I love any story about how f*cked up 911 is. This one at Pepper Spray Me is a good one.
And here he reminds you why grammar is important.
I love any story about how f*cked up 911 is. This one at Pepper Spray Me is a good one.
And here he reminds you why grammar is important.
According to one study, which claims to be the only somewhat large-scale study, the risk of serious injury from a Taser is 0.25% Now mind you the sample size (1,201) isn’t that large so there were only three cases of serious injury which makes the 0.25% figure a bit dodgy. But still. Let’s assume that is the case. That means one in every 400 people of Taser is seriously injured.
Is that an acceptable risk?
And of course the study only looks at the near term effects. There was an interesting comment to this post:
Several years ago, my department received Tasers. During the training, we were given the option of receiving a Taser blow to the chest, a drive stun to the back of the leg, or none at all. Within the months that followed the training, among those officers who opted for the prongs to the chest, two died of heart attacks. They were 35 and 38 years old. As many as ten (aged late 20’s to late 30’s) sought emergency treatment for chest pain and heart palpitations.
Remember, the real reason police department brass likes the Taser is that they’re seen to lower expenses related to line-of-duty injuries (since the Taser is an alternative to going hands-on). If lawsuits start eating away at P.D. money, they’ll drop them in a flash.
I don’t talk much about the death penalty. It’s not my passion.
On one hand I think it’s wrong to kill. On the other I have very little sympathy for those put to death (except for the innocent ones, ‘course).
But get a load of this (found here):
Regardless of what you think about the death penalty, regardless of whether his client was innocent or guilty, should any man be convicted, much less put to death, when this guy serving as his defense attorney?
I didn’t go to law school, but isn’t your defense attorney supposed to defendyou?
Hot off the virtual presses, here’s an article I wrote appearing in this coming Sunday’s Washington Post. I talk about the difference in policy and police attitudes toward drugs in Amsterdam and in the U.S.:
In Amsterdam, the red-light district is the oldest and most notorious neighborhood. Two picturesque canals frame countless small pedestrian alleyways lined with legal prostitutes, bars, porn stores and coffee shops. In 2008, I visited the local police station and asked about the neighborhood’s problems. I laughed when I heard that dealers of fake drugs were the biggest police issue — but it’s true. If fake-drug dealers are the worst problem in the red-light district, clearly somebody is doing something right.
and
History provides some lessons. The 21st Amendment ending Prohibition did not force anybody to drink or any city to license saloons. In 1933, after the failure to ban alcohol, the feds simply got out of the game. Today, they should do the same — and last week the Justice Department took a very small step in the right direction.
General Barry McCaffrey was the Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy (the “Drug Czar”) from 1996 to 2001.
I can’t say much about his military career (1964-1996). I think it was just and honorable. He commanded a division in Operation Desert Storm and later the U.S. Southern Command. Wikipedia also says he created “the first Human Rights Council and Human Rights Code of Conduct for U.S. Military Joint Command.” Seems damned decent.
But the Barry McCaffrey I know, the Clinton Drug Czar McCaffrey, is either a bald-faced liar or delusional. Until last night, I assumed the former. But when you talk to a man who steadfastly denies the truth with vigor, I wonder.
Exhibit A: The “Unmitigated Disaster”
In 1998, McCaffrey told CNN’s “Talkback Live” that the murder rate in Holland was twice that in the US. “The overall crime rate in Holland is probably 40 percent higher than the United States,” said McCaffrey. That’s drugs.” He called Dutch drug policy, “an unmitigated disaster.”
The Dutch government’s Central Planning Bureau poured scorn on McCaffrey’s figures. Official data put the Dutch murder rate at 1.8 per 100,000 people in 1996, up from 1.5 at the start of the decade. The Dutch say the U.S. rate is 9.3 per 100,000.
“The figure (McCaffrey is using) is not right. He is adding in attempted murders,” a planning bureau spokesman said.
Confronted with reality, McCaffrey denied it.
Instead of apologizing for the error, McCaffrey’s deputy, Jim McDonough, responded, “Let’s say she’s right. What you are left with is that they are a much more violent society and more inept [at murder], and that’s not much to brag about.”
A month later, McCaffrey defended himself:
There was a huge uproar (in Holland) over murder rates and crime stats, and was I right or wrong?… For an American to suggest that their crime rates were higher than the U.S. absolutely blew their mind
Actually, what blows their mind is that a man of such importance could lie. Though McCaffrey did finally admit that Dutch drug policy may just be a “mitigated disaster.”
That whole bit is classic good ammo for the anti-drug-war cause. But it’s 11 years ago now. And I don’t like to hold grudges. So imagine my surprise last night.
Exhibit B: Conant v. McCaffrey
After being kind enough to tell me good things about my father (before we were on the air), McCaffrey whole-hoggedly denies what happened when he was Drug Czar. “Nonsense!” McCaffrey says. The Cato Institute’s Tim Lynch sets him straight.
You can read more of Lynch’s excellent take on McCaffrey here:
Whatever one’s view happens to be on drug policy, the historical record is there for any fair-minded person to see — and yet McCaffrey looked right into the camera and denied past actions by himself and other federal agents. And he didn’t say, “I think that’s wrong” or “I don’t remember it that way.” He baldly asserted that my recounting of the facts was “nonsense.” Now I suppose some will say that falsehoods are spoken on TV fairly often–maybe, I’m not sure–but it is distressing that this character held the posts that he did and that he continues to instruct cadets at West Point!
The court case, Conant v. McCaffrey was in McCaffrey’s name, for crying out loud! [though the decision was renamed Conant v. Walters by the time it became law of the land in 2002.]
Does McCaffrey not remember it? Does he believe it never happened? I’m tempted to believe the general at his word. Which means… well… I’ll leave you to decide. Here’s what the court ruled in 2000:
On December 30, 1996, less than two months after the Compassionate Use Act[Medicinal Marijuana]took effect, the Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy[that’s McCaffrey]… stated “that a practitioner’s action of recommending or prescribing Schedule I controlled substances[that’s marijuana]is not consistent with the ‘public interest’ … and will lead to administrative action by the Drug Enforcement Administration to revoke the practitioner’s registration.”
…
The Administration’s Response stated that the Department of Justice and the Department of Health and Human Services would send a letter to national, state, and local practitioner associations and licensing boards, stating unequivocally that the DEA would seek to revoke the registrations of physicians who recommended or prescribed Schedule I controlled substances.
Now over time, the administration backed down a bit from the hard line. But that doesn’t mean it never happened. The court ruled unequivocally against the government.
“I don’t care about sob stories, bad background, poverty — none of that. As an adult, you know the difference between right and wrong. You have a choice and he made the wrong choice.”
Well said. Too bad it’s from the daughter of an 82-year-old woman shot and killed.
I was on Lou Dobbs today.
I didn’t have the heart to tell him I love immigrants.
You can read more (and see the video) here.
Five shot during four-hour span.
And the mayor wants to cut police pay.
If you like my blog (and why would you be reading this if you don’t?), you’ll love The Open Case. Not only are all my posts mirrored there, but they have other good stuff as well. It’s like Cop in the Hood, but more. Check it out.
Not to stop drivers. Nor to search pedestrians. David Savage reports in the L.A. Times.