black Lives Matter", but I doubt that many people who participated in Black Lives Matter protests, or make the slogan "Black Lives Matter" their own are members of that specific organization. 

The Tin-Foil Hat caucus in Congress wants nothing more in these situations than to distract from the Trump-inspired violent insurrection that occurred on January 6, 2021. 

 

Pronouns

People habitually mock that which they do not understand. One of the things that a lot of people don't understand is the whole concept of transgenderism. (I think I may have made up a word there) They don't "get" that some people may want to identify as a different gender than the one listed on their birth certificate, or no gender at all and adopt non-traditional pronouns to describe themselves. Their lack of understanding is manifested as derisive stabs at humor or even attempts to legislate away the existence of transgender people. Things such as gender-affirming surgery for minors or whether a person who lived most of her life as a male should be allowed to compete in women's sports may be legitimate subjects for debate, but in my observations what those who are opposed to these things are really opposed to is the very existence of transgender people. 

I'll leave the discussion of gender-affirming surgery for another day, because I believe it's a distraction - a slippery slope argument whose real goal is to erase transgender people from society. (And if you want to call it "mutilation", nobody asked me whether I wanted to be circumcised as an infant - I'll never get that foreskin back) Most things that differentiate a transgender from a cisgender person, including preferred pronouns, have absolutely no effect on any other person. So, why does anyone, other than the individual who identifies as transgender, care? In my everyday interactions with my fellow Nebraskans I can't imagine how a person's gender identity would affect me in any way. Does it matter if I can't tell whether the person who makes my latte (consumption of which is compulsory for us liberals) is male or female? Or neither? Or even whether my grandkids' teachers have identities which conform to societal gender "norms"? All I care about is whether my fancy coffee gets made with the right degree of fanciness and whether the school teachers communicate their subject matter well. 

The bigoted attacks on transgender people (and all LGBTQ+ people for that matter) has been disguised as some kind of concern for children's safety. This "concern" is based on their evidence-free perception that anyone who isn't heterosexual cisgender is by definition a child molester, a pedophile. The term "groomer", meaning someone who intentionally and incrementally gets a child comfortable with sexual activity in order to sexually take advantage of them, as been thrown around liberally. Anyone who who is in the LBGTQ+ community is tarred with this brush, allies among cisgender heterosexuals are included in their minds as "pedo groomers". It reminds me of the hysteria in the cult I was a part of in the nineties during the "homo purge", where anyone even suspected of being gay, as well as what they called "homo fantasizers" and "homo sympathizers" were purged from the ranks. If these legislators and church leaders cared about children's safety rather than performing as if they did to garner the bigot vote, they'd be looking into the many church groups where child abuse is rampant, including but not limited to, the Catholic Church. Keep an eye out for the credible accusations of child molestation and you'll see a lot of ministers and Republican politicians and zero drag queens. 

Then we have the low-key "humor" of saying things like "My pronouns are Prosecute/Fauci" or something equally idiotic. This is a bigot's attempt at cleverness. Yes, they know what a pronoun is and that what they wrote wasn't a pronoun. It a feeble attempt to mock gender identity choice and whatever else they're worked up about at the same time, while exposing both their bigotry and their ignorance. 

While parents aren't always as understanding as their children want them to be when it comes to their sexuality and gender identity, you would think that a bunch of drag queens reading to school kids, or hosting a community event where the parents are fully knowledgeable and bring their children to these events wouldn't be cause for a protest. After all, isn't the current right-wing obsession with schools are teaching all about parents' rights? Since the parents are involved, why are there scores of armed men in combat gear protesting these events? 

I think you know the answer.

The Laptop

With all the crises that Republicans have been screaming about that need solving, like inflation, the border, Social Security shortfall, crime, and imaginary election fraud, now that they're charge of the House of Representatives they'll be concentrating on big issues like investigating the January 6 Committee, impeaching Joe Biden and, of course, Hunter Biden's laptop. 

Republicans, going all the way back to the Clinton administration have attempted to get their way with pointless investigations, while their own people have been engaged in the real corruption, pontificating about "family values" while nominating...Donald Trump. 

Hunter Biden is without a doubt a serial screwup. He has gotten lucrative jobs by trading on his father's name, gotten himself thrown out of the military for drug use, and made a long string bad decisions. But, in true Republican fashion, since they have fantasized that President Biden was involved corruptly in his son's bad decisions it must be so. No evidence needed. 

There is no doubt that Hunter Biden had a laptop that he once abandoned at a computer repaid shop in Delaware. There also appears to be videos on it that make Hunter look pretty bad. It's also indisputable that he's under investigation for various crimes including tax fraud. Fine, if he's guilty I would hope he's held accountable for any hypothetical crimes. 

But...why does anyone care?

With all the serious issues to be addressed, this what the Republicans are going to focus on?

The clown show is open for business.
 

Still a Murderer

 

After seeing Kyle Rittenhouse once again on social media attempting to justify himself, I thought I'd revisit this post from July, with a few additions:

Kyle Rittenhouse was on trial for murder. He killed two people and seriously wounded a third. 

According to trial testimony, the first person that Rittenhouse killed was Joseph Rosenbaum. I've heard different versions of what happened between Rittenhouse and Rosenbaum, and various descriptions of Rosenbaum as a troublemaker. But trial testimony established that Rittenhouse shot Rosenbaum four times after Rosenbaum lunged at him. Multiple witnesses established that Rosenbaum was harassing, not only Rittenhouse, but other counter protestors as well. Video shows Rosenbaum chasing after Rittenhouse and throwing what appears to be a plastic bag at him. There is no credible allegation that Rosenbaum was armed. The defense claims, and video footage confirms, that a shot was heard just before Rittenhouse turned and fired at Rosenbaum, who was still unarmed. No one, not even the defense, was claiming that Rosenbaum fired the shot. I think that it's reasonable to conclude that Rittenhouse was terrified that he was going to get beaten up by Rosenbaum and possibly others. It's abundantly clear that in his mind he connected the gunshot that he heard with Rosenbaum chasing him, freaked out and fired his weapon. Video appears to show Rosenbaum reaching for the barrel of the weapon, or perhaps lunging at Rittenhouse. What would you do if a terrified youngster with an AR-15 pointed his gun at you? It clear to me from the testimony given at the trial that it's entirely plausible that Rittenhouse feared for his life - not because an actual threat to his life existed, but because in his fantasy of protecting property from rampaging hordes and in a moment of irrational terror that existed only in his head  and apart from the reality of the situation, he panicked and killed someone. And fired, not once, in order to drive off someone who he fantasized was trying to kill him, but four times as Rosenbaum fell. 

The jury decided, as the defense claims, that Rittenhouse fired in self defense. I am unfamiliar with the specifics of Wisconsin law, although I am reasonably sure they don't have a version of a "Stand Your Ground" statute, so it's wasn't a sure thing either way. But is it self defense if you purposely put yourself in a position to provoke people to anger by walking around with a loaded weapon that you are prepared to use against people who are damaging property? Emotions were running hot in Kenosha and he inserted himself right into the middle of it. And "inserted" is the right word. This wasn't his city, it wasn't even his state. He got his mother to drive him across state lines and pick up his illegally obtained weapon because he was looking for trouble. And he found it. Trouble didn't find him. He actively sought out a dangerous situation and shot an unarmed man who he thought endangered him. 

Something that wasn't brought up in the trial, but is referred to repeatedly by Rittenhouse supporters and enablers, was that Rosenbaum was a convicted pedophile. This is true. When he was 19 he was accused of molesting several young boys and was convicted and spent time in prison for it. This certainly makes Rosenbaum a terrible person - at least it indicates that he was a terrible person when he was 19, roughly 18 years before he was killed. Rittenhouse stans insist that killing Rosenbaum was somehow a public service given his past. But as much as we may feel that pedophiles are the worst of the worst and deserve to die, (1) Rittenhouse had no knowledge of Rosenbaum's record, (2) He'd served his time and (3) the law frowns on vigilantism, no matter how horrific the crime. This is what we in the piscine metaphor game call a red herring. While in this case, the target really was a pedophile, bringing this up is right in line with the right wing trying to paint anyone who opposes them as a pedophile. But in this case it's totally irrelevant and intended to justify Rittenhouse's actions over and above the tissue-thin self defense claim. 

Regarding Rittenhouse's murder of Rosenbaum, he was found not guilty because the statutes allowed a claim of self defense even when there wasn't anything to defend oneself from other than in the supposed defender's mind. 

Let's move on to the murder of Anthony Huber. 

Much is made by Second Amendment extremists of the "good guy with a gun" as a preventive to "bad guy with a gun" violence. (Of course they are not dissuaded by statistics showing that this hardly ever happens) In their minds armed citizens should be able to stop a mass shooter in the early stages, or even before the shooting starts. Anthony Huber, as well as several others, had just seen Rittenhouse kill someone. Even though he was armed only with a skateboard, he attempted to subdue the killer before he could kill again. The bare facts of this second killing are not really in dispute. Huber attacked Rittenhouse with a skateboard in order to detain him. If Rittenhouse had been killed by the skateboard, I presume that Huber could have successfully used the "feared for his life" defense. After all, Rittenhouse, who had just inarguably killed someone, still was armed with a deadly weapon, was walking away. Wouldn't, in other circumstances, someone like Huber be lauded as a hero? Instead, Rittenhouse was able to get off a shot and Huber was killed; Rittenhouse again claimed to fear for his life as a defense against someone who attempted to disarm and detain him. Team Rittenhouse wants us to view this second killing in a vacuum: someone was attacking him and he defended himself. Since he says, one again, that he feared for his life, he's let off again. But you can't divorce Huber's killing from the context of Rosenbaum's killing. This wasn't a random, unprovoked attack by a mad skateboarder, but a reaction to his murder of Rosenbaum. 

As in the case of Rosenbaum, the Rittenhouse cheerleaders attempted to smear Huber, but with less success. Huber was accused of domestic abuse and sexual assault, however this was inaccurate. He had been charged with several felonies springing from a dispute with several family members, as well as misdemeanors for disorderly conduct and possession of drug paraphernalia. No allegations or charges of sexual assault were included in his record. Unlike Rosenbaum his run-ins with the law were minor, but like Rosenbaum, they were completely irrelevant. 

We finally get to Gaige Grosskreutz, the only one of Rittenhouse's three victims to survive and the only one who was armed. Grosskreutz was at the protests as a medic, but unlike Rittenhouse he (1) had actual training as an EMT and (2) had actively treated around a dozen people for pepper spray and rubber bullet impacts. He was armed and had a license to carry a weapon. Grosskreutz ran toward the sound of gunfire, the gunfire that killed Rosenbaum. He saw Rittenhouse kill Huber and had drawn his gun. Initially he had raised his hands but when he saw Rittenhouse "rerack his rifle to load a new round into the chamber" he ran toward Rittenhouse "to prevent himself from being shot", claiming to have no intention of actually shooting him, but pointing his pistol in Rittenhouse's direction nonetheless. It's obvious that Grosskreutz didn't intend to shoot Rittenhouse...because he didn't , even though he had the opportunity. If he had shot and killed Rittenhouse, surely he would have been able to claim that he feared for his life and been acquitted. Like the murder of Huber, friends of Rittenhouse want to take this shooting out of context and present it as just an incident of him defending himself from someone pointing a gun at him. But the context is supremely important. Grosskreutz would not have been in the position that he was in if two murders had not jus occurred. Rittenhouse wouldn't be in that position if he hadn't just murdered two people. 

The now tiresome accusation of criminality rears its head again. Grosskreutz, while having several misdemeanors on his record was not a felon and was legally able to go armed. 

Rittenhouse got off. In my opinion it was overly broad self defense statutes that allowed his claim of self defense to stand. They're not much different in Wisconsin than anywhere else, but for the most part a claim that someone "feared for their life" is taken at face value. In the case of the first person that he shot, Rittenhouse claimed he was afraid that he would be killed by his own gun, that he testified that Rosenbaum was trying to take from him. In the case of his murder of Huber, he was apparently deathly afraid of a skateboard. He seemed to be completely unaware that he was being "attacked" because he had just KILLED SOMEONE! 

After the acquittal, instead of breathing a sigh of relief that he wouldn't be going to prison, he has become the darling of the gun lovers in the NRA and the Republican Party, spouting pro-gun rhetoric via his Twitter account and encouraging his supporters to justify his murder and maiming spree by pointing out the arrest history of his victims. 

The NRA crowd and its hangers-on don't see the inherent problem with this no-questions-asked "feared for my life" defense. Cops have been using it for as long as there have been cops, but now you start to see videos of aggressive, armed individuals screaming "I feel threatened" at people armed only with words. I'm not advocating unprovoked violence, but wouldn't a natural extension of this belief be for protestors to just proactively shoot any right wing counter-protester? 

After the Rittenhouse verdict, I'd certainly fear for my life if I saw any of those armed assholes at a protest.

The Insurrectionist

[Since I originally posted this, I have learned that "insurrection" has a narrow legal definition, as does "sedition" and "seditious conspiracy". None of the invaders of the Capitol on January 6 were charged with insurrection, but many were charged and convicted of seditious conspiracy, hence "insurrectionist" is inaccurate and "seditious conspirator" is the more accurate label]

Do I think Donald Trump, aka "Losin' Don", will ever see one day in prison, or even be subject to significant civil penalties? [updated May 28, 2023 to note that he was recently held liable for defamation and order to pay $5,000,000]

No. 

Do I think he should because he's guilty as Hell?

Yes, I do. 

One of Trump's impeachments was over his incitement of the attack on the Capitol on January 6, 2020. His supporters point to one line in his speech in Washington, D.C. on that day: "I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol Building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard". There are other references to peacefully protesting and being the party of law and order. But does that exonerate him from any blame? 

Throughout his speech on January 6, 2020 Trump rehashed his lies that the election was stolen and that day's Congressional certification of the electoral votes was the last chance to make things right. He had supporters in Congress who would vote against accepting the electoral votes of states that had went to Joe Biden in close contests. He was pressuring Vice President Pence to refuse to accept the results. And now, on the last supposedly legal opportunity to overturn the election results he faced a crowd of thousands of true believers. The core of those who really believed the lies that their cult leader was feeding them and were prepared to act on his words. 

Trump was skilled at not leaving a paper trail, ensuring plausible deniability at every turn. He was the master of "Will no one rid me of this troublesome priest?" utterances, enabling him to claim that he didn't actually issue the orders to do what his subordinates clearly understood to be orders. His defense that he didn't incite that attack on the Capitol is apparently that he didn't say the words "Now go and attack the Capitol". 

The context of incitement in this case can't even be narrowed down to what he said or didn't say on January 6. For months he had been ranting that the election had been stolen from him. His core of supporters, especially those present that day, were people who had no problem with violence. His 'wink and a nod' support of extremist groups (to the Proud Boys "Stand back and stand by") certainly communicated that he was perfectly fine with protests that got more physical than waving Trump flags and wearing red hats. He encouraged rough and even violent treatment of protesters at his rallies. After months of convincing his followers that it was the patriotic thing to do to overturn an election he encouraged them to march to the Capitol...which was not open to the public that day to make their voices heard. What did he think would happen? Maybe he didn't realize how far it would go, but it took him over three hours to call on his cult to stop their attack and go home. And even then he expressed sympathy for them and what they were doing. If he truly intended for their voices to be heard, "peacefully and patriotically", why did he allow the rampage to continue as long as he did? Trump claims that it wasn't his intention to encourage his followers to break into the Capitol, but his followers seem to think it was. He knew what affect his words would have.

Speaker McCarthy released all the security to video that day, not to the media at large, not to the Congressional Committee (that he disbanded) to investigate the events of that day, not to the Georgia prosecutor looking into Trump's culpability, but to Trump sycophants Tucker Carlson, who released portions of the footage where the seditionists weren't attacking the police, breaking windows, scaling walls or stealing items from Congressional offices. As if we hadn't already seen the videos of the violence and destruction or the calls to "hang Mike Pence" or "get Pelosi". 

He's guilty. Go get him Jack.