The owner of an Atlanta gym wants the world to know that police aren’t welcome at his business.

Recently, Jim Chambers posted a sign on the front door of the EAV Barbell Club explaining the gym’s rules. The sign is clearly visible from the street and reads, “Do whatever the hell you want, correctly, except crossfit cultism. No f—–g cops.”

According to Chambers, although the sign went up a couple weeks ago, he has enforced this policy since the gym opened. He also does not give memberships to active members of the military.

Former law enforcement and military members, however, are welcome to join.

In an interview with Reuters, Chambers explained that most of his clients are minorities and/or members of the LGBT community. Many of them would be uncomfortable working out alongside law enforcement because police officers had harassed them in the past.

“We know statistically that those people are at risk around police in America,” Chambers said. “I had members who joined because of the policy: they saw it on the door and thought, ‘Oh, that’s cool,’ and joined.”

He has since removed the vulgar sign but plans to put up another without the expletives.

The Atlanta Police Department has not released an official statement about the policy. However, a representative told local news station WXIA, “Were we to respond to an emergency there, this sign would not stop us from lawfully doing our job.”

Chambers doesn’t mind. “If they have a warrant, they can go anywhere they want, but we’re not breaking the law,” he said.

He also noted that, as someone who describes himself as “somewhere between an eco-anarchist and a Marxist-Leninist,” he would not be likely to call the police in the first place.

WXIA reached out to a team of lawyers about the legality of the policy. They agreed that federal anti-discrimination laws do not protect law enforcement as a separate group. The courts could decide if the policy is discriminatory, but for now, it remains legal.

Since the story broke on Tuesday, mixed reactions have been pouring in on social media. The gym’s Facebook page currently has a 1.4 rating and over 2,000 one-star reviews.

Atlanta Gym Owner Puts Up Sign, ‘No F—ing Cops’ – Tells Reporters: No Veterans Either https://t.co/KUGJQNMsCt
Wow
Why would anyone go there?

— Truckster1 (@truckster1) August 9, 2017

Atlanta gym owner you're doing amazing sweetie https://t.co/sLUzClmBkc

— reggie (@1942bs) August 9, 2017

Atlanta gym bans Cops from joining.

It’s their right. And it’s our right not to join & to protest outside the gym. https://t.co/l7BmVeYzV8

— Joe Walsh (@WalshFreedom) August 9, 2017

Delaney Cruickshank

Delaney Cruickshank is a Staff Writer at Law Street Media and a Maryland native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in History with minors in Creative Writing and British Studies from the College of Charleston. Contact Delaney at DCruickshank@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Atlanta Gym Bans Police and Active Military Members appeared first on Law Street.

On Thursday the Justice Department announced new guidelines for collecting nationwide data on law enforcement officials’ use of force in encounters with civilians. According to the New York Times, this is the biggest effort of its kind that the federal government has ever made to account for use of force.

“Accurate and comprehensive data on the use of force by law enforcement is essential to an informed and productive discussion about community-police relations,” said Attorney General Loretta Lynch in a statement. She said that the purpose of these new steps is increased transparency and a better understanding between law enforcement officials and the communities that they serve.

The FBI is currently developing a national database as part of the Department of Justice’s efforts to gather… https://t.co/9LE1tzKQ7m

— QkTip (@QkTipcom) October 13, 2016

The Death in Custody Reporting Act (DCRA) that was passed in 2014 requires officials to record and report all deaths of civilians that occur either in custody or during interaction with officers. But they are not required to report non-fatal cases. With the new initiative, officers must collect, maintain and report data on all shootings or violent encounters involving an officer, whether fatal or not, and the same goes for people already in custody.

Last year, the FBI started working on developing a National Use of Force Data Collection, an online portal for reporting use-of-force data from all over the country, in collaboration with local law enforcement. Bigger city police departments and the FBI will start reporting data early next year.

The past year has been dramatic and traumatic and seen several fatal encounters between police and civilians, with casualties on both sides and violent protests as a result. If these new procedures could help to resolve the societal tensions, it is a good start.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The DOJ Will Start Collecting More Info on Police Officers’ Use of Force appeared first on Law Street.

In a groundbreaking article released on Sunday, the Washington Post reported the findings of a five-month study showing that from January through May 2015, at least 385 people were shot and killed by on-duty police officers in the U.S. The rate of killings, more than two per day, is also more than twice the rate reported by the FBI in the last decade. In addition to the possibility of a spike in police killings, the Post points to the lack of accuracy in past reporting for the disparity. The article also mentions that the FBI itself is aware that its numbers are incomplete, particularly because these statistics are voluntarily submitted by police departments.

Other studies, including a project by the Guardian called The Counted, also reveal the incredible rate of uncounted police shootings. In a period of public outcry over police brutality, it is no coincidence that this issue is finally being addressed. By not requiring accurate statistics to be maintained, the government is only reinforcing public fears of a lack of police accountability. Understanding the extent of this problem is the first step toward being able to properly discuss and analyze it.

The Post study also found some troubling patterns in these shootings. Nearly a quarter of the victims were identified by police or family members as mentally ill. Among the cases identified by the Post, 16 percent of the victims were either unarmed or were carrying toy weapons. Both the the Post and the Guardian investigations highlight the disproportionate killings of blacks and Hispanics, particularly in shootings with unarmed victims. Police treatment of mentally ill suspects and minorities have become a widespread issue on which these studies begin to provide insight.

Although these reports sparked some public outrage, it is important to remember the big picture. More than 80 percent of those killed by police were armed with potentially lethal objects, which likely makes police action justified in many situations.

Police shootings are a complex and nuanced issue. Comparisons between the United States and other nations are not incredibly informative given the vast differences in weapon ownership, crime, and various other characteristics. Furthermore, the demonization of police officers to which some citizens resort, is neither reasonable nor helpful in dealing with this issue. Nevertheless, limiting police shootings is certainly a laudable goal, and gathering accurate data is the best place to start.

Let us not forget the harmful consequences that officer-involved shootings can have on police departments and individual officers. Police officers face the damage–particularly emotional damage–that can be inflicted when they are compelled to use deadly force. Moreover, the divide that such events creates between law enforcement and their communities can be detrimental to their ability to function. Unnecessary police shootings are a losing situation for all sides and must be addressed by law enforcement.

One issue that relates directly to these shootings is police officer training. This issue was addressed from a unique perspective in an article on Police One by Roy Bedard, a close quarters and field tactics specialist who trains police, corrections officers, and military professionals. He cites his own rookie officer training and the training that most new officers receive on handgun use. Officers are trained to fire for the center of mass in order to “shoot to stop,” yet Bedard comments on how “shoot to stop” and “shoot to kill” become synonymous in practice.  With this training, it is no surprise that rough encounters with police have resulted in so many deaths.

It would be foolish to blame police shootings solely on training and decisions made by police officers. In high-intensity situations with civilian lives on the line, as well as their own, police officers must quickly determine the best course of action for all involved. Sometimes this means shooting suspects. Sometimes these shootings save lives and that must not be forgotten. Nevertheless, it is important for police departments to train their officers to use deadly force as sparingly as possible. Many of the cases cited by the Washington Post, as well as several recent high-profile police shootings, point to officers using unnecessary force, which is troubling.

On Tuesday, following growing publicity of these reports, two senators announced their plan to introduce legislation that would require states to report all police-related deaths to the Justice Department. This bill, proposed by Senators Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) and Cory Booker (D-N.J.) would require all details of these cases to be reported, including age, race, sex, and the situation surrounding the shooting. With more accurate information, law enforcement will be able to understand the true scope of police shootings and take any necessary steps to reduce them.

Maurin Mwombela

Maurin Mwombela is a member of the University of Pennsylvania class of 2017 and was a Law Street Media Fellow for the Summer 2015. He now blogs for Law Street, focusing on politics. Contact Maurin at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Number of Americans Killed By Police is Much Higher Than You Think appeared first on Law Street.

There has been a lot of talk lately about police brutality in connection with the killings of unarmed Black men. As a result of these discussions, the issue of police militarization has also become a hotly contested topic. Do we need highly militarized police forces in our communities? What are the issues behind government-sponsored militarization practices? Read on to learn about the history of police militarization, the main issues, and the current efforts to demilitarize.

How have our police become militarized?

The Third Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states:

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Thus, the distinction between police officers and soldiers was stipulated in the Bill of Rights. This fundamental principle was further codified in the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 that limits the power of the government to operate military forces inside its borders. It was clear from the beginning that the police should maintain peace inside the country, while military troops protect U.S. interests outside the borders.

During the Prohibition Era, criminal syndicates became involved in the  manufacturing and distribution of alcohol in the United States. At that time, the police also became more militarized, deploying armored cars and automatic weapons to counteract illegal alcohol “bootlegging.”

During the race riots of the 1950s-60s, police militarization continued. The Watts Riots of 1965 played a crucial role when SWAT teams were deployed to combat the violence. The upturn in the usage of battlefield weapons can be traced to this period as well.

The 1970-80s were marked by the rise of drug trafficking and the inception of the Medellin Cartel, one of the most powerful international narcotic rings. At the same time, street gangs began to hold considerable weapons arsenals, resulting in shoot outs and gun violence in some inner-city neighborhoods. As drug traffickers and local gangsters were heavily weaponized, police continued militarizing their departments as well.

But the most profound transformation came with the inception of the War on Drugs, initiated by President Richard Nixon in the early 1970s. During this time, the federal government started its long-term attempts at militarization and weaponization of local law enforcement agencies, primarily to enforce drug laws. Thus, the practice of transferring the army’s military equipment to police departments was born. The 1981 Military Cooperation with Civilian Law Enforcement Agencies Act established close ties between the U.S. military and police by allowing military forces to aid police departments in drug and counterterrorism operations as well as in cases of civil disturbances. It’s widely believed that the War on Drugs introduced the large scale militarization of police departments, shifting the government focus from the civil unrest of the 1960s toward drug enforcement.

In 1997, the Clinton Administration created the 1033 Program, authorized by the National Defense Authorization Act. This initiative legitimized transfers of surplus military equipment from the Department of Defense (DoD) to police departments across the country to aid local law enforcement agencies in their anti-drug operations. Most of the transferable equipment came from U.S. involvement in wars, including operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. To utilize this surplus of military equipment, it was further distributed to police departments across the country, and led to police agencies even obtaining mine-resistant ambush protected (MRAP) vehicles.

After 9/11, the militarization of police departments accelerated as the Patriot Act of 2001 came into play. Since 2003, militarization has become large scale, with the federal government giving grants as well as military gear, mainly through the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

Besides federal programs, the militarization of police was achieved through the expansion of companies that build military gear and sell it directly to police departments or the federal government. As of now, many  police departments are highly militarized with MRAT vehicles, SWAT teams, and military-grade gear, often originally intended for use in the battlefield.

How militarized is the American police force?

As was discussed above, the militarization of American police is channeled mainly through the Department of Defense (DoD) and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). The numbers are staggering. In 1990, police departments received just $1 million worth of military equipment, but in 2013 this number reached $450 million.  By 2005, more than 17,000 police departments received military gear from the DoD. In the same vein, from 2002 until 2011, DHS dispensed $35 billion in grants to state and local police departments.

American police forces have sniper rifles, armored vehicles, and all sorts of heavy weaponry. According to the American Civil Liberties Union, at least 63 police departments received 15,054 pieces of personal protective equipment, and around 500 police departments obtained MRAP vehicles, all through government-sponsored initiatives, including the DoD’s 1033 program.

In addition, the use of Special Weapons and Tactics (SWAT) teams has greatly increased throughout the last decades. In 1980, SWAT teams were utilized only 3,000 times–now they are deployed on a regular basis, around 50,000 times a year. By 2007, more than 80 percent of police departments in large cities with populations higher than 25,000 had SWAT teams.

What are the issues against militarized police forces?

There is no doubt that police officers should be well equipped to protect peace and security in American communities. The question is whether the current level of police militarization makes our communities safer and more secure or harms the very people police departments are trying to protect. Here are some of the arguments against police militarization.

It’s Unnecessary

Police militarization is unnecessary, especially when talking about small cities that have hardly any crime. There are a myriad of towns that have few murders but huge arsenals of military-grade gear and SWAT teams. For example, there were only three murders in Keene, a small town in New Hampshire, from 1999 till 2012, but its police department has spent $286,000 on an armored personnel carrier, in addition to spendings on other military gear. Federal programs provide incentives for law enforcement to obtain military equipment, even when it’s not needed.

It’s Dangerous

Highly militarized and well trained SWAT teams were designed for deployment in dangerous situations, for example, hostage situations or mass shoot-outs. Now, SWAT teams are used in routine drug enforcement operations. Overall, 79 percent of SWAT teams are deployed to execute search warrants, while only seven percent are used in high-risk situations.

SWAT teams often force their way inside a house, use violent tactics that may inflict bodily harm or property damage to homeowners, and scare children who may suffer psychological damage after the experience. In fact, 65 percent of such teams forced their way into people’s homes, relying on “no-knock” warrants. SWAT teams are also employed to counteract illegal gambling, underage drinking, and other low level non-life threatening crimes.

It Incites Violence

According to multiple psychological studies, paramilitary police forces can incite violence in communities. It’s called the “weapons effect,” meaning that people feel the threat of violence and get ready to fight back when they encounter military-like weapons and large machinery. Simply put, the mere presence of paramilitary police forces can escalate situations and produce tensions between police and community members that could be avoided if police would engage with people in a friendly way. In 2014 alone, 623 Americans were killed by the police.

Asset Forfeiture

Some argue that asset forfeiture is one of the primary ways used to fund police militarization. Many law enforcement agencies use money obtained through asset forfeiture to buy military gear, machinery, and other military-grade equipment. In 1986, the Federal Asset Forfeiture Fund controlled $93.7 million; in 2012 the fund held $6 billion. There is an ongoing debate over whether or not asset forfeiture laws are discriminatory and unfair, with many lawmakers and politicians casting their support for changes in the matter. At the core of asset forfeiture laws is the principle that any property involved in committing a crime can be seized by the government, even if a person is not convicted or even charged with a crime. This argument holds that law enforcement chooses to raid homes to seize a house, or bust drug deals during monetary transactions to seize the cash. Such practices often happen in communities of color and focus on drug-related crimes. A 2013 investigative piece by New Yorker reporter Sarah Stillman provides that:

Thousands of police departments nationwide have recently acquired stun grenades, armored tanks, counterattack vehicles, and other paramilitary equipment, much of it purchased with asset-forfeiture funds.

No Public Oversight

Militarization of the police came into being without any public oversight. There were no public debates in this regard, and no agency was empowered to monitor military equipment transfers. The lack of transparency is evident in the inadequacy and sometimes even complete absence of records that document and track police militarization. The ACLU reports on the omission of information, deficiency in reporting, and nonexistence of government monitoring, all regarding the amount of military gear and its usage.

Communities of Color

SWAT team deployment and the overall militarization of the police increased while violent crime fell. It also coincided with the inception of the “War of Drugs,” which disproportionally targeted communities of color by raiding low-income communities and public housing in the search for drugs. According to the ACLU, 61 percent of SWAT raids were executed in minority communities, and 68 percent of those were drug related. At the same time, white people were usually targeted by SWAT teams only in serious and life-threatening situations, not drug raids. A similar argument is explained in a highly acclaimed book by Michele Alexander “The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness,” where she talks about marginalization of Black communities and the creation of a new caste-like system based on race. According to her argument, the War on Drugs was waged to marginalize Black communities by disproportionately incarcerating young Black men. In this regard, the militarization of police was a necessary step to enforce punitive drug laws.

Police Imagery

When police officers are riding in MRAT vehicles and wearing highly militarized gear, some worry it sends the wrong message to communities. Police encounters can be highly traumatic experiences for anybody, but especially for communities of color that are often policed more aggressively. Instead of patrolling by foot and engaging with the community members, police officers use military-grade gear and painted camouflage vehicles. Thus, police officers are perceived more as soldiers fighting an enemy. As a result, the relationships between communities and police departments have become hostile. Community members are scared of the police and often don’t want to cooperate or even interact with law enforcement.

Big Business

For American companies that produce military equipment and gear, the militarization of police is a big business. Companies like Lockheed Martin and Blackhawk Industries sell their military equipment to police departments, or donate money to those politicians who favor further militarization of law enforcement. For example, politicians who voted against Representative Alan Grayson’s (D-FL) efforts aimed at limiting police militarization received on average a 73 percent increase in defense industry donations than those who supported his efforts. Besides the selling of equipment, military contractors sponsor training sessions for SWAT teams and other events to promote their products and sell them to police departments across the United States.

Current Efforts to Demilitarize Police Departments

Police militarization went largely unchallenged for decades. Only recent events, such as protests in Ferguson, Missouri, were able to shed some light on the issue of ongoing police militarization. When protests in Ferguson erupted, police met protesters with armored cars and military gear designed for battlefields. As the media was covering the events, millions of Americans were able to see the aggressive and intimidating images of highly armored police from Ferguson.

The #BlackLivesMatter movement also added fuel to the fire by demanding government to stop transferring military gear to local law enforcement agencies, and start dismantling the existing arsenals.

Eventually, the Obama Administration delivered a long-awaited response. A new policy focuses on the 1033 Program by regulating military equipment transfers, overseeing and monitoring the usage of military equipment, and reshaping police practices toward community-oriented approaches. For example, armored and weaponized vehicles as well as grenade launchers will be forbidden for transfer. Other transferable equipment will be regulated with restrictions and certain conditions for transfer. Essentially, a police department will have to justify the need for military equipment by presenting arguments and explaining precisely why and for what purposes it will be used. In addition, a new federal agency will be empowered with monitoring military equipment transfers and even conducting local compliance reviews if needed. The new policy also mentions community-based policing as a desired form of conducting police business. Police departments will have to engage with residents more, nurture trust, and build relationships with local leaders and youth in order to receive federal grants in the first place.

Conclusion

As the United States has the highest per capita gun ownership in the Western world, it’s assumed that police departments should also be highly militarized. But militarization has many issues and unintended consequences that cannot be ignored. Instead of weaponizing police officers, law enforcement officials should focus on engaging with residents and building meaningful relationships, not casting fear and intimidation with MRAT vehicles and heavy weaponry. It’s not only about limiting the 1033 Program, but reforming asset forfeiture laws, limiting aggressive drug enforcement in low-income communities, and providing clear guidelines regarding when SWAT teams are appropriate for deployment. It’s paramount that local activists and elected officials continue to demand accountability from police departments, and push the current efforts even further.

Resources

Washington Post: Obama Moves to Demilitarize America’s Police

Washington Post: Demilitarizing the Police is Not an Option. What is?

Pacific Standard: The Psychological Reason Local Police Don’t Need the Military’s Left-Over Weapons

Huffington Post: President Adopts Amendment Against Police Militarization

Economist: Disarming Warrior Cops

Economist: How America’s Police Became So Heavily Armed

Economist: Cops or Soldiers?

International Business Times: Police Militarization History Stretches Back to Civil Rights Movement

American Civil Liberties Union: War Comes Home: The Excessive Militarization of American Policing

Alternet: 11 Shocking Facts About America’s Militarized Police Forces

1920-30: Prohibition

National Gang Center Bulletin: History of Street Gangs in the United States

New Yorker: Taken

Valeriya Metla

Valeriya Metla is a young professional, passionate about international relations, immigration issues, and social and criminal justice. She holds two Bachelor Degrees in regional studies and international criminal justice. Contact Valeriya at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Militarization of American Police: How Far is Too Far? appeared first on Law Street.

When it comes to alcohol, the laws regulating when someone is “over the limit” are pretty easy to remember. For drivers over 21, the legal blood alcohol content (BAC) limit in all 50 states is .08. For most of us, that means roughly one drink per hour. But as some states legalize recreational use of marijuana, and others allow its use for medical purposes, defining driving under the influence is becoming increasingly difficult.

One of the big problems is that we don’t quite know how badly marijuana affects driving. Experts point out that it’s obviously bad to drive when any senses are impaired — but we still allow people to have a drink before they drive, because a safe threshold has been determined. That threshold hasn’t really been identified for marijuana use yet.

Marijuana users are definitely impaired. Reaction times for example, are usually slower. But unlike those who have had alcohol, people under the influence of marijuana are usually more aware of that impairment. They are more likely to be cautious and compensate for their dulled senses. Currently, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is working on a study to figure out how exactly smoking marijuana can affect driving. In states that do allow marijuana, whether or not the legalization has led to more fatal crashes is virtually impossible to determine. Some studies claim that it has, others say that there’s no correlation. With such a small sample population, as well as so many other contributing factors to automobile accidents, it’s just too soon to tell what effect marijuana use has on driving conditions as a whole.

The states that have legalized marijuana, or allow it for medical purposes, have attempted to institute some parameters. For example, Colorado has set the DUI limit for marijuana intoxication at 5 nanograms of THC per milliliter of blood. Some people worry, however, that it’s too early to appropriately determine such limits, and that until we can do so, a limit like Colorado’s is arbitrary. The Marijuana Policy Project stated:

The inability to accurately measure marijuana impairment is why both the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and the National Institute on Drug Abuse have stated that marijuana impairment testing via blood sampling is unreliable.

The main complaint stems from the fact that there’s no good way to easily test marijuana intoxication. When someone is pulled over and suspected of driving while drunk, there are small breathalyzers that can be used to determine BAC. No comparative tool has been invented for marijuana intoxication at this point. There is apparently a very preliminary marijuana breathalyzer being created by a Canadian police officer; he has named it the “Cannabix.” It’s still in the very preliminary stages, and scientists aren’t sure about the efficiency or accuracy of a breath-based marijuana test.

As more states move toward the legalization of marijuana — currently there are serious pushes in Alaska, Massachusetts, Oregon, New York, and Washington D.C. — the question of marijuana DUIs needs an answer. Zero tolerance policies seem tough, especially with the now relatively common use of medical marijuana. But how much marijuana in your blood is too much? Scientists will have to tell us — hopefully the new National Highway Traffic Safety Administration study will provide us with some answers.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Marijuana DUIs: How Much Weed is Too Much to Drive? appeared first on Law Street.

As revenge porn gains steam across the internet, it’s unsurprising that it has started to make its way to social media sites. Facebook, for example, just received its first lawsuit on the subject — a woman named Meyem Ali is suing the social media company for not appropriately handling revenge porn posts created about her on the site.

The idea behind revenge porn is as simple as it is disgusting. It is essentially nude pictures of a person posted online, without the person’s consent, by someone who has the intention of hurting them. It can take the form of pictures that an individual sent to a former partner, pictures that were stolen, or even photos that were photoshopped to appear nude. It’s important to note that the title “porn” is pretty misleading. It’s not so much porn as it is public humiliation. The “revenge” aspect comes from the fact that the explicit photos are often posted by a jilted ex-partner.

Revenge porn has existed ostensibly since the beginning of the Internet, perhaps longer, but it has only crept into public consciousness relatively recently. In 2010, a man named Hunter Moore created a site called IsAnyoneUp.com. It quickly became a the go-to platform for revenge porn, given that the site allowed submitters to annotate the photo with the subject’s name, address, and other personal information. It was an easy way for people who wanted to get “revenge” to really pinpoint their targets, because the person’s photo being posted on the site would often lead to ridicule, public-shaming, and harassment. Moore encouraged the postings, alleging that the women who were featured deserved it because they had taken pictures of themselves in compromising positions. IsAnyoneUp.com also contained some stolen and fabricated photos. Moore has since been arrested and indicted on charges of identity theft, among other things. But revenge porn still exists, and has started to creep into other corners of the internet.

This is how we get to Meyem Ali’s story. The Texas woman discovered a page in 2013 under her name. It contained multiple photos of her face photoshopped onto a nude woman’s body. In one of the pictures her body double was performing a sex act. She repeatedly asked Facebook to take the photos down, but they pretty much ignored her requests for nearly five months. Eventually she got the police involved, and after receiving a subpoena the company took down the pictures. Ali also found who had posted the account in the first place — a man with whom she had a casual relationship years before. Now, she is suing both the man and Facebook for the ordeal, arguing that for her completely public humiliation, she is entitled to 10 cents for each user Facebook has — totaling $123 million.

As sad as it sounds, Ali is somewhat lucky. Her concerns were taken seriously by the police, and some sort of action was taken. When it comes to revenge porn, that doesn’t always happen. Take the story of Charlotte and Kayla Laws — a mother and daughter pair from California. Kayla Laws had a topless picture of herself saved on her personal computer that she had never shared with anyone. Upon emailing the image to herself, the picture was stolen from the server and posted on IsAnyoneUp.com. At the time, only one state — New Jersey — had any sort of legislation criminalizing revenge porn. She and her mother fought back, especially after they were pretty much denied help from the police. One detective, missing the point so completely that he ended up on another planet, asked Kayla why she would even take a photo like that if she didn’t want people to see it. Eventually the Laws did gain the help of the FBI, but only after spending copious amounts of their own time and money trying to bring down Moore.

Since then, revenge porn legislation has gotten better…albeit slowly. Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Georgia, Maryland, New Jersey, Idaho, Pennsylvania, Utah, Virginia, and Wisconsin all have some sort of law prohibiting it. Ali’s lawsuit against Facebook is another important marker — it acknowledges that in some cases, the posting of revenge porn isn’t just the action of the person who posts it, but also the sites that provide platforms for its proliferation.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post $123 Million Facebook Lawsuit Could Mark Turning Point for Revenge Porn appeared first on Law Street.

Michael Brown, an unarmed 18-year-old, was shot and killed by police last weekend in Ferguson, Missouri. He was supposed to start college this week. The incident sparked days of protest in the town, and showed a growing divide between law enforcement and citizens. The police originally said that prior to being killed, Brown tried to take the officer’s gun. A witness to the crime, Brown’s friend, said the boy’s hands were up and it was clear he was trying to cooperate. Now law enforcement claims that he was involved in a strong-arm robbery prior to the shooting. The story is unclear, muddled, and deeply problematic.

Incidents like this are not uncommon. Some have drawn parallels to the killing of Trayvon Martin and Eric Garner. And like those incidents, Michael Brown’s killing got big, quickly.

Social media, especially Twitter, exploded with hashtags, pictures, and stories of other similar situations. Michael Brown’s story didn’t stay in Ferguson for too long. In a matter of hours, it was all over the country. What started as raging fire on social media turned into protests and riots in Ferguson. Police responded quickly, and situation has continued to escalate. Many have called for the name of the police officer who killed Brown to be released, and despite the fact that the name has now been released, there are still more questions than answers.

And people besides social media activists and residents of the town have taken notice. Missouri’s Governor made a statement, The FBI announced it would conduct an investigation of the incident, and both President Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder have made statements.

But much of the rhetoric surrounding this event has been about the bigger issue at hand here. While the death of Michael Brown is a tragedy in itself, the nation-wide dialogue has been focused on the killings and discrimination by police of young black men. Ferguson is a small town, and two thirds of its residents are black. But on the police force, there are 50 white officers, but only three black ones. Situations like this are repeated in towns around the country.

Many point to what happened in Ferguson as a microcosm of what is happening in the rest of America. And through social media, there has been increased awareness on the issues–both in Ferguson, and beyond. One of the biggest hashtags to come out of the incident was #IfIWasGunnedDown. People posted two pictures of themselves–one in a very flattering light, and one in a light in which they thought the media would portray them should they be killed.

Another picture that went viral was from students of Howard University. Thousands gathered and stood with the same pose–hands in the air–and Tweeted the picture out. In a matter of hours, it had thousands of favorites and re-tweets.

This pic from last night at Howard U is crazy powerful. Thanks @the_blackness48 @tasneemraja http://t.co/z4hxOR3QHU pic.twitter.com/EyAqYLT49A

— Julia Lurie (@julia_lurie) August 14, 2014

And though the narrative has been similar for some time now, with many young people taking part in the conversation, it seems that more and more leaders on the national level are taking notice and getting involved. Not only are they discussing this specific instance of violence, but the larger, deeply rooted problems in American society. Obama discussed transparency in local police departments. Nancy Pelosi made a statement imploring the Justice Department to investigate Brown’s death. And Rand Paul wrote in Time about a “systematic problem with today’s law enforcement.”

It remains unclear what will happen as a result of Michael Brown’s death. And there is absolutely no way to know whether the calls for change in the justice system, police force, and overall mentality in America will come to fruition. But with these all too common events going viral more often, it may just be a matter of time until something substantive comes as a result of these tragic losses.

[Huffington Post] [Huffington Post] [Holder Statement] [Pelosi Statement] [Howard Picture]

Molly Hogan

Molly Hogan is a student at The George Washington University and formerly an intern at Law Street Media. Contact Molly at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Michael Brown’s Death Sparked a National Dialogue appeared first on Law Street.

More police officers than ever before are being held accountable for misconduct as a result of increased public awareness, media pressure, and new technologies capable of documenting altercations in horrifyingly graphic detail. While the frequency of punishments has increased, however, victims and their families are starting to realize that the word “accountability” may not actually mean very much.

For many officers accountability can be considered little more than a slap on the wrist. Verbal or written reprimands, the loss of a few vacation days, or suspension are all standard fare punishments for police misconduct. In extreme cases involving excessive force, an officer may be put on paid leave, forced to retire (with full benefits), or fired.

For people like Mike Gomez, whose 22-year-old son was shot and killed by an Albuquerque police officer in 2012, these punishments are a far cry from justice. The officer who shot his unarmed, mentally ill son in the chest was put on paid leave and given $500 by the Albuquerque police union to cope with the stress of the shooting. Naturally this was very upsetting to the victim’s family; as Mike Gomez puts it, while officers get a bonus and a paid vacation for the killing, all the family gets is a funeral bill.

A report by the Cato Institute of Justice reveals that if excessive force complaints involving fatalities were prosecuted as murders, then “the murder rate for law enforcement officers would exceed the general population murder rate by 472%.” This statistic speaks for itself, but a part of the problem is that the consequences for unnecessarily ending someone’s life seem to fall on cities in the form of settlements rather than on the officers themselves.

For example, while the officer who shot Mike Gomez’s son was cleared of all charges, the city still decided to settle the wrongful death lawsuit filed by the Gomez family for $900,000 rather than go to trial, citing the move as the “best economic, legal and policy decision”.

To the Gomez family this is simply blood money and the only legal recognition that they will receive that the death of their son was unwarranted. The fact still remains that the man who shot him will never spend a day behind bars or face any legal consequences for the act.

Even having video documentation is no guarantee that officers will ever be brought to justice. A perfect example of this is an incident at UC Davis where Lieutenant John Pike was recorded using military-grade pepper spray at point-blank range on a line of seated protesters.

The iconic incident sparked international outrage and a cry for Lt. Pike and other members of UC Davis leadership to be removed immediately from the campus payroll. Two independent inquiries into the incident (summarized in a conjoined report) condemned Lt. Pike for needlessly assaulting the group of students, finding him culpable for other professional transgressions as well.

This report was the result of months of thorough investigation, based on intense review of video footage of the incident, interviews with multiple witnesses, and conducted by independent consultants and a panel of well-respected statesmen. Nonetheless, their findings did not bear any weight on whether or not Lt. Pike would keep his job or even if he would face any disciplinary measures. That was left solely to the determination of an internal affairs investigation conducted by the police department because in states like California, police officers’ rights are so extensive that they severely limit independent public review of police conduct.

What’s worse is the fact that their methods, findings, and any actions that resulted from the investigation are all secret. To this day we still don’t know if Lt. Pike was fired or able to retire with full benefits – all the university was allowed to disclose is that he is no longer employed at the school.

While it is no secret that being a police officer is a dangerous job, it is undoubtedly true that officers sometimes step outside the bounds of their authority, often at the expense of those in their care. While the majority of police officers conduct themselves in a way that befits their position of power, it is distressing that those who flagrantly disregard rules receive little more than a slap on the wrist for conduct that has ended lives, torn apart communities, and violated constitutional rights.

In most cases, even when the officer in question is found culpable, the only punishment he or she receives is the loss of employment. While some may argue that losing one’s livelihood is a sufficiently severe punishment for excessive force – and perhaps in certain instances it is – it is not an adequate response to the functional equivalent of murder.

From start to finish, the way that officers are investigated, prosecuted, and eventually punished needs to be reformed. If someone can go to jail for the rest of his life for stealing tools from a tool shed then it is absurd that most cases of police brutality do not even result in criminal charges. Police officers are meant to protect the law, not stand above it.

—

Nicole Roberts (@NicoleR5901) a student at American University majoring in Justice, Law, and Society with a minor in Mandarin Chinese. She has a strong interest in law and policymaking, and is active in homeless rights advocacy as well as several other social justice movements. Contact Nicole at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Steve Rhodes via Flickr]

Nicole Roberts

Nicole Roberts a student at American University majoring in Justice, Law, and Society with a minor in Mandarin Chinese. She has a strong interest in law and policymaking, and is active in homeless rights advocacy as well as several other social justice movements. Contact Nicole at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Families of Victims of Police Brutality Question Officer Accountability appeared first on Law Street.

The FBI’s latest data shows crime dropping nationally; however, the results for the Top 10 Safest Cities were not all great news. Across the country, violent crime decreased 5.4 percent during the first six months of 2013 compared with the same period in 2012. Violent crime reporting was ahead of prior year figures in half of our Safest Cities, most notably by nearly 28 percent in #5 ranking Scottsdale, Ariz. The southwestern city’s rape and aggravated assault figures in particular were ahead of prior year reporting. On the opposite end of the spectrum, #6 ranking Henderson, Nev. saw its violent crime decrease more than 25 percent at the beginning of 2013, with significant drops in the same categories of rape and aggravated assault.

The FBI’s semiannual report covers January to June 2013 — the most recent period for which comprehensive crime statistics are available. Law Street’s analysis of this preliminary data for each of the Top 10 Safest Cities Over 200,000 appears below as an update to our original rankings published last Fall. Changes in these preliminary statistics, included below, compared with the same time period in the previous year provide key information on emerging trends in these important cities ahead of the full-year coverage of rankings that will be available this Fall. Click here for developing Crime in America 2014 coverage.

1. Irvine, Calif.

PRELIMINARY 2013 UPDATE
Irvine, Calif. — the safest American city over 200,000 — was slightly ahead of its 2012 violent crime rate, with an increase of 9.26 percent during the period January to June 2013. The large percentage increases in both murder and rape reflect very small numbers of actual cases: the city had two murders compared to one in the comparative period, and nine rapes compared with five in the same period of 2012. Robberies in the city decreased by nearly 16 percent to 16 instances.

PRELIMINARY 2013 VIOLENT CRIME TRENDS
Data below reflects changes for period January to June 2013 versus same period in 2012.
Total Violent Crime: +9.26%
Murder: +100%
Rape: +80%
Robbery: -15.79%
Aggravated Assault: +10.34%

CLICK HERE FOR FULL COVERAGE OF IRVINE’S 2012 RANKING

2. Gilbert, Ariz.

PRELIMINARY 2013 UPDATE
Gilbert, Ariz., Law’s Street’s #2 Safest City, experienced fairly consistent levels of violent crime during the first six months of 2013 versus prior year. The city’s total violent crime decreased by just under one percent, with 102 violent crimes versus 103 in the comparative period. Notably, there was only one murder during this period (versus four in the first six months of 2012). Rape reporting was up by 33 percent, but the yearly figures are not comparable due to changes in the FBI’s new definition of rape.

PRELIMINARY 2013 VIOLENT CRIME TRENDS
Data below reflects changes for period January to June 2013 versus same period in 2012.
Total Violent Crime: -0.97%
Murder: -75%
Rape: -33.33%*
Robbery: -8%
Aggravated Assault: +10.77%

CLICK HERE FOR FULL COVERAGE OF GILBERT’S 2012 RANKING

3. Plano, Texas

PRELIMINARY 2013 UPDATE 
The FBI did not include Plano, Texas in its 2013 preliminary data — no explanation for this omission is provided, nor did the FBI respond to comment by the time this post published. According to the Plano Police Department, the city submits its data to the FBI on a monthly basis and should have been included in the Preliminary Semiannual Report. The figures below were provided directly to Law Street by the Plano Police Department. The #3 Safest City’s crime was down in the first six months of 2013, with the most dramatic changes in robbery and aggravated assault (8 and 18 fewer instances, respectively). Plano had two murders, compared with in the prior year, as well as 4 more rapes. Overall, violent crime was down nearly 12 percent between January and June 2013 compared with the same period in 2012.

PRELIMINARY 2013 VIOLENT CRIME TRENDS
Data below reflects changes for period January to June 2013 versus same period in 2012.
Total Violent Crime: -11.73%
Murder: 100%
Rape: 17.39%
Robbery: -16%
Aggravated Assault: -17.14%

CLICK HERE FOR FULL COVERAGE OF PLANO’S 2012 RANKING

4. Fremont, Calif.

PRELIMINARY 2013 UPDATE
Violent crime in Fremont, Calif. was up slightly between January and June 2013 versus the same period in 2012. While murder and aggravated assault were both down during this period (-50% and -25,39%, respectively), there were 12 rapes (3 in 2012) and 80 robberies (63 in 2012), accounting for the slight uptick in total violent crime.

PRELIMINARY 2013 VIOLENT CRIME TRENDS
Data below reflects changes for period January to June 2013 versus same period in 2012.
Total Violent Crime: +3.33%
Murder: -50%
Rape: +300%
Robbery: +26.98%
Aggravated Assault: -24.39%

CLICK HERE FOR FULL COVERAGE OF FREMONT’S 2012 RANKING

5. Scottsdale, Ariz.

PRELIMINARY 2013 UPDATE
Scottsdale, Ariz., #5 in the rankings of the Safest Cities, experienced a 27.52 percent increase in violent crime during January to June 2013 compared to the same period in 2012. Murder remained constant (2 cases each year) and robbery declined just under four percent (49 robberies versus 51 in 2012); however, there was a spike in rape (29 cases) and aggravated assault (110 cases) during the relevant time period.

PRELIMINARY 2013 VIOLENT CRIME TRENDS
Data below reflects changes for period January to June 2013 versus same period in 2012.
Total Violent Crime: +27.52%
Murder: +/-0%
Rape: +61.11%
Robbery: -3.92%
Aggravated Assault: +41.03%

CLICK HERE FOR FULL COVERAGE OF SCOTTSDALE’S 2012 RANKING

6. Henderson, Nev.

PRELIMINARY 2013 UPDATE
Nevada’s second-largest city, Henderson, experienced a 25 percent decline in violent crime in the first six months of 2013 as compared to the same period in 2012. The figures were down in each of the four violent crime categories, including a 54 percent decrease in rape (16 in 2013; 35 in 2012) and 27 percent fewer aggravated assaults (71 in 2013; 98 in 2012). The #5 Safest City had only two murders, compared with three during the period in 2012.

PRELIMINARY 2013 VIOLENT CRIME TRENDS
Data below reflects changes for period January to June 2013 versus same period in 2012.
Total Violent Crime: -25.45%
Murder: -33.33%
Rape: -54.29%
Robbery: -11.36%
Aggravated Assault: -27.55%

CLICK HERE FOR FULL COVERAGE OF HENDERSON’S 2012 RANKING

7. Virginia Beach, Va.

PRELIMINARY 2013 UPDATE
Virginia Beach, Va., the most populous city in the Commonwealth, had a very small increase in violent crime between January and June 2013 compared with prior year figures. This is likely due to a seemingly huge jump in rape cases, however the figures for that particular category in Virginia Beach are not comparable year over year due to the FBI’s expanded reporting criteria. The #7 Safest City had 23 fewer aggravated assaults, one less murder, and the same number of robberies during the period at hand.

PRELIMINARY 2013 VIOLENT CRIME TRENDS
Data below reflects changes for period January to June 2013 versus same period in 2012.
Total Violent Crime: +3.57%
Murder: -9.09%
Rape: +115.63%*
Robbery: +/-0%
Aggravated Assault: -13.86%

CLICK HERE FOR FULL COVERAGE OF VIRGINIA BEACH’S 2012 RANKING

8. Irving, Texas

PRELIMINARY 2013 UPDATE
Irving, Texas, part of the Dallas/Ft. Worth Metroplex, held its violent crime rate steady for the first six months of 2013 versus 2012. The #8 Safest City held its murder rate constant with only one case during each period, and the city had fewer rapes and aggravated assaults than prior year. Robbery increase slightly with 84 instances in 2013 compared with 63 in 2012.

PRELIMINARY 2013 VIOLENT CRIME TRENDS
Data below reflects changes for period January to June 2013 versus same period in 2012.
Total Violent Crime: +/-0%
Murder: +/-0%
Rape: -6.25%
Robbery: +33.33%
Aggravated Assault: -11.56%

CLICK HERE FOR FULL COVERAGE OF IRVING’S  2012 RANKING

9. Garland, Texas

PRELIMINARY 2013 UPDATE
Garland, the third Texas city to rank on this list, experienced a 16.55 percent decrease in violent crime between January and June 2013 compared to the same period in 2012, despite a slight uptick in rape reporting (30 versus 25). The city’s aggravated assault and robbery reported both decreased, down 21 and 29 instances, respectively, and there were three murders compared with four in 2012.

PRELIMINARY 2013 VIOLENT CRIME TRENDS
Data below reflects changes for period January to June 2013 versus same period in 2012.
Total Violent Crime: -16.55%
Murder: -25%
Rape: +20%
Robbery: -23.58%
Aggravated Assault: -16.67%

CLICK HERE FOR FULL COVERAGE OF GARLAND’S 2012 RANKING

10. Chula Vista, Calif.

PRELIMINARY 2013 UPDATE
Located just outside downtown San Diego, Chula Vista, California’s violent crime increased slightly in the first six months of 2013, from 283 to 298 instances in the four relevant categories. While there were three fewer murders than prior year, reporting of rape, robbery, and aggravated assault all increased (+3, +12, +3 cases year over year, respectively).

PRELIMINARY 2013 VIOLENT CRIME TRENDS
Data below reflects changes for period January to June 2013 versus same period in 2012.
Total Violent Crime: +5.30%
Murder: -60%
Rape: +18.75%
Robbery: +10.71%
Aggravated Assault: +2%

CLICK HERE FOR FULL COVERAGE OF CHULA VISTA’S 2012 RANKING

Research and analysis by Law Street’s Crime in America Team: Chelsey Goff, Anneliese Mahoney, Ashley Powell, and Kevin Rizzo.

Sources:

Violent crime, population, murder, and officer statistics are from the FBI Preliminary Semiannual Uniform Crime Report, January – June 2013.

Click here to read more Crime in America coverage.

*The figure shown for the 2013 rape offense was reported using the new definition of rape and is not comparable to previous years’ historical forcible rape data.

Note: A previous version of this post did not include data for Plano, Texas as it was not provided by the FBI in the Preliminary Semiannual Uniform Crime Report, January-June 2013.

Chelsey D. Goff

Chelsey D. Goff was formerly Chief People Officer at Law Street. She is a Granite State Native who holds a Master of Public Policy in Urban Policy from the George Washington University. She’s passionate about social justice issues, politics — especially those in First in the Nation New Hampshire — and all things Bravo. Contact Chelsey at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Latest FBI Data is Mixed Bag for Top 10 Safest Cities appeared first on Law Street.

Mirroring the national trend of declining violent crime, the majority of Law Street’s Top 10 Most Dangerous Cities under 200,000 continue to experience decreases in overall violent crime. Based on new data released by the FBI February 18, seven out of these Top 10 cities had less crime than the same period during the prior year. Five of the Top 10 show sharper declines than the national average of -5.4 percent — most notably Flint, Mich. where violent crime was nearly 27 percent behind the 2012 six-month figures.

The FBI’s semiannual report covers January to June 2013 — the most recent period for which comprehensive crime statistics are available. Law Street’s analysis of this preliminary data for each of the Top 10 Most Dangerous Cities Under 200,000 appears below as an update to our original rankings published last Fall. Changes in these preliminary statistics, included below, compared with the same time period in the previous year provide key information on emerging trends in these important cities ahead of the full-year coverage of rankings that will be available this Fall. Click here for developing Crime in America 2014 coverage.

1. Flint, Mich.

PRELIMINARY 2013 UPDATE
Flint, Mich. ranks as the number one most dangerous city with a population under 200,000; however, it leads this pack with a 26.38 percent drop in total violent crime from January to June 2013 versus prior year. Flint is one of many cities reporting rape data this year according to the FBI’s new, expanded definition of forcible rape, so the year over year data for this particular category is not comparable; however, the city’s huge decreases in murder, robbery, and aggravated assault all counter balanced that particular issue. With a violent crime rate of 1,021 per 100,000 people, Flint shows some signs of progress.

PRELIMINARY 2013 VIOLENT CRIME TRENDS
Data below reflects changes for period January to June 2013 versus same period in 2012.
Total Violent Crime: -26.38%
Murder: -22.58%
Rape: +45.161%*
Robbery: -17.97%
Aggravated Assault: -33.07%

CLICK HERE FOR FULL COVERAGE OF FLINT’S 2012 RANKING

2. New Haven, Conn.

PRELIMINARY 2013 UPDATE
The #2 Most Dangerous City under 200,000, New Haven, Conn. shows modest gains in its fight against crime. Violent crime in the state’s second-largest city dropped 8.11 percent in the first six months of 2013 versus the same period in 2012. Despite a 37.50 percent increase in rape (associated with the FBI’s new, expanded definition of forcible rape), there were still significant declines in the remaining categories of murder, robbery, and aggravated assault (-11.11 percent, -1.39 percent, and -16.45 percent, respectively).

PRELIMINARY 2013 VIOLENT CRIME TRENDS
Data below reflects changes for period January to June 2013 versus same period in 2012.
Total Violent Crime: -8.11%
Murder: -11.11%
Rape: +37.50%*
Robbery: -1.39%
Aggravated Assault: -16.45%

CLICK HERE FOR FULL COVERAGE OF NEW HAVEN’S 2012 RANKING

3. Rockford, Ill.

PRELIMINARY 2013 UPDATE
Illinois’ second most populous city, Rockford, experienced a 6.37 percent decrease in total violent crime from January to June 2013 over the prior year. Robbery in the #3 Most Dangerous City under 200,000 dropped by nearly a quarter, and although murder increased by the same amount, this reflected a move from four murders to five.

PRELIMINARY 2013 VIOLENT CRIME TRENDS
Data below reflects changes for period January to June 2013 versus same period in 2012.
Total Violent Crime: -6.37%
Murder: +25.00%
Rape: +21.31%*
Robbery: -24.46%
Aggravated Assault: -3.18%

CLICK HERE FOR FULL COVERAGE OF ROCKFORD’S 2012 RANKING

4. Hartford, Conn.

PRELIMINARY 2013 UPDATE
Connecticut’s capital city is the #4 Most Dangerous City under 200,000, and the second of three Nutmeg State cities on this list. Similar to New Haven, Hartford’s violent crime dropped by nearly nine percent during the first six months of 2013, including an 11 percent decrease in murder and a nearly 19 percent drop in aggravated assault. Not encouragingly, rape in the city increased by more than 33 percent, while robbery was up nearly five percent.

PRELIMINARY 2013 VIOLENT CRIME TRENDS
Data below reflects changes for period January to June 2013 versus same period in 2012.
Total Violent Crime: -8.96%
Murder: -11.11%
Rape: +33.33%
Robbery: +4.47%
Aggravated Assault: -18.20%

CLICK HERE FOR FULL COVERAGE OF HARTFORD’S 2012 RANKING

5. Little Rock, Ark.

PRELIMINARY 2013 UPDATE
Arkansas’ capital, the #5 Most Dangerous City under 200,000, didn’t fare quite as well as the top four Most Dangerous Cities on this list. Violent crime in Little Rock increased slightly in the first six months of 2013 due to a 19 percent spike in robbery. Murder, aggravated assault, and rape were all down year over year (-14.29 percent, -2.63 percent, and -23.61 percent respectively), though the rape figures are not comparable to prior year.

PRELIMINARY 2013 VIOLENT CRIME TRENDS
Data below reflects changes for period January to June 2013 versus same period in 2012.
Total Violent Crime: +2.03%
Murder: -14.29%
Rape: -23.61%*
Robbery: +19.53%
Aggravated Assault: -2.63%

CLICK HERE FOR FULL COVERAGE OF LITTLE ROCK’S 2012 RANKING

6. Bridgeport, Conn.

PRELIMINARY 2013 UPDATE
Bridgeport, Connecticut’s most populous, experienced the greatest drop in violent crime during the first six months of 2013 of all three off the state’s ranking cities. The #6 Most Dangerous City under 200,000 experienced declines in three out of four violent crime categories, including half as many murders than the same period during the prior year; however, there was a slight increase in rape, as the city moved from 25 to 28 cases in 2013.

PRELIMINARY 2013 VIOLENT CRIME TRENDS
Data below reflects changes for period January to June 2013 versus same period in 2012.
Total Violent Crime: -11.73%
Murder: -54.55%
Rape: +12.00%
Robbery: -11.74%
Aggravated Assault: -12.04%

CLICK HERE FOR FULL COVERAGE OF BRIDGEPORT’S 2012 RANKING

7. Richmond, Calif.

PRELIMINARY 2013 UPDATE
Richmond, Calif., the #7 Most Dangerous City under 200,000, experienced the sharpest increase (+19.53 percent) in violent crime of the Top Ten cities on this list. Crime in the bay area city increased in three out of four violent crime categories, most notably robbery and aggravated assault (+22.95 percent and +20.18 percent, respectively).

PRELIMINARY 2013 VIOLENT CRIME TRENDS
Data below reflects changes for period January to June 2013 versus same period in 2012.
Total Violent Crime: +19.53%
Murder: +10.00%
Rape: -13.04%
Robbery: +22.95%
Aggravated Assault: +20.18%

CLICK HERE FOR FULL COVERAGE OF RICHMOND’S 2012 RANKING

8. Odessa, Texas

PRELIMINARY 2013 UPDATE
Violent crime in Odessa, Texas remained fairly constant during January to June 2013 over prior year, with a decrease of less than one percent. Robbery and rape increased minimally (25 and 4 more cases for this period, respectively), and aggravated assault declined by nearly seven percent.

PRELIMINARY 2013 VIOLENT CRIME TRENDS
Data below reflects changes for period January to June 2013 versus same period in 2012.
Total Violent Crime: -0.70%
Murder: +/-0.00%
Rape: +17.39%
Robbery: +42.37%
Aggravated Assault: -6.75%

CLICK HERE FOR FULL COVERAGE OF ODESSA’S 2012 RANKING

9. Paterson, N.J.

PRELIMINARY 2013 UPDATE
New Jersey’s third most populous city, and the only member of the Garden State ranked on this list, Paterson’s violent crime declined modestly during the first six months of 2013 (versus 2012). Declines in murder and aggravated assault were countered by increases in rape (+22.22 percent) and robbery (+4.28 percent) in the first half of the year.

PRELIMINARY 2013 VIOLENT CRIME TRENDS
Data below reflects changes for period January to June 2013 versus same period in 2012.
Total Violent Crime: -2.95%
Murder: -44.44%
Rape: +22.22%
Robbery: +4.28%
Aggravated Assault: -11.21%

CLICK HERE FOR FULL COVERAGE OF PATERSON’S 2012 RANKING

10. Springfield, Mass.

PRELIMINARY 2013 UPDATE
New England’s fourth-largest city, Springfield, Mass., rounds out the list of Top 10 Most Dangerous Cities under 200,000. The western Massachusetts city experienced an increase in violent crime across all relevant categories except for aggravated assault, which decreased by seven percent. Most notably, murder in Springfield was more than 83 percent ahead of the same time period in 2012.

PRELIMINARY 2013 VIOLENT CRIME TRENDS
Data below reflects changes for period January to June 2013 versus same period in 2012.
Total Violent Crime: +6.43%
Murder: +83.33%
Rape: +42.86%*
Robbery: +32.39%
Aggravated Assault: -7.18%

CLICK HERE FOR FULL COVERAGE OF SPRINGFIELD’S 2012 RANKING

Research and analysis by Law Street’s Crime in America Team: Chelsey Goff, Anneliese Mahoney, Ashley Powell, and Kevin Rizzo. 

Sources:

Violent crime, population, murder, and officer statistics are from the FBI Preliminary Semiannual Uniform Crime Report, January – June 2013.

Click here to read more Crime in America coverage.

*The figure shown for the 2013 rape offense was reported using the new definition of rape and is not comparable to previous years’ historical forcible rape data.

Chelsey D. Goff

Chelsey D. Goff was formerly Chief People Officer at Law Street. She is a Granite State Native who holds a Master of Public Policy in Urban Policy from the George Washington University. She’s passionate about social justice issues, politics — especially those in First in the Nation New Hampshire — and all things Bravo. Contact Chelsey at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post New FBI Data for Dangerous Mid-Sized Cities: Crime Drops, Flint Stands Out appeared first on Law Street.

The Federal Bureau of Investigation has changed its mission statement. For years, the primary mission of the agency has been “law enforcement.” However, as of this year, the primary mission is being labeled as “national security.”

This notable departure is both somewhat expected and surprising. It makes sense because national security has been evolving into a more central aspect of the agency since 9/11. But, at the same time, it is a big change from the FBI’s historic roots as a law enforcement agency.

One of the most notable parts of this change was the way in which the FBI did so. They didn’t have any sort of announcement, they just quietly changed the mission statement they released. Foreign Policy asked the FBI for a statement on the change, and they claimed that they were just trying to make their mission reflect the direction in which the agency has been moving in the post 9/11 world. A spokesman from the FBI named Paul Bresson stated, “we rank our top 10 priorities and CT [counterterrorism] is first, counterintel is second, cyber is third. So it is certainly accurate to say our primary function is national security.” This claim is backed up by the FBI’s actions in recent years. Between 2001 and 2009, the number of agents who worked on counterterrorism doubled.

The timing of the change is also interesting–why make this change now, especially if the FBI has been moving towards counterterrorism, counterintelligence, and cyber intelligence work for years now? Kel McClanahan, a national security lawyer, responded to the departure by asking, “what happened in the last year that changed?”. The FBI chose not to comment on that issue.

What the FBI does now is very different from what it did at its inception. The FBI originally and traditionally has worked on domestic issues, such as organized crime, white collar crime, high profile kidnappings and murders. While its responsibilities expanded during World War II and the Cold War to include more counter-espionage, it’s undoubtable that they have expanded into those duties even more since 9/11. This definition seemingly just makes this transition official.

There is some concern about this priority shift though. If more resources are given to counterterrorism and the others alike, resources will obviously taken from those fields on which the FBI has traditionally focused. According to an investigation by the Seattle Post-Intelligencer in 2007, none of the officers that were reassigned after 9/11 were replaced. The effects are tangible–in 2000, about 31,000 cases were filed with federal prosecutors through the FBI. But 5 years later, in 2005, only about 20,000 were filed. In 2000, 10,000 white collar crimes were referred to prosecutors, but in 2005, the number dropped to 3,500. These are substantial changes, and they indicate that less work is being put into those areas.

While national security is obviously incredibly important, other cases are as well. A goal for the FBI should be emphasizing national security, while not losing other avenues of investigation.

[Foreign Policy]

—

Anneliese Mahoney (@AMahoney8672) is Lead Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Jonathan via Flickr]

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post FBI Changes Mission Statement appeared first on Law Street.

Here at Law Street, we’ll be donating a lot of time to the bad guys in the next few days (foreshadowing!).  Today I am going to buck that trend, and extol the virtues of the modern day superheroes: prosecutors.

I’m embarrassed to say that I’m one of the kids who used to watch Law & Order and Perry Mason and think “one day I want to be a lawyer.”  They did all of the quintessential lawyer-like stuff, or so I thought.  I then went to law school and learned that most lawyers never get to do the awesome stuff that I saw on TV.

Cut to summer 2011, and I’m in New York at the first day of my internship with the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York.  I’ve mentioned this before, but I took the job on a whim.  I had no idea what being a prosecutor entailed, but the AUSAs I worked for gave me a baptism by fire.  This baptism was among the best experiences of my three years in law school.

I worked with two of the smartest people that I have ever had the pleasure of meeting.  One AUSA graduated from law school and worked at a top law firm for four years.  He then decided he wanted to become a prosecutor, so took the (often necessary) first step of clerking for a federal judge.  Immediately after starting the clerkship, he began the arduous task of applying to be a U.S. Attorney.  The timing worked out perfectly, and by the time his clerkship ended he was sworn in as an AUSA.  The second AUSA that I assisted had the highest GPA on record at her law school, clerked for a 4^th Circuit Judge and then Justice Scalia (SCALIA!!!!).  The pressure was definitely high; I knew that if I could impress them, then maybe the whole “legal career” was not just wishful thinking.

On my first day, I met AUSAs and was given three memos due by the end of the week.  This task was daunting considering that first year law students have four months to create their first legal memo. The difference with these memos was that they were being used in real trials of real people who faced real loss of their liberty.  That kind of pressure lit a fire under me that a legal writing grade never could, and it was the best type of game time challenge.

The second day, I was the second chair at a hearing in an illegal reentry case in front of a Southern District of New York judge. Big stuff! It was also my first encounter with a heinous example of legal unprofessionalism; a legal aid attorney was in no mood to be cordial or cooperative, and was not going to let a little thing like the law get in the way of representing her (guilty) client.  What did I learn?  The best way to shut opposing counsel down is not by being rude or snarky; it is stopping every argument they make with correct law, strong analysis, and a smile.

I experienced much in those three months working with the USAO-SDNY, and I maintain that it was the coolest job I had while in law school.

It became evident to me that summer why prosecutors are the most likely candidates for judicial appointments.  They gain real experience in the practice of law, in terms of persuasive writing, oral arguments, and jury trials.  They have insane workloads, and still find time to give each case the attention it deserves.

During my second year of law school, Justice Sonia Sotomayor came to my school for a dialogue with the students.  One of the questions presented to her was what she thought of the Supreme Court’s composition of former prosecutors and how that background affects their rulings.

Part of her answer focused on an inherent desire to stop the bad guys, and how that desire colors their interpretation of the law.  With that statement, she solidified what I always knew: prosecutors are wearing capes today, and are a huge cog in the wheel that protects us from criminals.

I work in homeland security now, and we often have to deal directly with prosecutors, judges, and law enforcement to further our goals of public safety.  The scenarios that I have been privy to range from the mundane to the insane, and the federal and local prosecutors are in the thick of the madness.

So as you consider your career trajectory, or why you’re considering law school, think about the lawyers you see on TV and know that it’s a real option for you.  Also, check out our crime blog, with it’s analysis of FBI statistics and crime data.  When you find yourself being terrified by the danger levels of certain cities, just make sure you locate the District Attorney and U.S. Attorney’s offices and send them a fruit basket or something, because they’ve got your back.

Images: [Wikimedia] [Wikimedia] [Wikimedia]

—

Peter Davidson is a recent graduate of law school who rants about news & politics and raves over the ups & downs of FUNemployment in the current legal economy.

Featured image courtesy of [megadem via Flickr]

Peter Davidson II

Peter Davidson is a recent law school graduate who rants about news & politics and raves over the ups & downs of FUNemployment in the current legal economy. Contact Peter at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Prosecutors as Modern Superheroes appeared first on Law Street.

As technological advances make our lives easier, will our laws need to change to keep up with the times? That is the question that tech fans are asking after a run-in between a California woman named Cecelia Abadie and the police. Abadie was wearing one of the newest innovations in tech trends: Google Glass.

The idea behind Google Glass is simple. It’s sort of like a smart phone, but completely hands-free, and it communicates with the wearer through motions and voice commands. While Google Glass currently cannot be worn in lieu of prescription glasses, developers are hoping to add an ability to contain a prescription in coming years. Applications available on Google Glass include video capture and streaming, Google Maps, Gmail, Evernote, and The New York Times, among others. More applications are expected to be released as the technology becomes more mainstream and affordable.

Currently, Google Glass is not fully available the public, but for those in the tech industry, such as testers or developers, an “Explorer Addition” is available for $1,500.

Abadie, 44, from Temecula, California, was driving down a San Diego Highway when she was pulled over for speeding. While writing up her ticket, the officer noticed that she was wearing Google Glass and cited her for distracted driving. California Vehicle Code 27602 states that it is illegal to, “”drive a motor vehicle if a television receiver, a video monitor, or a television or video screen, or any other means of visually displaying a television broadcast or video signal that produces entertainment or business applications is operating and is located in the motor vehicle at a point forward of the back of the driver’s seat, or is operating and the monitor, screen, or display is visible to the driver while driving the motor vehicle.” According to California law, the mandatory minimum fine is $162.

Abadie claims that the glasses were turned off at the time of her arrest. The cop cited her because the monitor was in her view and because Google Glass has a small square in the top right corner that could block a person’s view. After returning home, she posted a photo of the ticket she received to some of her online profiles. Much of the feedback that she received encouraged her to take the ticket to court and fight it. She says she believes that whether or not the ticket gets upheld depends on the judge’s feelings towards technology. She stated, “It’s all in how a judge will interpret it and I suspect their love or hate and understanding of the technology might help or the opposite.”

It seems clear that many of the functions of Google Glass—such as video streaming and web browsing, fall firmly into the category of distracted driving. But there’s also some grey area with Google Glass. Google Glass does contain the potential for navigation software. That type of software, such as a hands-free GPS device, is usually exempted from distracted driving laws. Whether or not Google Glass is ever used for that kind of purpose could change whether or not it is considered distracted driving. However, that raises another important issue: how would officers be able to tell if someone they pull over is using Google Glass for navigation, or for something else?

It’s important to note that Google Glass has presented itself as a program to be used while driving. In the manual, it states that Glass can provide directions, whether “whether you’re on a bike, in a car, taking the subway, or going by foot.” However, the Glass FAQ does also point out that many states have laws preventing the use of such technology while driving. Some states have introduced legislation that specifically prevents the type of technology that Glass uses. West Virginia and Arizona specifically have created amendments that forbid drivers from “using a wearable computer with head mounted display.”

Technology often is ahead of law. I highly doubt that Google Glass will become a norm the way that using a GPS while driving has, but as this new technology develops so quickly, it may become difficult for law enforcement to keep pace. That being said, until Google Glass’s place within driving law becomes regularly accepted, intrepid tech-fans who are trying them out should assume that if they get caught driving while wearing Glass, they will pay the price.

—

Anneliese Mahoney (@AMahoney8672) is Lead Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Ted Eytan via Flickr]

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Google Glasses: a Whole New Level of Distracted Driving appeared first on Law Street.