More great assorted links

I'm a fan of history especially history that helps explain the world I live in today. One piece I got to see personally was the science-led ban on chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs). I did independent study on the issue while in college in the late 70s, and it's fascinating to look back. Back then, science was more respected and not just a ping pong ball in adversarial politics. 

A great, passionate talk about race relations in the US. Insight after insight. Watch and learn so much that you need to learn. 

Unusual mail-in ballot numbers in Wisconsin. Probably some fraud, but not huge amounts. And during covid, nursing homes were making sure residents got to vote. But that makes sense because residents weren't getting visits. 

Explanation of US oil production and the effects of covid. Demand cratered, pumping didn't slow, the market was over saturated, prices cratered, producers went bankrupt, production dropped sharply. 

The view from Twitter employees on the Musk takeover. Nervous. (Funny, this one fell apart, but here's a historical record.)

Fact-checking the 'blockbuster' expose movie about voter fraud. The premise is very weak--the Dems supposedly had 2000 ballot harvesters, based on cell phone tower ping data. 

The military has a problem with white supremacists. But according to some conservatives, the military is actually trying to censor conservatives. Here are some cases. 

Mark Esper, former Secretary of Defense, describes how Trump was unfit to be president. Maybe compare that with Rick Scott's reasons for calling Biden unfit. 

How were voting rights for black people secured? It was a long process, where the federal government ignored the problem for years despite having the mandate right in the 14th amendment to enforce those rights. 

A pilot project sent mental health teams to respond to minor police calls in Denver. It was successful, so maybe we'll see more diverse response teams become more common rather than relying so much on police. 

An software engineer at Google has been suspended for sharing private information. It concerns his opinion that an artificial intelligence (AI) application has achieved sentience. That puts the engineer into an ethical dilemma.

Image: abcnews.go.com

November links, including a bit of rioting

 These are non-election-related links. Not many of them, but the election didn't manage to wipe out everything.

Another shooting by police. Again my initial response is that victims largely caused the incident. But my opinion changed somewhat. Parents were having a quiet moment in their car, not breaking any laws, and the police interrupted them to ask or serve a warrant. Are there better way to handle warrants? How big a problem are warrants? I'm no longer assuming that warrants are synonymous with people of low-character. 

A great article about the New York Times. It's facing a dramatic generational shift from the boomers/GenX to the millenials. 

This is election-related, but outside of the main topic which the scramble over electoral votes. Saturday after the election (Nov. 7), street parties erupted as people decided Biden had won and they took to the streets to celebrate. A week later, Trump supporters organized a rally in Washington DC. It was supposed to be a Million MAGA March, but was tens of thousands. There were also counterprotesters, and the Proud Boys organized a showing of one or two hundred. The Proud Boys got their wish and had a few fist fights and skirmishes, but not that much. Antifa was possibly the aggressor of one incident, of fireworks used against an outdoors restaurant where Trump supporters were dining, though the fireworks were directed at empty tables. A video touted as showing violent Antifa against an old man showed only part of the story, neglecting where he attacked numerous people beforehand. 

Also election related. A Democrat has to distance himself from the socialists in the Democratic party. The level of socialism hurt a lot of Dems, but not Biden. 

Conspiracy theories. Some software research group has put together a tool and model, and it looks good. And let's just review Pizzagate in depth. 

Image: businessinsider.com

Update 10/17/2024. From Just Security, an assessment on how dangerous the Proud Boys are. 

Overview and link dump for US demonstrations and riots

(Catching up on posts started a while ago. This one originally written around 6/9/20.)

George Floyd, a very tall, robust black man, was killed while in police custody on May 25 in Minneapolis. A police officer kept his knee of Floyd's neck for about 9 minutes while two other officers pinned his back and legs. This killed Floyd. The video of much of the incident, including the entreaties of onlookers to let him up and check his pulse, went viral and there were massive demonstrations and some rioting and looting on the next day. Demonstrations, rioting, and looting became widespread in many cities, with demonstrations happening in many cities and towns across the US.

One of the most dramatic scenes was a crowd of rioters trying to get into the CNN world headquarters. They smashed several huge lobby windows, and only a line of police kept them at bay. The crows was dispersed after about 30 minutes by teargas shot from police outside the building. The mayor of Atlanta and other notables pleaded with rioters to stop and go home.

Taking the knee, the protest symbol popularized by the football player Colin Kaepernick, became the symbol of understanding the anger at the death and police brutality in general.

At times like this, I watch a lot of eye-witness video. This one struck me. A looter in New York City is tackled by a demonstrator who yells that the looter isn't a black ally. The demonstrator grabs the looter so tight that not even two people can pull them apart. That is a lot of passion against looting.

Because there was so much vandalism and looting, rumors sprang up indiscriminately. It was people from out-of-town coming with UHauls to haul the loot away. It was antifa being funded by George Soros and placing bricks at locations where they wanted looting. Bus loads were being sent to rural areas to loot the towns there. It was false flag operations of white nationalists or Boogaloo Boys hoping to start a second civil war.

Some of the police crackdowns are harsh, and caught on video too. More people died in the looting and rioting.

Trump was flummoxed on what to do. On June 1, he tried to make a speech and take a stand, but it was a dismal attempt. He took a walk to a nearby church that had been vandalized, and held up a bible for pictures. To allow his walk to happen, thousands of peaceful protesters were hit with rubber bullets and pepper balls, punched, truncheoned (less frequent) and herded out of the way with violence. Attorney General Bill Barr was supposed in charge of the operation though he has tried to distance himself.

Tucker Carlson, who raised the alarm about the covid-19, was raising the alarm about Black Lives Matter protesters and rioters coming to YOU.

And three months later....

The demonstrations are still going on. A few new atrocities have happened or survived. This just shows (as we knew) that Floyd's killing wasn't an isolated incident. 

Image: nydailynews.com

Update. A 2.5 hour documentary of the protests and riots in Minneapolis after Floyd's killing. 

June links

This has been an interesting month. Real things are happening. The long-awaited Inspect General's report about the FBI has been released. Trump and the despotic leader of North Korea insulted each other and almost torpedoed their summit, but then it was back on. Of course Trump is acting like he's saved the world from a huge threat without caring about the details, reality, or truth. But that's not new for him. Trump is never about substance or reality. It's about the show and ratings.

FBI official taking the fifth. Congress wants testimony from Andrew McCabe (probably for partisan show). However, the Department of Justice is considering charges against him, so he'll probably take the fifth in front of Congress.Normally, I'd think that is terrible, but considering he's likely to be facing charges, it makes good sense. I'm not sure why, but I have a somewhat good impression of McCabe. Maybe because he hasn't showboated or thrown anyone under the bus. However, the current director of the FBI demoted him, so it seems like there is something questionable there. And the reaction from the new FBI director? 'We need more rigorous training in being fair.'

How bad is James Clapper? Clapper is one of the many boogeymen according to those in conservative circles who believe in the horror of the 'deep state.' There's him, Comey, Loretta Lynch, Brennan, Rosenstein, and probably countless others. What exacting did Clapper do to earn that reputation? I had to look it up because no one was repeating it, just that he was evil. Supposedly his huge sin was lying to Congress about the NSA data gathering programs. His real sin was saying that Trump is a liar and unserious (my paraphrase). In this write-up of an interview, Clapper makes a lot of sense. Michael Flynn was probably played by the Russians, the Russians probably did tip the election, but we're probably going to survive this and come out stronger afterward. Sensible and reasonable.

Round-up on Inspector General's report. CNN has a series of short, readable clips about the significance of the report. Alan Dershowitz, legal savant and media whore, blasts Comey based on information from the report. Nice to know that Dershowitz has an infallible sense of how to handle fraught situations. He thinks Rosenstein has to recuse himself, and then oversight will fall into the lap of someone who will oversee the Mueller probe with perfect judgment. No, wait, there shouldn't even be a special counsel because there are people in the Justice Department who can handle the investigation without bias... if we're lucky enough that they're the ones who are appointed to do it and nobody interferes with them, like firing them or pointing a biased person in to supervise them.

Educated observer's report on Russia. Just the kind of rationality we need to read sometimes. Strip away hype, fear, and posturing, and you get this kind of reporting. It's great to have non-hyped, non-scary reporting about Russia.

Educated analysis of Pax Americana. This is a fairly long read as my links go, but worthwhile in that it asks questions and looks behind the explanations and mythology of US policies. I read it with an eye to what realistic expectations should be, not idealized expectations. After all, we live in a real world with many dangers, and you have to respond to danger in ways that are effective.

History lesson about altruism. The US helped a lot of countries through the Marshall Plan, and benefited from the peace and prosperity it fostered. Or we could have had a lot more communism.

Resegregation via charter school. Some places in the US, segregation never ended. Now there is a new way to create it or support it, and it's funded via tax dollars.

Football kneeling protest. I'm a supporter of this protest, which I find to be very dignified and respectful. In fact, I can't find anything disrespectful in it. I liked this statement from one of the leaders of the Philadelphia Eagles about the controversy around the protest. I compare this with the insults leveled at players, and it's no contest whom I respect more.

Helpful information for a rare situation. A woman was recently killed by an alligator in Florida. This report tells how to avoid that (stay far enough away from waterfront at dusk, nighttime, and dawn), how to run, and how to fight if you need to. Not much to remember. Good advice.

Copy-paste internet threat. I didn't realize this was a thing. I don't believe the threats made against me over the internet. A few people may be savvy enough to figure out who I am, but very few. So the threats are so likely to be rubbish that I've never worried. But it's incredible and ridiculous to find out there is a meme of threat--a veritable script that people copy and adapt. I guess it's too much work to make up your own bizarre threats, so just borrow something.

Image: irishtimes.com

May links 2

Conservative Supreme Court prunes worker rights. I appreciate both sides of this argument in general, but I think this isn't a good ruling. If we want a strong middle class in this country, we need support for workers. That's how we got the middle class.

Shootings. An account of what the school shooter from Santa Fe, TX said and did while killing his victim. Not a vantage point we usually get. Some details of police actions. Young Texans will probably not being leading marches for changes in gun laws. Accounts from first responders to the Las Vegas shooting. There were a lot of first responders, and it was more like a military battle because the shooter was so well armed and prepared.

More on Russia. For reference. The fake ads that Russians put out. So many that they are condensed in zip files. I don't really want to look, but I know I should. Mueller apparently used a Russian oligarch for a sensitive mercy mission. Not scandalous. Background on an undercover FBI informant who tried to find out what was happening in the Trump campaign. Trey Gowdy, in his sometimes-straight-sometimes-hack way, says that the FBI use of an informant in the investigation was appropriate. Great background and historical perspective on Russia.

Memorial Day reflection. When war becomes mundane and most Americans become detached, wars can linger and not be resolved.

Sessions changed immigration enforcement. Revealing and fascinating article about how Jeff Sessions (the Attorney General) is changing immigration enforcement. Chilling, surprising.

Background on fentanyl. I have some knowledge of fentanyl, but this was instructive even to me.

Timeline on scandal. Trump friends Michael Cohen and Elliott Broidy were gathering a lot of money. At this point in the investigation, it may be a partial timeline, but it's already long.

Revealing more sexual harassment. University of Southern California is being sued over the behavior of one of its gynecologists. Surprise - complaints were ignored.

More on the gold standard. One of my pet peeves is people who dogmatically think that the gold standard is workable. Another revealing story about FDR and his odd relationship with the gold standard.

Well, then don't act like one. Lawyer claims he's not a racist after his non-racist rant went viral. And that kind of rant isn't popular in New York City, the home of large number of immigrants.

Image: thefirearmblog.com

Links (1 of 2)

My tabs overfloweth.

Decoding anonymous sources. A good guide from Lawfare. How to interpret what reporters write, indicating how many sources they have and where they are. A good news organization follows these unwritten rules. Bad organizations pretend they follow the rules, but actually make up sources, use known unreliable sources, misleadingly edit and quote, and don't fire reporters and editors who don't follow good standards.

Now, one of those sources. Seymour Hersh is implicated in the Seth Rich-to-Wikileaks story. He claims it's just a rumor. I should dedicate a post to the Seth Rich story, but I'm too lazy. Briefly, Rich was a low-level staffer at the DNC or Hillary campaign and was killed in his DC neighborhood. Cue the conspiracy theories. Fox News got ahead of itself and coerced a contributor to say stuff he didn't actually believe, prompting him to sue. Seymour Hersh is involved because he is supposedly the source of some of that info. There's a tape of Hersh talking about the case. Strangely the tape begins and ends abruptly. I have suspicions that Hersh contradicts or says it's mostly his speculation. I haven't trusted edited tapes since Shirley Sherrod as smeared. Nonetheless, Hersh isn't saying what he knows. He ought to clear it up since the concern about a conspiracy is important here.

Sheriffs as the supreme law. Here is another right-wing idea to counter big, bad government. The concept is that the sheriff, being locally elected and accountable, is the supreme authority in a county, and doesn't have to enforce national laws. Remember Bull Connor and this doesn't seem so good. Joe Arpaio is supposedly an advocate for this idea. Luckily, he lost his last bid for reelection.

Another worrisome tactic to watch. Using Freedom-of-Information requests to undermine and sue small local school districts. Tactic supported by Steve Bannon. The goal is mirky, but maybe it's hidden in the settlements.

Russian election interference (another example). Something to watch. Fake accounts on Facebook bought ad time from Facebook. The purchase was automated, so even Facebook didn't know it was happening. Parking this timeline of Russia interference denial here. Hoping I can find it again.

Image: bostonglobe.com

Short: Experts discuss a shooting

This is the kind of information we should get about all major shootings. It's a discussion by a group of experts, kind of like the analysis after an airplane accident. In this case, it's a shooting of black man who was sighted with a gun.

Image: nytimes.com

Four stories on the Dallas shootings

I'm deeply saddened by the shooting of police in Dallas during a friendly, non-violent protest against police shootings elsewhere.

We've seen this before--people taking out their hatred by mass killings. This time it was a black man who was angry with whites, particularly police. But daily it's someone angry with this group or other, or just angry at the world. This country isn't a land where everyone has to fear going outdoors because of the high level of violence (countries like Somalia, parts of Mexico, Honduras among others). But this is a glimpse of what it could be like.

The thread of civilization that prevents the general outbreak of such violence has become thinner, and there are more such violent incidents reported even as the overall murder declines. Can you imagine if half a dozen people in every medium-to-large city decided to do what this man did, and murder as many police as possible? What if two days later another person was doing the same thing in the same city?

Actually, now that I write this, I feel confident that our police forces could handle such a situation--that the number of violent people would run out long before our police were swamped. For that I'm very grateful.

After this long prologue, here are the stories:

• The story of the Dallas police, told mostly from the viewpoint of the police chief, who is black.
• The sniper in Dallas originally planned to have bombs too, but the bombs weren't ready and the rally was too tempting. 
• There is a pool of angry people in Dallas to possibly carry on the work of the sniper. This is very worrying.
• Political reactions include both conciliation and demagoguery. 

So will this tragedy spur other angry people to act out, or will it make them rethink? I can't predict. However, I remember the Oklahoma City bombing, and how it was so horrific that it quieted the violence for a while. We can hope for that, but it would be so much better if five police officers didn't need to die for us to learn.

Dallas Police Chief David Brown

Image: fox4newscom

Update 7/11/16. A report of the radical black organizations that the shooter tried to join. None are as radical in tactics as the Black Panthers of 40 years ago, but Lakesia Washington of the Black Riders supports the shooter and the shooting.Update 

Another 'Cops should be perfect' story

I'm so incredibly tired of people defending assailants who shoot at the police. Here's the latest:

Police: Cops Fired Into Car Not Knowing Infant Was Inside

Look at the entire story, and you find out that this headline would also be applicable:

Man knowingly fires at police with infant in back seat of car

(Note: the original link no longer works. Here's the same news story from a different source.)

In this case, a man with a long criminal history put himself, his girlfriend, and her 4-month-old son in grave danger by shooting at police. He actually knew who was in the car. He knew how many weapons he had. He initiated the exchange of gunfire. Is it really surprising that the police shot back? Should they have waited to see if he would shoot again, maybe blowing someone's head off?

According to the girlfriend's mother, yes, they should have waited. They should have put themselves in that dangerous position rather than fire into the car. According to her, the law enforcement officers should take on all the risk, so that her daughter, who was riding with a criminal who had more than one loaded gun, and who shot at police, could be safe.

To me, this is a patently ridiculous viewpoint. Perhaps it's mitigated because the mother is grief-stricken, but I've seen it too often to think that it's grief every time. Instead, it's become a pattern among many blacks to blame the police, no matter how justified they are.

I think this shooting should be investigated, as all police-involved shootings should be. However, if the current reporting is fairly accurate, then the family of the dead couple have nothing to blame the police for. Any blame they lay on the police is misguided scapegoating, and should clearly be labeled that way. And I have to question the motives of people who don't support the police in cases like this but instead support dangerous criminals. It looks like a case of playing the racial victim card and hoping that the audience doesn't notice that the 'victim' is not innocent at all.

The shooter's other gun

Image: 13newsnow.com

Analysis of the Cincinnati shooting video

Earlier this month, a security officer for the University of Cincinnati shot and killed an unarmed driver during a traffic stop. The officer was indicted for murder, and also indicted on the lesser charge of manslaughter.

He was wearing a body camera throughout the incident, and the video was just released. Now, accordingly to the prosecutor, the video shows "the most asinine act by a police officer I have ever seen."

That's not what I saw when I closely watched the video, though admittedly I wasn't able to watch it frame by frame.

The officer pulled over the driver for a minor infraction--not having a front license plate... or did he pull him over for driving while black? The officer asks for his license. The driver searches around for it, but doesn't produce it. That is an expedient move by the driver because his license had been suspended (as investigation showed after the fact). If he had produced his license, the officer would quickly confirm that he was driving with a suspended license. That would probably mean an arrest, towing the car, and lots of fines for the driver.

Here is a chronology of how the altercation unfolds:

• At 3:12, the officer starts to open the car door. The driver grabs it to keep it closed. He moves his right hand to the ignition. The officer's right hand is on the roof of the car. The driver says "I didn't even do nothing."
• At 3:13, the officer says "Come on and take your seatbelt off." His right hand is still on the roof of the car.
• At 3:14, the driver starts the ignition (can be heard) and the officer reaches with his left hand into the car to grab the ignition.
• At 3:16, the officer yells "stop, stop." At the same time, the sound of the engine revving is audible. The gun is visible in the officer's right hand.
• At 3:17, the officer fires this gun. The driver slumps to his right. The car is also moving forward.
• At 3:18, the officer is falling backward. The camera shows the sky.
• At 3:19, the officer is starting to stand up. His gun is clearly seen in his right hand.
• At 3:24, he is running after the car down the street.

Clearly, the driver was fleeing the traffic stop. Clearly, the officer reached for his weapon and shot within 3 seconds of the driver starting the ignition. Both men were acting and reacting very quickly. As the prosecutor said:

"You won't believe how quickly he pulls his gun and shoots him in the head."

The officer claimed he was dragged, and that doesn't seem to be true. However, the driver must have put the car in gear while the officer was reaching in, so the officer had good reason to worry that he might be dragged or knocked down and run over.

To understand and judge the criminal charges, we will have to consider how officers should act when a driver tries to flee a minor traffic stop. We have to consider whether the officer was in danger, or whether he was trigger happy, or both. This is not an open-and-shut case.

It does seem to me that many officials in Cincinnati have ganged up on the officer. It's not just the prosecutor, who laid on charges of intentional murder and incompetence, The university fired him. The mayor stated that he wanted charges. No one there wants Ferguson-type riots and demonstrations. The officer seems to have been thrown under the bus as Cincinnati tries not to be the next epicenter of race-based demonstrations.

This isn't my final word on this case. I might write a post on how the video refutes the claims that the prosecutor made in his (grandstanding) press conference. Maybe I'll learn more about police training that leads officers to shoot first and shoot fast. Maybe I'll unravel how a simple traffic stop ends up with someone dead, not just once, but too many times already this year.

3:12 -- Look where their hands are.

Image: youtube.com

Extras. USA Today's list of events at the end of this article differs from mine. They're wrong and they seem biased against the officer: "Without a word, Tensing fires a single shot," "the car rolls a short distance." The car didn't roll a few feet, but probably at least 150 feet. You can hear the rev of the engine as though it was accelerating, not 'rolling.'

More of the chronology:

• At 3:27, someone asks "Are you alright." The officer, while running, says "I'm good."
• At 3:41, he is close to where the car has crashed and we can see another security officer enter the frame.
• At 4:15, we can see that a third security officer is also already on the scene.

Were these other two officers already at the other end of the block? What did they see? Did they have body cameras too? Maybe their footage isn't important since we have video of the entire event at close range. Or maybe it is important if it is shows more of what happened.

Update 7/31/15. Video from the body cameras of the two officers who arrived just as the altercation erupted.

Update 8/1/15. A Cincinnati officer killed in June of this year.

Last outpost of crazy: I'll sue for my job back

This kind of crazy really hurts. A former Chicago detective is suing to be reinstated, despite this:

"[he] was convicted in 2011 of leading a band of rogue police who stole hundreds of thousands of dollars from suspected drug dealers and ordered a hit on a fellow officer to keep him from revealing the scheme."

Oh, and the FBI found a picture of him posing with another officer, rifles, and a black man trussed up like a dead deer. I won't have the picture on my blog, but readers should see what some people do for fun.

There has to be a problem with our laws if such a suit isn't summarily dismissed. Obviously, it's not the only problem either. 

Image: freakingnews.com

The strange struggle between NYC cops and mayor

I'm having a very hard time understanding the disagreement between the New York City cops and the mayor. Why are the cops so incredibly pissed off at Mayor DeBlasio? He's not directly responsible for a maniac from Georgia shooting and killing two cops in Brooklyn. (Who's directly responsible? Obviously the guy who did it, but he killed himself so there goes the chance for vengeance.)

Is DeBlasio indirectly responsible for the cops' deaths? Wow, that's a tough one... that reasoning works only if you include as 'indirectly responsible' anyone who makes the public criticism of lethal police action. If that's true, millions of people are indirectly responsible. See--it makes no sense, at least on the surface.

The case against DeBlasio

When a situation makes no sense on the surface, there are usually factors below the surface, and that's the case here. It was fascinating to read a non-ranting explanation of why the police force is upset with the mayor. DeBlasio ran as a progressive who would end police stop-and-frisk policies and give a friendlier ear to minority complaints. In itself, that shouldn't anger the police. However, DeBlasio took that friendship to places that were bordering on offensive. DeBlasio has embraced Al Sharpton as a major ally, even seating him in a place of honor at a large public event that was supposed to be conciliatory. Sharpton has never apologized for the times he was wrong about supposedly racial incidents--not for his role at Ferguson, and not for the Tawana Brawley accusations. This is a double-standard that supports minority grievances and blames police 100% of the time, so I understand how the mayor's embrace of him angers the police. As a bit more gasoline on the fire, the boyfriend and son of a top aide to DeBlasio's wife tweeted remarks about 'pigs.' There are to be plenty of reasons for the police to be angry with the mayor.

The case against the NYC police

But it's equally fascinating to see forces within the police pour accelerant on their justified anger. Possibly even before the shooting of two officers on Dec. 20, some police circulated a request that the mayor stay away from police funerals (not it's not a new tactic). The head of the PBA (Patrolmans Benevolent Association) said that many people had blood on their hands and it "starts at City Hall in the Office of the Mayor."

And of course there's the biased media

I consider that rhetoric to be over the top, but it's not the only extreme rhetoric against the mayor. In the New York Post (a Murdoch-owned newspaper with pulp standards), a columnist wrote:

"Determined not to let a crisis go to waste, the mayor has spent the last two days cranking up the volume and the vitriol of his anti-cop agenda... Imagine that. The city is in turmoil over the Staten Island case and the mayor throws gasoline on the fire by painting the entire police force as a bunch of white racist brutes. Has he no shame? He certainly has no facts."

It's unlikely that the mayor "has no facts" or that he said anything like "the entire police force as a bunch of white racist brutes." Attributing those sentiments to him is vilification, which is obviously what the columnist intended to do. 

It's not just a local fight either. Here's Bill O'Reilly:

"...many on the left believe the American police are the guardians of the oppressive justice system. They prop it up.

Apparently that is what Mayor de Blasio believes, that there is injustice among his own police officers... That point of view that the left is putting out there saying the police are instruments of oppression rather than a protective force is causing outrage on the part of the cops themselves. Any fair-minded person can understand that. It is easy.

...'Talking Points' believes Mayor de Blasio does not respect law enforcement, has directly insulted each and every member of the New York City Police Department and should resign his position."

O'Reilly mixing in a few reasonable points, but he ends up over-the-top nonetheless--calling for the mayor to resign not for what the mayor did, but for how the most disgruntled can spin it.

Strangely (again), the head of the PBA (Patrick Lynch) got some of his own medicine, as some police shouted at him that they wanted more equipment, not the apology that Lynch insists on. Pushing ensued, but no injuries. Polls show pushback from the populace against the disrespect among the police.

Reasonable protest vs. sickening protest

So far I've given more criticism to the police and conservative media who are fanning the flames. But what has the mayor done to worsen the situation? Working with Sharpton and similar minority individuals and groups. The rhetoric of these groups varies. Some marchers against the lack of criminal charges from the death of Eric Garner chanted "Black Lives Matter" and "Hands up, don't shoot." On the other hand, one break-away group chanted for "Dead cops."

The extreme groups are definitely a problem that taint those protesting police actions. How do you draw a line between a peaceful protester and those a short distance away who are burning and looting? For the peaceful protester, the choice is tough, You may not want to give up a legitimate protest, yet you don't want to be associated with unwarranted hooligan behavior.

I personally have no trouble distinguishing between different types of protesters, but it's not just that some are responsible and some are violent. Some advocates, like Sharpton, will never change their rhetoric, even when the evidence shows that guilt and innocence weren't as originally portrayed. I don't know whether DeBlasio looks at evidence or not. I know that many of his detractors don't look at evidence, however. Is there something wrong with DeBlasio supporting retraining so that police use less force? I can't see what's wrong with that. We consider changes in medical procedures all the time to reduce negative outcomes. This is an intelligent response, not a hateful one.

Why do folks have to hate?

Maybe what surprises me the most is that too many people reach for the hateful response. There were responsible demonstrators in Ferguson who stopped looting, and then there were the looters. There are the people hoping that police will be killed ("pigs in a blanket, smells like bacon"), and then there are the ones who mocked the dying words of Eric Garner, who died during an arrest. Why all this nastiness?

And even among those who aren't as hateful as this, why can't they work to find some middle ground and understand the important issues for the other side? Do we have to vilify everyone who doesn't agree 100%?

I'm rather hoping that the people of New York City will be able to demonstrate how to let tempers cool and move on to a more productive dialogue. Maybe that hope is crazy, but the alternative is even more heated words and protests. There won't be a constant ratcheting up, cooling will happen sometime, so now is a good time for it. I recommend a new chant:

CHILL OUT!

vosizneias.com

Extras. The police chief of Nashville is an example of cooling tempers. What would happen if you screamed into the face of a white cop? It depends on the cop, what kind of day he's had, and lots of things.

My bias regarding police

I tend to be biased toward believing a police officer's account in a controversy. However that doesn't mean my bias is rigid--I absolutely know that there are rotten, lying, prejudiced cops who shouldn't be believed. So I make sure to be alert to inconsistencies in a cop's story.

I got to observe my bias at work with the Ferguson shooting. My guesses about what had happened went back and forth, showing the interplay of my biases and the weight of evidence. Here's the account of how my thinking evolved.

*****************************************************

At first, the witness's story seemed logical and consistent. A cop got pissed off at the two young men, provoked an argument, grabbed one of them, and then shot him dead. It's certainly possible.

However, this witness (Dorian Johnson) was soon discredited. Video showed that he and Michael Brown were at a store where they allegedly stole some cigars and Brown pushed and intimidated a clerk. From the video, you can't tell either the cigars were stolen or not, but the pushing and lunging are clear enough.

Also, in the meantime, the cop's background was reported as being clean--no prior issues with excessive force. A clean record isn't what I'd expect from a cop who had a bad enough temper to shoot an innocent person on purpose. But a record can be misleading. Perhaps the cop had always managed to avoid disciplinary measures while still being aggressive. This 'fact' is not as convincing as the video.

With these two new 'facts' to mull over, I revised my initial opinion. It now seemed likely that Brown was very much at fault. He had just committed a crime. The witness's story that the cop grabbed Brown was dubious, and instead it seemed likely that Brown grabbed the cop.

At this point, my usual bias toward believing the cop was supported by evidence, or it seemed that way to me. I was still gathering information and evaluating the testimony of the witnesses who went public. I was waiting for photos showing any wounds the cop (Darren Wilson) might have received. I was also waiting to hear what the autopsy showed. This evidence took a long time to arrive and is still subject to dispute. The conclusions of the county medical examiner don't completely match the conclusion of the medical examiner hired by Brown's family.

**************************************************

So did the 'facts' depart from what I expected at all? Yes, and that's where I learned something new. The people of Ferguson had a particular reason to be angry. They were being plagued with punitive fines and enforcement aimed at extracting as much money as possible (more details here).

Of course, the burden of excessive fines doesn't excuse theft or assaulting an officer, but it explains some of the response. Nonetheless, most of the response is due to bigger issues such as the history of police aggression against minorities and cultural clashes between law enforcement and a 'no-snitching' ethos in black communities. I wish there was a giant reset button we could push that would erase the historical animosity and let people start fresh. But there isn't, so we are doomed to reinforce our biases unless we actively work against them.

Image: politic365.com

Update 12/8/14. I recant what I said about the 'giant reset button.' That disrespects the legitimate and deeply-felt grievances minorities have. There is no wiping the slate clean. Instead, there should be amends, trust-building, and reconciliation.

Thoughts on the Ferguson shooting: No indictment

I agree with the grand jury's decision not to indict the policeman who shot Michael Brown in Ferguson, Mo. For what it's worth, that's my opinion. It's not worth too much because I haven't been one of the jurors or investigators, so I haven't had access to the evidence. Instead, I've had to rely on news reports.

With those caveats, here is my reasoning. It's clear that Michael Brown strong-armed a store just minutes before. He shoved and intimidated a clerk. It seems pretty certain that Michael Brown attacked Officer Darren Wilson, punching him while he was in his police car. It's likely that he tried to get this gun.

I think this adds up to Michael Brown being a dangerous person at that time. After he attacked Officer Wilson, Wilson wasn't out of line shooting him when he didn't immediately get on the ground. Instead Brown stayed standing, possibly still moving, and therefore still a threat.

Proponents for Brown and for an indictment ignore a lot of evidence, and they make excuses for why Brown should be forgiven for his aggressiveness, while Wilson should be held accountable for his response. That's a double-standard, and I won't be part of it.

Policing is a dangerous job. Police are definitely a target for too many criminals. Lately, the death toll among cops has been quite high. This job is going to be impossible if police have to put up with being attacked, and then made out to be wrong in their responses. So, the decision not to indict Officer Wilson was the correct one. Here is a good summation:

"The grand jury accepted that Brown was the aggressor throughout the confrontation and that Wilson feared he might be overpowered and lose his gun. According to the grand jurors, that justified the officer’s firing of a dozen rounds. Wilson, therefore, will face no criminal charges in connection with the deadly shooting."

So, what evidence (through news reports) did I use in coming to the same conclusion? The video of Michael Brown pushing someone at the store. The friend who was with Michael neglected to mention the incident, so his testimony is questionable at best. The reports (with physical evidence) that shots were fired inside the police car. A picture of Wilson showing bruising on his face. Michael Brown's blood on the gun. Reports that witnesses on the scene contradicted the story that Brown's hands were up (not enough of a surrender anyhow), and that these witnesses were frightened of telling their stories due to the likely reaction in their neighborhood.

There is some contradictory evidence, but it isn't as strong. As for those who say that Michael Brown's robbery a few minutes earlier is immaterial--uh, no. It's quite pertinent. This isn't a case of a cop gunning down a black teen with no provocation or due to a mistake. The boy (18 years old, 300 lbs.) provoked the incident. That is something that should matter to everyone.

Image: abcnews.com

Extras. Abysmal forensic procedures, including washing away blood evidence. The transcript of Officer Wilson's testimony, which I haven't read yet. Very detailed article examining some of Wilson's testimony. Eye-witness testimony that was shown to be wrong and likely fabricated.

What safety training do police get?

With the shooting in Ferguson and other frequent shootings by police, I have to wonder what kind of training police are getting. Are they trained to shoot when in doubt? Are they trained to decide quickly to shoot, or to take a bit longer before making that decision? Are they trained to follow a protocol when they expect a threat?

I have a lot of questions, but few answers. Unfortunately, I don't know any cops whom I can ask. And the internet has failed me. I didn't find much information about police training. In the bit of information I did find, there's lot of emphasis on handling of firearms, such as this training list:

... In addition to classroom instruction of deadly force policy and procedure and other topics, most trainers suggest the range work should include:

1.) Clearing stoppages with either hand

2.) Drills that simulate malfunctions 

3.) Emergency tactical reloading with either hand 

4.) Manipulation of safeties and de-cocking levers with either hand

As well as the usual and customary range topics like:

1.) Low-light and judgmental (decision-making) shooting 

2.) Shooting while moving to cover 

3.) One-handed firing  [etc.]

I wonder whether the heavy emphasis on gun handling leads to more gun use than required. When dealing with situations, you're usually going to use tools and approaches that you know, not try out new ones on the fly. So the training of officers is key, or so I would guess. (It's possible that officers are acting not based on their training, but based on their own preference to use firearms. I really don't know.)

In my research, I found one cop who wanted fewer guns and more non-lethal alternatives. This seems sensible to me, but I don't know how much other officers support this. What are the dangers in being equipped with rubber bullets if you might face an assailant armed with a gun? In our country, there are plenty of armed people that the police are likely to encounter, and I don't want the police to be handicapped in those encounters.

Perhaps police rarely need their guns, and they don't need to carry them on a regular basis, but only when going into situations that warrant it. This is another issue that I just don't have information on. Police departments in this country should be studying these questions--I certainly hope they are. If the mindset is that they need their guns at all times, it's no wonder that they're used too often.

Image: newhavenregister.com

Extras. Blog from a cop in the hood. Some research from New York City. Luckily, not that many police are killed on duty. That leaves room for them to be more careful. A horrible story of a police mistake.

Update 8/28/14. Here's a training video about handling an assailant who secretly has a knife. Note how quickly the officer could be stabbed, and also the emphasis on  "two rounds [in the] center of mass."

Update 9/10/14. There have been a lot of shootings of officers lately: Rochester, NY; Merrillville, IN; Topeka, KS; West Ashley, SC; St. Louis County, MO; and Vancouver, WA. This is what a cop potentially faces at every traffic stop. The training to shoot may be correct if there is a high level of danger on a regular basis.

Oh, the humanity in Ferguson, Missouri

Real life is always more complicated than it seems. Always. Take the first impressions of the shooting in Ferguson, Missouri.

At first, it seemed that a cop either went nuts or was intent on killing this young black man. Now it seems that there was more to the altercation than a cop shooting a young black man for walking down the middle of the street. There's a lot more to the story.

At first, it seemed like the bullet-ridden young man was "a gentle giant" who was about to go to college. Now it seems like he used his size to intimidate a shopkeeper just minutes before he died. Maybe he behaved in a threatening way to the cop too.

At first, the other young black man seemed like a bewildered soul--his friend killed in front of him. Now he seems like an unreliable witness who leaves out important details. It's hard to know how much he's a victim vs. being a perpetrator. Will this man be able to openly talk about what really happened, or will he hide behind his partial truth?

At first, the police in the town were secretive and aggressive in handling the resulting protests and violence. Then the governor called in black state police commander who could be a fair arbiter. Will the local police learn how to address the community concerns about this terrible incident, or will they remain defensive and self-serving?

At first, the community mourned the inexplicable shooting of an upstanding young man. Then it turns out that the man wasn't so upstanding, but they are angry with the police for making them face that truth. Will they be able to deal with the truth?

Finally (for now), it seems that perhaps the cop had a reason to shoot his weapon. But did he have a reason to keep firing it, more times than the witnesses could count, at a man who had raised his hands in surrender?

There were so many poor choices in this incident:

• The theft by the young men earlier that day
• The cop who continued to shoot when the man was surrendering
• The witness who omitted pertinent facts
• The looters who took advantage of the protest to smash and steal
• The local police who increased tension with military-like responses
• The local police who are so slow in releasing pertinent facts and are lying about their reasons for what they release

Yet there are some promising signs. The state has found a fair arbiter to talk with the community and ease tensions. He can bridge the gap because he's both a police officer and a black man who grew up in a neighborhood not far away. In the community itself, some local folks have stepped up to stop others from looting during a return to looting. They're still angry, but they know that violence isn't the answer.

We need to be able to admit the imperfections, to accept that people have made mistakes, and not to assume the worst about one another. Maybe then we can learn to be better people and be fairer to each other. I have some hope for a silver lining in this terrible storm.

Image: riverfronttimes.com

Sources. Video of the robbery. The body left for hours on the street.  The unreliable witness. Two reliable witnesses. Counterproductive police response. The fair arbiter. Stopping the looters.

The Dilemma of Stop and Frisk

I have sympathy for the Stop and Frisk policy in New York City. Parts of the city have high crime rates, which were even higher decades ago and almost caused a permanent collapse of the city. What can you do when there is a concentration of criminals? Stop and Frisk is one of the possible answers, and the mayor and police chief swear by it.

There are a couple problems with the policy. The handling is often rough, is highly resented by the frequent targets (young men of color) and their families, and might be contra the word and spirit of our constitutional rights. These rights include the guarantee that we aren't subject to arbitrary search and seizure. Such an intrusion, and it is a big intrusion, is legal only when based on individualized suspicion.

Safety Vs. Rights

With that background covered, I want to move on to the big question: when (or if) to make the tradeoff between fundamental rights and safety. In many aspects of life (my life at least), safety is the prime issue. My car is much safer than models from 50 years ago because safety was a huge priority, and the government forced the car companies to add safety features. In healthcare, safety is the top priority. You don't endanger your life to save someone else. Your rights as a patient abruptly end when there is danger to other people, including to the professionals who are responsible for caring for you. We definitely manhandle the obstreperous patients.

So safety is a very worthy consideration. However, so is the right to be free from unreasonable searches. I'm so glad that I don't randomly get pulled over or stopped when I walk, forced up against a wall, have my pockets emptied and my arms, legs, and trunk felt all over. That's not the way to treat anyone whom you respect--it's a denial of human dignity.

Yet I submit to full body scan when I take an airplane, and I'd allow a frisk if that was required. Why? Because I've seen plenty of hijackings during my life. Air travel is clearly a target, and lesser measures haven't been enough to ensure safety. Also, it's an infrequent intrusion, well defined in scope and timing and broadly applied. Those limits are what make it acceptable to me.

View from the City

I'm not personally affected by NYC's Stop and Frisk policy, or by NYC's crime. I rarely visit there, and I'm old enough so I don't look like anyone's idea of a mugger. I don't have the personal stake that New Yorkers have, so I definitely wouldn't tell them what to think.

Still, I try to put myself in their shoes because that's the best way to understand the issue. On one hand, the relatively high risk of being stopped and frisked may inhibit crime. A person is less likely to carry a weapon for mugging or burglary tools when there's a chance of being stopped and frisked. I wonder if burglary and robbery rates went down a great deal at the start of this program.  I wonder if burglary and robbery would rise if the program was suspended. Why would you put people through that kind of search if it wasn't effective? That's the only reason I find body scans reasonable at airports--we know that they are effective in preventing hijackings.

Question of Efficacy

When I take a closer look at how the program works, certain aspects surprise me. Arrests for illegal gun possession have occurred in just 1.9% of the stops. That makes me wonder why the mayor thinks this program is so important in its effectiveness. The cops aren't actually taking many weapons off the streets this way, so what is the effect? Could police presence alone, without a quota of stops, be as large a deterrent to crime? I don't see why not, but I'm no expert on this.

It seems to me that the police have broad enough power to stop people when they have even mild suspicions--suspicion due to bulges in clothes that could be guns or illegal knives, someone walking too closely, or someone checking out purses, wallets, and briefcases. The police don't need to have a quota of stops besides. They don't need to stop someone with no suspicion whatsoever and subject that person to invasive search just for being outdoors in their own city. The thinkers behind the Bill of Rights were correct--you shouldn't be stopped or searched for no reason at all.

That said, I'm surprised by the amount of support for the program among residents in neighborhoods where many of the stops are conducted. It seems that they feel much safer due to these police actions. Many fear a return of higher crime rates. They want to feel safer in their neighborhoods. I can't argue with that--that's exactly how I feel when I fly or drive--I want to feel safe. I hope that can be achieved without quotas of stops and without random searches. If crime rates rise, perhaps this policy is the only deterrent that works. If that's true, we're back to the difficult question of safety versus rights, and rights may well lose for the greater good of safety.

Image: policymic.com

Extras.

• Bloomberg is a racist elitist.
• The legal view against the policy.
• The true aim is to instill fear.
• Gun rights advocate/libertarian says the police shouldn't take guns from those who carry in NYC. 
• A black parent has misgivings about ending program and a surge of gun violence. 
• Frequent fliers, but their families support the program. 
• New Yorker article with statistical analysis of stops. 
• Mend, not end: "If they're going to frisk, they should follow procedures." But also: "I'm black, I've been jailed for no reason. That's why I don't go outside at night."
• More background and statistics, but see the Wall Street Journal and this article for some counter statistics: 
• 87% of those stopped are black or hispanic. 
• 88.5% of those stopped have no evidence of a crime on them. 
• 78% of shooting suspects are black. 
• Major crimes have fallen 34% in NYC, but only 14% across the country.