Author: Moskos

  • We Got Another Kingpin! (11)

    Why it was less than a year ago that we got Heriberto Lazcano, the founder and principal leader of the Zetas. And now the Times reports:

    The leader of … the Zetas, was captured Monday in a city near the Texas border, an emphatic retort from the new government to questions over whether it would go after top organized crime leaders.

    Mr. Treviño is the highest-ranking and most-sought-after drug capo arrested by the government of President Enrique Peña Nieto of Mexico, whose aides had questioned the so-called kingpin strategy of his predecessor, which had emphasized high-profile arrests. 

    If you’re counting, and I am, this is the 11th Kingpinwe’ve captured in less than three years! Start the chant: War on drugs! War on Drugs! USA! Mexico!

    The BBC mentions in passing: “The fear is that it will lead to a period of violent in-fighting between different Zeta factions as they try to assume control of the criminal organisation, our correspondent adds.” Ya think?

  • Stand your ground

    Am I disappointed in the verdict? Yes. Is it inconceivable based on the idiodically written stand your ground law? Alas, no. And now that Zimmerman walks free, can we talk more about repealing this horrible law? Legal justice is not moral justice. I wrote this last year:

    The law is written in such a way that even if you are the aggressor, if at any moment you reasonable believe that you’re in imminent danger of great bodily harm and can not get away, you can use lethal force, and it’s OK.

    It wasn’t like they weren’t warned before the law was passed. Let’s set the Wayback Machine for the year 2005:

    “It’s a joke. Unbelievable. It’s a bad joke,” said Drewes of the new law. “If you shoot somebody in anger, what are you going to say? I made a mistake. I wasn’t in any danger. Take me away?… They’re all going to lie. They’re all going to say ‘I did it to protect myself. I was in fear for my life.”

    Gelber, a former federal prosecutor, said no one has ever been prosecuted in Florida for lawfully protecting themselves. “Do we tell those people that they’re supposed to walk away or do we tell them that you’re supposed to stand your ground and fight to the death?”

    And here’s the actual Florida statute:

    (1) A person who uses force … is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force…. The term “criminal prosecution” includes arresting, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant.

    (2) A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force as described in subsection (1), but the agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used was unlawful.

    (3) The court shall award reasonable attorney’s fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses incurred by the defendant in defense of any civil action brought by a plaintiff if the court finds that the defendant is immune from prosecution as provided in subsection (1).

    This law is so poorly written that it really would take such a case as messed up as this one to even think of prosecuting somebody.

  • Zimmerman Trial (2): Justice vs. Stand Your Ground

    I received this interesting and thought-provoking email from my friend Alan (bold added):

    It seems to me that if Zimmerman is convicted of a felony, then the Florida laws are apparently defensible. Sure, a guy is allowed to shoot someone in certain circumstances; in this case such circumstances did not present and so he’s going to jail. The laws did not apply and the state justly punishes the perpetrator.

    On the other hand, if the prosecution fails and the court acquits, now we can assert the Florida laws have accommodated the brutal slaying (since you can’t call it “murder”!) of an unarmed youth, and now we can more easily make a case that the FL laws are ridiculous.

    In other words, as liberal pacifists who appreciate the state’s monopoly on armed force, a guilty verdict serves us poorly. It has the welcome effect of obtaining immediate justice for Trayvon Martin’s death (since repealing the laws presumably wouldn’t remove Zimmerman’s protections that applied at the time), but Florida civilians can continue to walk around with concealed weapons and use them with impunity. The long play here is to pull for an acquittal.

    I prefer the short-play here and would like to see the killer of Martin convicted. But I think the Florida stand-your-ground law is so broad (and poorly written) that I can see a legal case for Zimmerman’s acquittal (though not a moral one).

  • Zimmerman Trial (1)

    Prof. Carl Hart on modern reefer madness:

    Harry J. Anslinger, commissioner of the
    Federal Bureau of Narcotics (predecessor of the Drug Enforcement
    Administration) declared, “Marijuana is the most violence-causing drug
    in the history of mankind.”

    Seven decades and hundreds of studies later, we no longer have an excuse
    for indulging the myth of “reefer madness.” It has no place in our
    courts — which means Mr. Martin’s toxicology report doesn’t, either.

  • Happy 4th of July from Oakland

    Just strolling around Oakland at midnight, as you do.

    Notice the cop car crashing into the donut O.

    As I took this picture a man stopped, looked at me, and said sternly… “Don’t miss the giant owl across the street.”

    I didn’t.

    It was big. But too big for a good picture with a phone camera flash.

  • Lockdown Nation: How military-style policing became America’s new normal

    Lockdown Nation: How military-style policing became America’s new normal

    If you care about the militarization of police, and Radley Balko makes a strong case you should, read his “fascinating and sometimes terrifying” Rise of the Warrior Cop: The Militarization of America’s Police Forces. That quote is mine. And you can find them in the July/August issue of Pacific Standard, a great new (to me) magazine coming from California.

    Here’s an excerpt of my review:

    Journalist Radley Balko traces the changes in American policing from colonial times to the present. His focus, though, is law enforcement’s increased reliance on military hardware and strategy in the last 45 years.

    Paramilitary policing quickly spread across the country. Today there are more than 1,000 U.S. police forces with SWAT or SWAT-type units. In 1980, nationwide, they carried out an average of eight paramilitary raids a day; now there are well over 100. Balko attempts to explain why this happened, and why it matters.

    Paramilitary police tactics were designed, Balko writes, “to stop snipers and rioters-people already committing violent crimes.” Today, however, SWAT teams are used mostly “to serve warrants on people suspected of nonviolent crimes.” Paramilitary raids on American homes, which just four decades ago seemed extraordinary, have become common, as has legal forgiveness for any “collateral damage.” The Supreme Court has by and large acquiesced, creating a string of drug-related exceptions to the Fourth Amendment.

    Balko carefully prefaces his argument by noting that it isn’t, at its core, “anti-cop.” I suspect this is because he hopes to convince as many people as possible. As a former police officer, I have my doubts. Balko asserts that most police officers regularly commit felonious perjury. Lying, he writes, is “routine,” “expected,” and “part of the job.” He supplies little evidence for this claim – an absence that is particularly notable because the rest of his book is so meticulously researched and thoroughly footnoted. “Bad cops are the product of bad policy,” he warns us. But this is too glib. Bad policy creates bad policing. Bad police, however many there may be, are a separate problem.

    Even if SWAT raids don’t pose an existential threat to American liberty – and Balko makes a strong case that they do – Rise of the Warrior Cop persuasively demonstrates that they’re simply unnecessary. The problem has little to do with the Constitution, and solving it doesn’t require some radical innovation in police practice. Most warrants are served just fine the old-fashioned way: by knocking on someone’s front door. In tactically tricky situations, police can wait for their suspect to walk to the corner store. The relevant question is political: Having given our police broad access to military weapons and tactics, will we ever choose to take them away?

    _______________________________________________

    PS: I feel compelled to mention the great experience I had writing this book review for Pacific Standard. I worked with editor Peter Baker once before when he was with Washington Monthly. I’ve actually had good luck with editors over the years, but other writers crook their eyebrows and then get jealous when I mention such positive experiences. Perhaps I have been very lucky, but it’s a shame it’s even noteworthy to work with a collaborative and helpful hands-on editor. Speaking of all too rare in publishing today, kudos also go to Pacific Standard  for paying good money for a writer’s labor. And paying promptly. Thanks!

  • How much do blue crabs cost this week?

    The questioneverybody is asking, for sure. I don’t even know, when is the cheapest time to buy crabs? Clearly not this week. (if you click on the link, you can see the crabs are still alive, which is pretty amazing for a cooked crab!)

  • Because one life isn’t enough: The Militarization of Police

    I’ll be gracing the ever-mysterious world of Second Life again tonight. It’s a nice long-form discussion. And you can listen in in your first life as well. Virtually Speaking with Jay Ackroyd. Tonight at 9pm, New York time. It’s about the militarization of police.

  • We are shocked…

    As usual David Simon makes a lot of sense. But what I don’t understand, and what bothers me most about the whole deal, is why it had to be a secret. If this were really a “healthy” discussion we should be having, then why did it take a whistleblower to start it? hard to imagine we’re less safe because it’s not a secret (there might even be a greater deterrent effect now).

    I also don’t like such intelligence being subcontracted to private companies. The last thing we need is an intelligence-industrial complex giving money to congress and getting laws passed similar to the military- and prison-industrial complexes.