On Thursday June 5, Rick Perry announced his plans to run for the Republican presidential bid in 2016. Despite his blunder in a Republican presidential debate almost four years ago, Perry decided that reforming his image and enhancing his stage presence will give him a good shot at running for president this time around. But considering Perry’s low support among Texans and his indictment regarding his alleged abuse of power as governor, Perry might not be able to rally any support for his bid.

So far, Perry has focused his presidential bid on his experience as a governor who stimulated Texas’s economy and on his military experience. His primary tactic is to distinguish himself from the other Republican candidates by being the face of leadership and experience. He’s also emphasized his humble background by relaying his childhood upbringing on a cotton farm. But this technique has not quite corrected his previous blunder, nor is it garnering the same support that he had the first time around.

Perry has already lost crucial support in Texas and many Texans don’t even support him; in a recent poll he barely polled at 2 percent compared to Scott Walker at 18 percent and Marco Rubio at 13 percent. Many Republican and Tea Party members have flocked to Ted Cruz instead of Perry.

The last piece of the puzzle that is seriously damaging Perry’s chances of winning the Republican bid for the presidency is the indictment that accuses Perry of abusing his power as governor when he was in office. Perry allegedly threatened Travis County District Attorney Rosemary Lehmberg to resign after she had pleaded guilty to drunk driving and served a 45-day sentence. She refused and Perry vetoed the funding to her office’s Public Integrity Unit, which focused on anti-corruption measures. As a result of the indictment, Perry faces the possibility of 109 years in prison. Perry’s defense appeals to the rule of the law, as he stated:

I stood up for the rule of the law in Texas, and if I had to do it again, I would make exactly the same decision.

However, the original complaint was actually filed before Perry vetoed the funding for the Public Integrity Unit. The team who filed the complaint found four other allegations that could point to felonies. The claim for the complaint is focused more on Perry threatening another official and actually has little to do with his vetoes. All of these accusations could spell problems for Perry on the campaign trail.

Perry seems to be taking on a lot as he runs for the Republican presidential bid. The fact that he is accused of abusing his power as governor should put a lot of doubt in voters’ minds. And even though his presidential campaign has focused on important issues so far, such as increasing jobs, Perry has not been successful in gaining support in Texas. Some could say it’s admirable that he is trying to run for the presidency again, but he should be more focused on his abuse of power charges, which may end up determining his presidential campaign before it even really begins.

Sarina Neote

Sarina Neote is a member of the American University Class of 2017. Contact Sarina at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Rick Perry’s Hands Are Full appeared first on Law Street.

Former Rhode Island Governor Lincoln Chafee formally announced his run for the Democratic presidential bid on Wednesday, June 3. Chafee joins a few other declared Democratic presidential candidates, with Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton garnering the most support thus far at 12.8 percent and 61.2 percent respectively. Given Chafee’s relative obscurity, however, he seems to be a bit of a long shot candidate.

Chafee’s moment of glory mainly comes from his work with Obama. Obama helped Chafee win the governorship in 2010 and then Chafee became one of Obama’s strongest supporters during his reelection campaign in 2012. Chafee seems to be mimicking some of Obama’s actions in the Democratic primary, especially Obama’s tactic of attacking the Iraq War vote to defeat Clinton in the 2008 race. Obama opposed the Iraq war from the beginning and in the 2008 Democratic presidential race, he persistently attacked Clinton for her decisions regarding the Iraq war. This attack point helped Obama defeat Clinton, and Chafee appears to be capitalizing on the same thing. He has launched his campaign with a focus on his dissenting vote in the Senate regarding the Iraq War in 2002. Chafee is using this to separate himself from Clinton, which is not an awful tactic considering that it’s a weak spot for the Democratic frontrunner.

In this aspect, Chafee joins O’Malley in being the only other Democratic presidential candidate to play a little dirty instead of focusing on the issues and policy reforms. Which, considering neither Clinton nor Sanders has resorted to the same kind of tactics, could backfire for Chafee immediately.

According to Chafee’s website, his four main platform points are an aversion to foreign entanglements, building a strong middle class, improving environmental stewardship, and the protection of personal liberties. Chafee’s past is actually most interesting aspect of his presidential bid–he entered politics as a Republican and then became an independent until he joined the Democratic Party in 2013. But Chafee is not at all worried with how his party-switching history will affect his popularity in the primary. In fact, his response to this concern was:

I have not changed. My old liberal Republican stand on the issues does line up with the Democratic Party—women’s reproductive freedoms, support for working families. I have a 30-year record.

Another notable aspect of Chafee’s presidential bid is his insistence on switching the United States to the metric system. His reasoning for doing so is to become “an internationalist country.” He believes that by switching to the metric system, among other moves, the United States will be giving a symbolic message to the rest of the world that it is ready to integrate into the world system instead of taking a unilateral approach to foreign policy.

Chafee’s run is undoubtably a long shot. But the same buzz surrounded Bernie Sanders when he first announced, and he is the only Democratic candidate who has threatened Clinton’s standing, even if only marginally so. Chafee seems focused on his role as the underdog and feels America has a particularly soft spot for that kind of status. But the problem is that both O’Malley and to a lesser extend, Sanders, have been running on a similar platform. So the Democratic presidential bid is turning into a contest between the established Clinton dynasty, a progressive-socialist independent Sanders, little known O’Malley, and now Chafee, the new underdog.

Sarina Neote

Sarina Neote is a member of the American University Class of 2017. Contact Sarina at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Lincoln Chafee: The Democratic Primary Welcomes a New Underdog appeared first on Law Street.

On August 11, 2014 Dillon Taylor was shot dead by Officer Bron Cruz. Cruz claimed that Taylor had a weapon and that he felt threatened by the situation because he was “100 percent convinced” it would end up in a gunfight. But no weapon was ever found on Taylor and only the first minute of the body cam footage on Cruz was released at the time of the court prosecution. Prosecutors in Utah declared the killing of Taylor justified in October 2014. But now the entire eight minute video of the shooting has been released. The video pretty convincingly demonstrates Taylor’s innocence, and continues to raise questions about the force used by police officers in the United States.

In the video, Cruz yells “Get your hands up, now!” Originally, it was reported that Taylor’s response was “No, fool” before turning around to face Cruz. Cruz said he believed that Taylor was holding a gun because when he turned around he briefly lifted his shirt, a movement that often indicates a person is reaching for a gun, and that he was going to attack Cruz. As a result of this information, the court ruled Cruz’s actions as justified. Another factor that allowed the judge to clear Cruz of any charges was that he was responding to a report of a man brandishing a gun in the area. When Cruz came across Taylor and the two men with him, he believed that they were the men that the report was referring to.

Contrarily, the full video that has now been released ten months later shows Taylor wearing headphones, explaining why he did not respond to Cruz’s command to put up his hands. The remainder of the graphic video shows Cruz bending over Taylor’s body and placing him in handcuffs instead of calling for medical attention. Cruz also does not attempt to slow the bleeding of Taylor’s wounds.

Taylor’s death falls into the larger pattern of police brutality that particularly became a national conversation last fall and has continued to be a controversial issue ever since. In 2015 alone, there have been 472 people killed by the police. While many of these victims were armed and many officers probably felt threatened, the number of deaths at police hands is directly contributing to the environment of heightened anxiety and fear.

This problem is going to keep coming back again and again. While body cameras are one proposed solution and numerous counties, cities, and states have implemented them into their police departments, that one solution is not enough. The entire footage from Cruz’s body camera should have been released at the time he was being prosecuted. Instead, only the first minute of the video was used as evidence during the court process.

Police brutality is not an issue that is going to disappear, and it shouldn’t disappear if there isn’t any reform. Police officers should not be trained solely to kill and police departments should not be so militarized. These steps towards reformation will reduce the anxiety and fear that permeates so many communities.

Editor’s Note: A previous version of this article stated the date of Dillon’s death as August 11, 2015; Taylor’s death occurred on August 11, 2014.

Sarina Neote

Sarina Neote is a member of the American University Class of 2017. Contact Sarina at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Dillon Taylor: Revisiting Police Brutality Through Body Camera Footage appeared first on Law Street.

In an interview on “The Rachel Maddow Show,” Senator Bernie Sanders, Democratic presidential candidate, declared that he wanted to debate the Republican presidential candidates right now so he can expose their “reactionary agenda.” Sanders believes that debating these candidates on the presidential issues instead of allowing the media to focus on polling and fundraising will expose their policies that favor the wealthy.

Traditionally, the presidential primary candidates only face each other. Republican presidential candidates debate among themselves as do Democratic presidential candidates. But never before in modern years have the individual presidential candidates within each party debated across party lines. Before candidates Stephen Douglas and Abraham Lincoln, presidential debates weren’t even an aspect of the elections. That only happened because Lincoln kept following Douglas on his campaign trail, goading him into arguments. So is that same pattern of events going to be set in stone by Sanders?

Sanders is primarily running on reducing the income inequality gap in America—which is extremely important considering the top 20 percent of U.S. households own more than 84 percent of the wealth and the bottom 40 percent own about .3 percent of the wealth. Sanders’ primary purpose for this debate would be to question the Republicans on their future plans regarding Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security, which are all hot topics considering America’s economic situation.

While Sanders’ call for a debate between the presidential candidates may seem a little outlandish, he has valid points. After the Great Recession, the top 1 percent has had a positive 36.8 percent increase in income but the rest of the country has experienced a negative change in income, at about .4 percent. The top one percent has an average income of $1,303,198 and the bottom 99 percent has an average income of $43,713.

Sanders wants to capitalize on the Republican presidential candidates’ plan for economic reform. Sanders is particularly focused on raising the minimum wage to a living wage and making education affordable for every American. That’s somewhat consistent with Hillary Clinton, who has supported numerous efforts to change the economic system as well, including raising the minimum wage and fighting for women’s equal pay.

But some of his Republican presidential candidates are trailing more closely to the income inequality issue than others. Jeb Bush’s economic policies still focus on cutting back taxes and rolling back regulations on industry, but Bush also recognizes a major problem, stating, “If you’re born poor today, you’re more likely to stay poor.”

So Sanders’ call for a debate between the Democratic and Republican presidential candidates might seem a little extreme, he has some fair points. Many of the major campaign contributors are big banks, such as Citigroup and Goldman Sachs. By calling out for a debate, Sanders is trying to confront all of the presidential candidates on their economic plans for the future. Considering the dire income disparity in America right now, that’s not a bad plan.

Sarina Neote

Sarina Neote is a member of the American University Class of 2017. Contact Sarina at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Bernie Sanders’ Call for an Early Debate: Could it Work? appeared first on Law Street.

Same sex marriage legalization is rampant across the country. LGBT rights have flittered in and out of the media spotlight–most recently flaring up with discussions over Caitlyn Jenner. But America’s changing attitudes regarding polygamy have been almost as dramatic. Gallup just released a survey showing that America’s moral approval of polygamy dramatically increased nine percentage points from 2001 to 2015. Despite this rise in moral acceptability, many are still confused by the term polygamy, while numerous Americans are paralyzed by the fear of legalizing it.

Polygamy is “marriage in which a spouse of either sex may have more than one mate at the same time.” Often, polygamy is confused with polygyny, which means having one or more female wives or mates at a time. But the Gallup poll used the term polygamy, referring to any marriage in which there are more than two partners. In the poll, polygamy was the issue that saw the largest percent change–going from seven percent acceptance to 16 percent in just 14 years.

According to this Gallup poll, this increase in the acceptance of polygamy is accompanied with a record high moral acceptability of same sex marriage at 63 percent. There was also a 16 percentage point increase in the acceptability of having a baby outside of marriage and a 15 point increase in the acceptability of sex between an unmarried man and woman.

All of these percentages show a dramatic change in America’s attitudes towards sex, marriage, and relationships. These are huge shifts in American values, but conservatives have been shouting from the beginning that legalizing same sex marriage will lead to legalizing polygamy–including Rick Santorum and Rand Paul–and it looks like they could be right. The acceptance of same sex marriage coincides with the larger trend of more liberal attitudes toward marriage and sex. This general trend has caused many conservatives to shout louder, warning America of the ramifications of legalizing same sex marriage. One of the larger ramifications they promote is the possibility of legalizing polygamy. 

Although polygamy is not legal under federal law, and some states like Utah have decriminalized it, there are a handful of people who practice polygamy quietly by skirting the law. Often, this translates to taking one wife or husband in the eyes of the law and marrying another solely through a religious institution.

In the United States, polygamy is often associated with Mormonism and it is starting to become associated with Islam as well. But another population within the United States has recently taken up this issue as well—feminists. One of the primary arguments revolves around the notion that polygamy is a woman’s choice. It is therefore sexist if criminalizing polygamy takes away a woman’s choice to practice polygamy. As Jillian Keenan makes her feminist argument, she argues against pushing women into a victimized role, stating:

We have a tendency to dismiss or marginalize people we don’t understand. We see women in polygamous marriages and assume they’re victims.

While this argument resonates with the themes of personal freedom and choice, there doesn’t seem to have been any data collected to support this claim. If anything, there seems to be more data mounted against it. For example, many women who have immigrated to this country have arrived to find their spouse married to somebody else. Or sometimes a woman is told that she has no choice but to enter into a polygamous marriage. There are some cases of happy polygamous marriages but there is not enough information in order to legalize polygamy—feminist talking point or not.

While America is experiencing a smaller sexual revolution and refining its attitudes towards relationships, sex, and marriage, there are more perspectives to these issues than just legalization or decriminalization. The opinions are changing, but deciding on how that translates to policy is an entirely differently matter. So while polygamy might be seen as more acceptable, according to 15 percent of Americans, that doesn’t necessarily mean there will be any changes in the law anytime soon.

Sarina Neote

Sarina Neote is a member of the American University Class of 2017. Contact Sarina at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Polygamy and Public Opinion: Is America’s Morality Shifting? appeared first on Law Street.

A man who was under terror surveillance in Boston was shot and killed by a police officer and an FBI agent earlier this afternoon. This man was a part of a broader terrorism investigation involving suspected Islamist extremists. This man was identified as Usaama Rahim by a spokesperson for the Council of American-Islamic Relations.

The justification for the officials’ actions resulting in this man’s death focuses on their perceptions that Rahim was a threat to public safety, since he allegedly wielded a large, black knife at the time of the incident. According to CNN, Rahim was asked numerous times to drop his weapon but because he refused to do so both the police officer and FBI agent opened fire.

Police Commissioner William Evans claimed that “he came at the officers and, you know, they do what they were trained to do and, unfortunately, they had to take a life.”

This statement begs the question, both to Evans and to police departments everywhere, what type of situation justifies any police officers actions’ that result in the death of a man who hasn’t been proven guilty? This man was under terror surveillance, but considering the United States’ disputable track record on finding evidence regarding terrorist efforts, these actions could still be unconstitutional.

The Model Penal Code is normally used to guide the actions of police officers in assessing whether or not resorting to deadly force is the appropriate response in dangerous circumstances. According to the code, officers should only use force when the action will not endanger innocent bystanders, the suspect used deadly force in committing the crime, or the officers believe a delay in the arrest may harm other people. Deadly force is considered acceptable when it is believed to be the only solution to resolving a dangerous situation that could harm innocent bystanders.

In this particular shooting, killing Rahim could be justified by the police because he was wielding a large, black knife, forcing the officers to open fire. But is waving a knife, with no hostages and no bystanders in the immediate vicinity, a valid enough rationale to take someone’s life? Commissioner Evans claimed that Rahim came “within the proximity” for the officers to use deadly force. But what distance is considered within the proximity to kill? These are all questions that demand answers.

In addition to these questionable circumstances, Rahim was a suspected Islamic extremist under terror surveillance. The FBI agent who participated in the shooting was surely aware of this fact, but the same cannot be said for the Boston police officer. Rahim’s identity as a Muslim cannot be ignored when evaluating the police officer and FBI agent’s justifications for their actions. The lethal combination of Rahim’s Muslim faith and questionable terrorist ties could easily work in the police department’s favor. At the time of his death, Rahim had not been convicted of any terrorist actions, so his death at the hands of Boston and federal officials should not be considered constitutional.

Racial or ethnic profiling may have been a factor in this shooting as well. It is also noteworthy that this case occurred just over two years after the Boston Bombing, which has had a lasting (and justified) impact on perceptions of terrorist attacks throughout the U.S. Although news sources have not yet revealed why Rahim was under surveillance, a mere suspicion that he was involved with terrorist activity does not legitimize his death.

One of the most prevalent issues in holding the police officer and FBI agent accountable in this situation is the complex relationship between the police department and judicial court system. In the 1930 Iowa case of Klinkel v. Saddler, a sheriff faced a lawsuit because he had killed a misdemeanor suspect during an arrest. His defense was that he had used deadly force “to defend himself.” The court ruled in his favor. This case set precedent for lax rulings in favor of police officers, despite the officer’s controversial actions.

This storyline coincides with other court cases of police officers claiming self defense after having killed a subject of an arrest, such as Tamir Rice and Michael Brown. All of these incidents speak to the larger problem of police officers abusing their position of authority and power at the expense of civilians.

Police departments need to undergo reformation, especially regarding their veracious use of deadly force. Regardless of whether or not Rahim was guilty of the things he was suspected of doing, there were presumably ways to detain him without taking his life. Whether it be using a gun, rough rides, or chokeholds, police departments must develop new tactics that put deadly force at the bottom of the totem pole, thereby protecting citizens instead of victimizing them.

Emily Dalgo also contributed to this story.

Sarina Neote

Sarina Neote is a member of the American University Class of 2017. Contact Sarina at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Boston Police Shooting of Usaama Rahim: Protection or Victimization? appeared first on Law Street.

At Governor Martin O’Malley’s announcement for the Democratic presidential candidacy this previous Saturday, there were numerous protesters carrying signs that read “NOMALLEY” and “Stop killer cops.” Instead of receiving Maryland’s support for the presidential bid, there were scant supporters and numerous protesters. Despite this lukewarm reaction, O’Malley laid bare his grand plans for immigration reform, the LGBT community, and leveling the economic playing field. But O’Malley has remained silent on one message that resonates with Baltimore in particular and with millennials everywhere–police brutality.

O’Malley looks pretty good on paper. He ended the death penalty, legalized same-sex marriage, and passed the Dream Act in Maryland. But his reaction to crime in Baltimore some 15 years ago as mayor has provoked mixed responses. On one hand, O’Malley dramatically reduced drug violence and homicide in Baltimore. But on the other, he adopted a zero tolerance approach to crime that some claim has sparked the protests resulting from Freddie Gray’s death.

One of the largest criticisms of O’Malley’s actions as mayor was the number of arrests sky-rocketing to 108,447 in 2005, amounting to about one sixth of the Baltimore population. The main reason these arrests were controversial is because many resulted from petty crimes. In addition to more arrests, O’Malley also implemented CitiStat, a data-tracking management tool that holds government employees accountable for their actions. CitiStat allows the government to gather data on an array of performance indicators, such as response time or employees who do not come into work. CitiStat was originally on track to monitor weekly issues, such as domestic violence and felony gun arrests. But this monitoring abruptly stopped and the employees working on these issues were sent a stream of meeting cancellations. This abrupt change has led some to claim that this tool disproportionately targets minorities and women.

O’Malley’s popularity among Marylanders varies; there are those outspoken enough who chose to protest his announcement and there are others who show their unrelenting support. In terms of approval ratings, O’Malley recently saw 47 percent approval, but also 47 percent who actively disapprove of him.

In the national playing field with Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton, O’Malley is clearly trailing behind. Clinton epitomizes traditional Democratic Party values and relies on old money and name recognition in order to garner support for her presidential bid while Sanders appeals to the liberal, left wing population vying for reform and dramatic change. O’Malley, however, falls somewhere in between. O’Malley seems to be anticipating an equivalent political field to the 2008 Democratic presidential race when Obama rose to the challenge in victory. O’Malley is hoping to fill the moderate vacuum between Clinton and Sanders by presenting himself as a liberal alternative to Clinton who is not quite as radical as Sanders.

But O’Malley has avoided taking any prominent stance on police reforms or police brutality, as seen on his website for his presidential campaign. He hits his major points regarding income inequality in America and touches on a few gender-related topics, but the closest he gets to police brutality is mentioning the need for accountability of our governments.

O’Malley’s rhetoric regarding Freddie Gray’s death is sympathetic, but he guides the discussion of police brutality away from race or policing by emphasizing “the scourge of hopelessness in America’s cities.” O’Malley resorts to numerous tactics to avoid the issue of institutionalizing police brutality and militarization, such as ignoring the problem in his presidential bid announcement and not featuring crime or violence on his website. This could ultimately lead to the downfall of his campaign.

When comparing O’Malley to Sanders, Sanders has already taken a firm position against police brutality. Sanders immediately recognized the problem within the United States when police departments are treated as militaries. Likewise, Clinton has taken a similar stand in calling for reforms in police departments so African Americans are not disproportionately targeted. Contrarily, O’Malley has said little to nothing.

O’Malley’s silence on police brutality speaks volumes to the actions he is willing to take in reforming the police system. His silence is blaring, especially considering his previous position as the mayor of Baltimore. This omission, in addition to his lack of support from Marylanders puts his entire presidential bid on shaky ground. His chances of winning over Sanders and Clinton seem almost nonexistent if he is not willing to speak out against police brutality as his opponents have done.

Sarina Neote

Sarina Neote is a member of the American University Class of 2017. Contact Sarina at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Martin O’Malley Misses the Mark on This Big Issue appeared first on Law Street.