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.

As Republican Senators prepared to release a version of their new health care legislation on Thursday, a group of protesters gathered outside Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s office. But many of them were eventually physically removed from the scene.

The rally was organized by ADAPT, a national disability rights organization, according to CNN. In their statement, the protesters said that they are “demanding [McConnell] bring an end to attacks on disabled people’s freedom which are expected in the bill.”

So, the majority of protesters were either advocates for those with disabilities or those directly impacted by a handicap, according to USA Today. Instead of calling their protest a “sit-in” they referred to it as a “die-in,” demonstrating their belief that the GOP health care bill would put many Americans in grave danger without dependable health care.

ADAPT’s statement also noted that the protest took place on the 18th anniversary of Olmstead v. L.C. – the Supreme Court decision that recognized disabled people’s right to live in communities rather than institutions.

After President Donald Trump took office and vowed to repeal the Affordable Healthcare Act, the Republicans have been trying to craft their own version of the bill. They faced harsh criticism from both sides of the aisle for their secrecy regarding the bill’s contents before unveiling it on Thursday.

Citizens nationwide were offended by both the process surrounding the creation of the bill and the contents of the bill itself. So, the protesters felt it was incumbent to voice their concerns to one of the most powerful Republicans in Congress.

While the protests remained mostly peaceful, Capitol Police were called in at some point and began to forcefully remove protesters despite their constitutional right to protest the government.

Capitol Police are physically removing protesters who are staging a “die-in” in front of McConnell’s office pic.twitter.com/8BU0dW63VI

— Andrew Desiderio (@desiderioDC) June 22, 2017

The police force ultimately arrested around 20 people, many of whom were either on respirators or confined to wheelchairs, according to the Huffington Post. Custodians also had to be sent to the hallway in order to clean up blood, according to Daily Beast reporter Andrew Desiderio.

The group took particular exception to the proposed cuts to Medicaid. At one point the crowd began chanting: “No cuts to Medicaid, save our liberty!”

“No cuts to Medicaid, save our liberty.” Group chants in front of @SenateMajLdr‘s office. pic.twitter.com/fVJpufMDgC

— Jessica Smith (@JessicaASmith8) June 22, 2017

The health care bill has to be voted on by the Senate and go back to the House, so it will likely be modified. But the violence that these protesters faced at the hands of Capitol Police is upsetting. Instead of having their voices heard, they had their free speech stymied and were physically injured.

Josh Schmidt

Josh Schmidt is an editorial intern and is a native of the Washington D.C Metropolitan area. He is working towards a degree in multi-platform journalism with a minor in history at nearby University of Maryland. Contact Josh at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Protesters Physically Removed from Outside Mitch McConnell’s Office appeared first on Law Street.

Earlier in February, a French police officer was charged with raping a 22-year-old man with no criminal record during a violent arrest at the Aulnay-sous-Bois housing estate, located in the Parisian suburbs. Three other officers were charged with assault during the same arrest and all four officers, who denied the charges, have been suspended. However, the suspension has not satisfied the desire for justice in the banlieues, the suburbs of Paris that are often compared to the ghettos of American cities, areas of primarily low income housing that the far-right National Front have condemned as hotbeds of crime. The rape of the young man arrested in Aulnay-sous-Bois month has sparked mass protests across multiple suburbs.

Protesters clashed with police, and French academics are concerned that these protests may just be the precursor to riots on a greater scale, especially with the presidential elections just two months away. The victim, identified only as Theo, has asked the public to obey the law and not turn to violence, in a statement reminiscent of Rodney King’s “can’t we all get along” comments in 1992.

Conflict between the police and residents of the banlieues is always colored by the legacy of the 2005 riots, which began with the death of two teenagers who were electrocuted while hiding from the police in a power station. Young people took to the streets across multiple cities, burning buildings and cars, fighting police officers and even in ransacking the police station of Aulnay-sous-Bois. An estimated 3,000 people were arrested and a state of emergency was declared for several weeks. Thousands of extra police officers were called to duty and the images of burning neighborhoods were broadcast worldwide, painting the banlieues as almost apocalyptic.

The suburbs contain a diverse mix of incomes and ethnicities but in the past several decades they have become symbols of violence, unrest, and inequality. The Muslim and immigrant populations of the suburbs have frequently been vilified by politicians from across the country, who associate them with both acts of terrorism and petty crime. The revelation that Samy Amimour, one of the shooters in the November 2015 Paris attacks, came from the banlieues, added fuel to the fire.

This culture of fear combined with soaring unemployment rates has increased the isolation of the suburban population. Although the 2005 riots may have made the world sit up and take notice of the banlieues, they did not garner the community respect or sympathy from politicians or the greater French public. The riots only served to increase fear of the suburban population, to the point that any protest, even a justified one, is automatically considered to be a potential riot. The potential for a riot is by no means nonexistent but the fear of the banlieues has reached the point where even peaceful protest is feared. In an era where the far right is steaming ahead as a seemingly unstoppable force, the voices of the banlieues are getting pushed out of the traditional political sphere. When excluded from normal channels, populations have always relied on civil disobedience–but no one seems willing to frame the protests in the banlieues as such because of the pervasive legacy of 2005.

Jillian Sequeira

Jillian Sequeira was a member of the College of William and Mary Class of 2016, with a double major in Government and Italian. When she’s not blogging, she’s photographing graffiti around the world and worshiping at the altar of Elon Musk and all things Tesla. Contact Jillian at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post Will Riots Engulf the Parisian Suburbs Once Again? appeared first on Law Street.

Actor Isaiah Washington called on African Americans to protest the recent deaths of Keith Scott and Terence Crutcher, by skipping work on September 26 in order to show the world that black lives matter.

Washington’s social media campaign began last Tuesday on his Facebook page, and quickly moved to a variety of platforms. The movement gained traction as a trending topic on Twitter the night before; however, it is unclear how many African American plan on participating. Washington posted:

Imagine if every single African American in the United States that was really fed up with being angry, sad and disgusted, would pick ONE DAY to simply ‘stay at home’ from every single job, work site, sports arena and government office in the United States of America. I’m very sure that within 72 hours from Wall Street to the NFL…Black Lives Would Matter. September 26, 2016 is THE DAY.

On Wednesday, the former “Grey’s Anatomy” star followed his initial post by announcing he had teamed up with Madelon “Blue” McCullough from #Missing24–a social media campaign described as “a grassroots movement for our people by our people.”

#Missing24 #ItsTime #CanWeDoIt? #ACallToAction #StayAtHomeSeptember262016 #RIPTerenceCrutcher #HandsUpDontShoot pic.twitter.com/FWiDQKOP3C

— Isaiah Washington (@IWashington) September 23, 2016

“Our goal is to maintain the safety of our people, while significantly impacting America’s broken judicial system that is oppressing us by removing our labor, our bodies and our money from it … for 24 hours,” he wrote.

Washington planned his protest to take place on the day of the first presidential debate. Lester Holt, “NBC Nightly News” anchor and moderator of the first presidential debate released the topics he plans on discussing. The topic “America’s Direction,” should include the heated debate on race in our country and the Black Lives Matter movement.

Fellow African Americans went to Twitter to voice their own opinions by using the designated hashtag. Responses to the campaign varied–users called out Washington for not understanding the consequences of his movement due to his financial status, while other showed support.

Re: Isaiah Washington & other calls for boycotts: We disrespect the cause by not understanding just how much work & strategy goes into them

— Vann R. Newkirk II (@fivefifths) September 26, 2016

So @IWashington who is a millionaire tells you to skip out on work tomorrow… You will be unemployed by Tues. #StayAtHomeSeptember262016

— Misee Harris (@sexiyest) September 25, 2016

Washington posted on Facebook that CNN’s Hazel Pfeifer reached out to him for an interview, but he declined, saying that he doesn’t plan on talking to the media “until the People of America give me a ‘reason’ to.”

The actor encouraged active participants to fill out his survey in order to keep track of the movement.

Bryan White

Bryan is an editorial intern at Law Street Media from Stratford, NJ. He is a sophomore at American University, pursuing a Bachelor’s degree in Broadcast Journalism. When he is not reading up on the news, you can find him curled up with an iced chai and a good book. Contact Bryan at BWhite@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Isaiah Washington Urges All African Americans to Boycott Work For a Day appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

Who In The World Is Evan McMullin?

MT @JoeNBC candidate is Evan McMullin. Wharton grad, CIA alum, Goldman Sachs, Republican Policy Director, US House pic.twitter.com/NYMVepyuIj

— Aaron Mehta (@AaronMehta) August 8, 2016

Never heard of Evan McMullin? No worries, he is, up until recently, a complete nobody. But today he will enter the 2016 race for president. Even though he can’t (and definitely will not) win the presidency he is offering hope to many “Never Trump” and “Never Hillary” voters out there.

In any case, a lot of people are enjoying McMullin’s sudden fame:

|@Evan_McMullin started the day with 135 Twitter followers. He has a few more now.

— Jim Roberts (@nycjim) August 8, 2016

do u think evan had a moment before announcing his run for president where he was….mcmullin it over

— Lady Murderface (@itsa_talia) August 8, 2016

Rant Crush

RantCrush collects the top trending topics in the law and policy world each day just for you.

The post RantCrush Top 5: August 8, 2016 appeared first on Law Street.

In less than 48 hours, two black men were killed in high profile officer-involved shootings. Just after midnight on June 5 in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, several videos captured Alton Sterling as he was shot multiple times by police who were restraining him on the ground–he was selling CDs outside of a grocery store and he was unarmed. Then in Falcon Heights, Minnesota late last night, Philando Castile was shot multiple times during a traffic stop–his girlfriend live-streamed the gruesome aftermath.

The deaths of these men are hardly unique–in fact police have killed at least 1,083 Americans since Ferguson, Missouri catapulted onto the national news. However, thanks to the video footage during and after the incidents, the American public knows their names.

So rather than explain to you again the importance of the #BlackLivesMatter movement, or discuss with you how institutionalized racism is ingrained in American police forces, or even show you the statistics on police shootings of unarmed black men,  I’ve chosen to fall back. Instead I’ve chosen to provide you with a collection of tweets from the public, politicians, athletes, and celebrities expressing outrage over the shootings.

Because as a young light-skinned black woman in today’s society, it doesn’t matter how educated, critical, or eloquent I am, I will always find myself being categorized by some people under the cliche label of “angry black female.” This label allows people to ignore me, dismiss my opinions, and justify their own ignorance.

But guess what, I am angry! Police senselessly killing black men, women, and children makes me angry.

Therefore, today I will rely on the following qualified individuals–who come from different races, genders, religions, and socioeconomic backgrounds–to explain why deaths like these are not acceptable and can not continue to be scapegoated in America, because #BlackLivesMatter.

Politicians and Influencers:

America woke up to yet another tragedy of a life cut down too soon. Black Lives Matter. #PhilandoCastile -H

— Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) July 7, 2016

The violence that killed Alton Sterling and Philando Castile has become an all too common occurrence for people of color and IT. MUST. STOP.

— Bernie Sanders (@BernieSanders) July 7, 2016

The national pattern of lynching black men by ropes or guns must end. We deserve equal protection under the law. #RIP #PhilandoCastile

— Rev Jesse Jackson Sr (@RevJJackson) July 7, 2016

I’m not sure what to say anymore that I’ve not already said, that others haven’t already said. In these moments we must organize.

— deray mckesson (@deray) July 7, 2016

Celebrities:

Couldn’t even sleep last night… First, #AltonSterling and then this video of #PhilandoCastile being brutally killed. This. Must. Stop.

— Justin Timberlake (@jtimberlake) July 7, 2016

This IS systemic. We MUST DO BETTER. My heart goes out to the families of #AltonSterling and #PhilandoCastile May they both Rest In Peace.

— Justin Timberlake (@jtimberlake) July 7, 2016

If all lives matter… SHOW US!!! Prove it! Show us our bodies hold the same value. There is no excuse for the slaughter. None.

— Gabrielle Union (@itsgabrielleu) July 7, 2016

He had a right to sell CDs, and a right to due process, but he he was shot for being a black man. Don’t rationalize murder. #AltonSterling

— olivia wilde (@oliviawilde) July 6, 2016

1) In the interest of time, would ye noble patriots please provide a list of infractions punishable by spontaneous public execution? Thanks!

— jesseWilliams. (@iJesseWilliams) July 6, 2016

2) Upon receipt of this list, we’ll return to our quarters and study up, eager to enjoy freedoms of white mass murders. #LIFEHACK

— jesseWilliams. (@iJesseWilliams) July 6, 2016

3) You chumps will NEVER provide this list… We see through you.

— jesseWilliams. (@iJesseWilliams) July 6, 2016

We should not have to jump through hoops to prove black people shouldn’t be shot by police during routine traffic stops.

— John Legend (@johnlegend) July 7, 2016

We have fucking video proof and some of you still are all “well, uh, he shouldn’t have moved his left leg so provocatively”.

— John Legend (@johnlegend) July 7, 2016

Athletes:

This is what lynchings look like in 2016! Another murder in the streets because the color of a… https://t.co/hwdW53AeXg

— Colin Kaepernick (@Kaepernick7) July 6, 2016

Went to bed and it’s #AltonSterling. Woke up and it’s #PhilandoCastile. I just can’t put a word to how I feel…

— Skylar Diggins (@SkyDigg4) July 7, 2016

Seriously 24 hours later another black man shot and killed dead by another cop! They said the body cameras were steps in the right direction

— Reggie Bush (@ReggieBush) July 7, 2016

The Public:

#PhilandoCastile is shot over a broken tail light but the stanford rapist avoids prison time since it would “have a severe impact on him.”

— Lyla (@LylaRevilla) July 7, 2016

This woman reposted an emotional response to the Philando Castile from the perspective of a black female police officer:

Black female police officer speaks out about the Alton Sterling shooting. She spoke with so much passion!https://t.co/0p6XMvOs5b

— Bronwyn (@BronwynJanse) July 7, 2016

This man translated his feelings into song:

I write my own songs, but never actually do poetry, but I’m fed up !!
#blacKKKLottery #blacklivesmatter pic.twitter.com/uuyAvWQhbN

— Isaiah Jaay (@simpingNpimping) July 7, 2016

One user even had a suggestion for his fellow black males–wear your personal documents taped to your body:

How we’re going to have to start waking around #PhilandoCastile pic.twitter.com/XuE5ocXbAN

— Kayla Baker ✍ (@kayla_bake) July 7, 2016

…

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Twitter Reacts to Philando Castile and Alton Sterling Shootings appeared first on Law Street.

It happened again–a cellphone video circulating on social media shows police shooting a black man at close range, only hours after Independence Day celebrations ebbed. Early Tuesday morning Alton Sterling, 37, was shot and killed when pinned to the ground by two police officers in Baton Rouge, Louisiana.

According to reports from Louisiana police an anonymous person called 911 and said that a man selling CDs outside the grocery store had threatened him with a gun. Police arrived at the scene, tasered Sterling and wrestled him to the ground.

The cellphone video shows how seconds later someone says, “He’s got a gun.” This led the officers to shoot Sterling even though he was already lying on the ground. It was later confirmed he was shot multiple times in the chest and the back, sparking outrage on social media and protests in Baton Rouge.

This is the video.

Executed in cold blood https://t.co/BWJVRQr1qU #AltonSterling

— Anonymous (@YourAnonNews) July 6, 2016

A Man, a Father, a Husband, a Black Man, an American, shot while laying on his back. Tell me why Again? Heaven Help us All #AltonSterling

— LeVelle Moton (@LeVelleMoton) July 6, 2016

According to local media, residents who took to the streets accepted the fact that the same civil unrest and race-focused protests that have grown in other cities have now arrived in Baton Rouge. In Baton Rouge the African-American population is divided from the white, in many cases living in separate neighborhoods and under the poverty line.

Even though protesters stopped traffic and no police officers were in sight, the protests were largely non-violent and controlled.

The #AltonSterling aftermath pic.twitter.com/PPvSuiEtaz

— Avi (@RecklessAvi_) July 6, 2016

Alton Sterling was a father of three and sold his CDs in front of the convenience store. The owner Abdullah Muflahi told CNN that they had known each other for six years and that he never saw any argument between Sterling and someone else. He also never saw the gun-waving incident that allegedly was called in to 911.

“Pretty much everybody who knows him knows he’s a sweet person,” Sterling’s sister, Mignon Chambers, said to WVLA-TV.

Sterling’s family spoke at a press conference about the shooting:

This must stop. Enough!RT @CNN: "I want my daddy": #AltonSterling’s 15-year-old son in tears https://t.co/6PcxaxmfXC https://t.co/pP1CgsU3Mq

— Kristin Diable (@kristindiable) July 6, 2016

The shooting comes a little more than a week after the actor Jesse Williams gave a speech at the BET Awards on racism, and urged listeners to not accept police brutality. According to CNN, the police officers involved in Sterling’s death are now on administrative leave.

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 Police Shooting of Alton Sterling Sparks Protests in Baton Rouge appeared first on Law Street.

ICYMI, the 16th annual BET Awards aired live Sunday night, and it was full of yaaas-worthy performances and epic Prince tributes. Yet, despite the show opening with Beyonce-induced pandemonium and a semi-awkward “Hamilton” spoof courtesy of hosts Tracee Ellis Ross and Anthony Anderson, all anyone can talk about Monday is Jesse Williams and his show-stealing acceptance speech.

The “Grey’s Anatomy” star, who has long been an outspoken human rights advocate and recently was the executive producer of the documentary “Stay Woke: The Black Lives Matter Movement,” took the mic to accept this year’s Humanitarian Award. Shortly after uttering a few gracious name mentions, he capitalized on the opportunity to deliver a powerfully moving speech on racism, police brutality, and cultural appropriation.

At one point, Williams poignantly referenced the deaths of Tamir Rice, Rekia Boyd, Eric Garner, Sandra Bland, and Dorian Hunt–all black people who died during confrontations with the police–saying,

Yesterday would have been young Tamir Rice’s 14th birthday so I don’t want to hear anymore about how far we’ve come when paid public servants can pull a drive-by on 12 year old playing alone in the park in broad daylight, killing him on television and then going home to make a sandwich. Tell Rekia Boyd how it’s so much better than it is to live in 2012 than it is to live in 1612 or 1712. Tell that to Eric Garner. Tell that to Sandra Bland. Tell that to Dorian Hunt.

Williams concluded his speech with thoughts on racial oppression and cultural appropriation, including  a reference to  Billie Holiday’s “Strange Fruit”–a haunting musical metaphor for lynchings.

We’ve been floating this country on credit for centuries, yo, and we’re done watching and waiting while this invention called whiteness uses and abuses us, burying black people out of sight and out of mind while extracting our culture, our dollars, our entertainment like oil – black gold, ghettoizing and demeaning our creations then stealing them, gentrifying our genius and then trying us on like costumes before discarding our bodies like rinds of strange fruit. The thing is though… the thing is that just because we’re magic doesn’t mean we’re not real.

Afterwards, Williams’ words were met with a standing ovation from the audience of distinguished guests and praised by thousands of viewers on Twitter.

Click here for the full transcript of Williams’ speech, courtesy of Time.

Watch Jesse William’s full speech below.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Jesse Williams Delivers Powerful Speech on Race at BET Awards appeared first on Law Street.

On October 24, the RiseUpOctober group held a three-day rally in New York to protest police brutality. The biggest story of the rally was Quentin Tarantino’s attendance and the director’s fiery remarks. He has since received incredible backlash for his comments, from pundits as well as some police unions. But the twisting of his words and generally poor coverage of the rally highlights the media’s chronic inability to cover groups and events that try to bring attention to the issue of police brutality.

In a three-day rally against police brutality, the media decided to only focus on Tarantino’s comments, as opposed to the families of unarmed individuals killed by police officers. When given a chance to speak, Tarantino addressed the crowd by saying “I am a human being with a conscience, and when I see murder I cannot stand by, and I have to call the murdered the murdered, and the murderers the murderers.” A number of people expressed disapproval with Tarantino’s remarks and criticized him. Pundits, as well as his own father, went as far as to call his comments “dead wrong.” They criticized him for denigrating police officers and many people misquoted him as calling all police officers murderers, even though he was referring to the specific instances of killings of unarmed citizens that the rally was focused on.

Recently Jim Pasco, the director of the national Fraternal Order of Police, warned that the union has a “surprise” in store for Tarantino, a veiled threat that follows the Pasco’s plea for police officers to boycott Tarantino’s next film. While he does not represent the viewpoint of all police officers, it is unfortunate that someone so influential has decided to escalate this issue, instead of taking the value of the entire rally to heart. Granted, Tarantino’s comments were certainly inflammatory and it is totally fair for people, especially police officers and their relatives, to be unhappy. Still, this does not make what Tarantino said any less valid. It is important that we as a nation remain open to critically analyzing all of our social institutions to ensure that they are operating as best as they can. By making it taboo to criticize law enforcement, we keep one of the most important foundations of our society from being the best it can be.

The rhetoric surrounding Tarantino’s comments is not new; rather, the false dichotomy between protesting police brutality and respecting police officers is constantly present in the media. Critics of the BlackLivesMatter movement, and other attempts to address police brutality often equate criticizing excessive police force with hating police officers. Some blame these protests for the recent spike in crime in some major cities–often called the “Ferguson Effect.” Proponents argue that this increase in crime can be traced to changes in police tactics due to a fear of excessive force. Even if this were true, this logic is faulty. Firstly, these movements are not directly responsible for the changes that have occurred in police tactics. Secondly, even if there appears to be an overcompensating response, this does not invalidate these movements. It is important that police brutality be addressed and prior to the activities of such groups, this issue was largely ignored.

Finally, one of the biggest issues with the coverage of the BlackLivesMatter movement is the assumption that it is a single-minded movement. The actions of anyone who associates with the group are taken as a representation of all the members. In reality, like any social movement in history, individuals have different ideas, tactics, and goals, even if they associate with the same movement. Unfortunately, pundits will change the subject to black-on-black violence, and accuse the movement of promoting violence instead of dealing with the actual issue of police brutality. Like so many issues nowadays, police brutality is poorly handled by the media, which leads to a polarized and sometimes uninformed public and prevents the issue from being addressed. This failure in media is disheartening and it is the same reason why Quentin Tarantino has received undeserved backlash for his comments.

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 Quentin Tarantino Takes on Police Brutality appeared first on Law Street.

It’s been just over a year since the shooting death of Michael Brown in Ferguson, MO, but the United States is still reeling from the revelations about police brutality and the issues in our criminal justice system. One of the most controversial aspects of Brown’s case involved the choice of the local grand jury not to indict the police officer who shot him, Officer Darren Wilson. The aftermath of that non-indictment, among others, sparked a new law in California that was just signed by Governor Jerry Brown. Under the law, grand juries will no longer be used to investigate the deaths of people allegedly killed by police officers.

Although processes differ from state to state, as well as on the federal level, traditionally there are two different ways that suspects can be indicted. In California, either a prosecutor can files charges and then bring the case before a judge in a preliminary hearing, or they can present evidence and seek an indictment from a supposedly unbiased grand jury. The new law, which will go into effect next year, eliminates the latter option.

The reason that California is eliminating the use of grand juries in police-involved deaths comes directly from concerns about transparency that are inherent in the grand jury system. The process usually just involves a group of private citizens receiving evidence from a prosecutor, without a judge or defense attorney present. The prosecutor essentially controls the flow of evidence–yet it’s the grand jury’s decision whether or not to indict. So, if a grand jury fails to do so, the ire falls on them, not the prosecutor. While this is supposed to protect witnesses and keep the presumption of innocence, critics of the process believe it favors the police and allows the prosecutors to avoid responsibility for their actions.

Under the new California law, however, the decision will be made by the prosecutor–and the hope is that they conduct fair and unbiased investigations and file charges if they’re needed. The move is supposed to foster transparency and accountability.

California state Senator Holly J. Mitchell, who wrote the bill, stated:

The use of the criminal grand jury process, and the refusal to indict as occurred in Ferguson and other communities of color, has fostered an atmosphere of suspicion that threatens to compromise our justice system.

However, not everyone is as optimistic that the change will help make sure that officers who do use force inappropriately are held accountable. In fact, another state, New Jersey, has taken literally the opposite approach to ensure that proper oversight is given to police-involved deaths. New Jersey has mandated that civilian grand juries be used in those cases, and created some guidelines and parameters for that use in order to ensure that cases are presented uniformly.

It is very clear that there are certain aspects of our justice system that warrant a re-examination; police-involved killings certainly make the list. While California’s move away from grand juries could end up leading to more transparency, more change may still be needed to make sure that the prosecutors on whom the burden now falls are subject to fair oversight. It’s a step in the right direction, but let’s just hope it’s a big enough step.

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 California Bans Grand Juries in Police-Involved Deaths: Will it Be Enough? appeared first on Law Street.

Zachary Hammond, 19, was on a date on July 26 when he was fatally shot twice by a police officer during a drug bust in South Carolina.

Hammond was driving his car when police attempted to make a stop. The undercover officers staged a drug bust with Hammond’s 23-year-old date, Tori Morton, who had ten grams of weed on her person ready to sell. During the encounter, Morton was arrested and charged with possession, and Hammond was shot twice, in the shoulder and in the torso. The police officer who shot him claimed it was in self defense. He claimed Hammond was driving toward him with his vehicle when he fired the two shots.

However, the autopsy report seems to clearly disprove the police officer’s claim of self defense. The family’s attorney, Eric Bland, stated,

The shots were so close in proximity to each other that it would be physically impossible unless the car was stopped and the officer came up very close to an open window.

Hammond’s death has prompted numerous questions, few answers, and, surprisingly, no national outrage. Hammond’s family wants to know why there hasn’t been much coverage, and looked to the so-called #AllLivesMatter advocates for answers. Bland told The Washington Post this week:

It’s sad, but I think the reason is, unfortunately, the media and our government officials have treated the death of an unarmed white teenager differently than they would have if this were a death of an unarmed black teen. The hypocrisy that has been shown toward this is really disconcerting…The issue should never be what is the color of the victim. The issue should be: Why was an unarmed teen gunned down in a situation where deadly force was not even justified?”

While it is extremely unfortunate what happened to Zachary Hammond, the reason there are no advocates responding in outrage to Hammond’s death is because the #AllLivesMatter movement does not really exist. Instead, the #AllLivesMatter movement serves as a detraction from the acknowledgement of black lives being targeted by the police. That is not to say those who advocate for “all lives matter” do not care about Hammond’s death, but there is no reaction because the movement does not really exist. As a result, the response from the #BlackLivesMatter movement has been in many ways focused on pointing out the lack of attention from #AllLivesMatter.

Hammond’s death however, does raise continued questions about the way police officers respond to what they classify as “dangerous situations.” What does this say about the way police officers have been trained? In the situations where their responses have resulted in the loss of black lives, it was very easy to assume their motives–usually proven through series of incidents with police officers who have histories of racist behavior, recordings that show intentions, and many deaths that often seemed staged or unclear. But in this specific case, the motive for killing Hammond is not clear at all. Police officers are now being faced with even more questions in regard to how they effectively execute their jobs. Now that these white parents are asking the questions, maybe everyone will get the answers they deserve.

Angel Idowu

Angel Idowu is a member of the Beloit College Class of 2016 and was a Law Street Media Fellow for the Summer of 2015. Contact Angel at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Unarmed White Teen Fatally Shot by Police Officer: Do #AllLivesMatter? appeared first on Law Street.

Sandra Bland was found dead in a Texas jail cell from what authorities believe was suicide. But friends and family of the victim are outraged, and claim that she had no reason to take her own life. The entire story of her arrest and subsequent death raise a lot of questions about her treatment in the justice system.

“I do suspect foul play,” a friend, Cheryl Nanton, told ABC 7. “I believe that we are all 100 percent in belief that she did not do harm to herself.” Bland, 28, had just landed her dream job, when she was arrested for allegedly assaulting an officer, police said.

On June 29, Bland drove down to Texas from Illinois to begin a new job with her alma mater, Prairie View A&M. On July 10, police stopped Bland just outside of the school’s campus for failing to signal while changing lanes. Police officers claim that during this stop, Bland became combative, and was thrown to the ground, arrested, and charged with “assault on a public servant.”

But, the recently released video from the policeman’s dashboard camera show that the stop that led to her arrest was anything but routine.

While Bland is being combative in the above video, she had plenty of reason to be. The situation escalated rapidly–but her questioning of the police officer was valid. In these situations, people sometimes say the best thing to do is be polite and respectful to police officers so they have no reason to accuse you of anything, but that shouldn’t preclude someone who is pulled over from asking questions about the reason why. This was not a routine traffic stop, and that is very clear. He was extremely forceful with Bland, to the point where you can hear her wincing at the pain he is causing her. The video below captures their interaction after he removed her from the car and it doesn’t seem to get better.

“After he pulled her out of the car, forced her and tossed her to the ground, knee to the neck, and arrested her,” says her friend Malcom Jackson.

In the second video, Bland is heard saying, “You just slammed my head into the ground. Do you not even care about that? I can’t even hear!” Then, as she is taken into custody, she repeats, “You slammed me into the ground and everything.”

Reports claim that jailers saw Bland at 7 AM Monday when they gave her breakfast, and again at 8 AM when they spoke to her over the jail’s intercom about making a phone call. She was found in her cell one hour later. Waller County Sheriff’s Office Captain of Patrol Brian Cantrell claimed that Bland strangled herself with a jail cell trash bag. CPR was reportedly done immediately, but she was pronounced dead shortly after.

Waller County Sheriff Glenn Smith, who made the first public announcement about Bland’s death, was suspended for documented cases of racism when he was chief of police in Hempstead, Texas in 2007. After serving his suspension, more complaints of racism came in, and he was fired from this position shortly after. Smith made his way to Waller County, where he was then elected as sheriff of Waller county. While this connection to her death is not certain, there are questions about the role that her race could have played in the incident. 

Bland’s family held a news conference last Thursday afternoon in the Chicago Loop, but no details have been released. They are firm in their belief that foul play is suspected, and looking for answers. “She was planning for the future, and she came here to start for that future, so to say that she killed herself is totally absurd,” said her friend Lavaghn Mosley. 

But her friends and family are not the only ones who suspect something is amiss. With the popular hashtag #WhatHappenedtoSandraBland trending on Twitter, there are several people wondering what happened to Sandra Bland in that jail cell.

Reporters are working around the clock tonight to find out if Sandra Bland's babysitter's boyfriend's cousin ever broke a law. #SandraBland

— JRehling (@JRehling) July 16, 2015

Dear white people, any of you EVER been pulled over for a lane change? Did you end up dead? #SandraBland #WhatHappenedToSandraBland

— Jessica Fish (@Fishica) July 16, 2015

Don't tell me that #SandraBland could be my sister, friend, mother. It is enough that she was a human being! #WhatHappenedToSandraBland

— Ntombizikhona (@valavoosh) July 16, 2015

You stay. You run. You submit. You resist. It doesn't matter. They will kill you anyway. Your skin is black. #SandraBland #BlackLivesMatter

— Amarlie (@marabout40) July 16, 2015

These questions make a lot of sense, and Bland’s story does fit into the continued narrative of #BlackLivesMatter, because it highlights the way that our society continues to treat Black lives as lesser than others. What needs to happen to ensure that all of our citizens are safe when in the hands of the justice system? After all, it didn’t matter how loud Bland screamed, because she still wasn’t being heard.

Angel Idowu

Angel Idowu is a member of the Beloit College Class of 2016 and was a Law Street Media Fellow for the Summer of 2015. Contact Angel at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Death of Sandra Bland: More Questions Than Answers appeared first on Law Street.

Najee Harmon is a 20-year-old man, and the primary suspect in the shooting of a Wauwatosa, WI detective on June 19. He’s been charged with three counts of attempted first degree intentional homicide and one count of felony possession of a firearm. After investigating a recent burglary, officers were on foot observing reported stolen vehicles, when Harmon fired several shots at Detective Jeffrey Griffin, injuring the officer. A manhunt took place for 24 hours, and he was finally found hiding in the basement of a long-time friend, Stephanie King.

But what struck me was what happened when King was interviewed; her comments raise a lot of questions about the “us vs. them” mentality that has begun to take hold between Black communities and the police.

While the focus from the media was on Harmon’s violent acts, King defended him saying, “To me he ain’t do no wrong, he just shot a cop. Everyone comes around when they shoot the cop. But when the cops shoot people, do they come around?”

While it’s never ok to shoot someone–particularly an innocent someone, what frustrates me so much about this interview is that she is partially right. Given recent events involving instances of police brutality many Black people are afraid for their lives. Recent events have proven that you can be the best looking, speaking, well-mannered, and respectful Black person and still be killed for the color of your skin. So, King’s logic makes some sense, although it certainly doesn’t make Harmon’s actions right. But you can’t fully blame her for this logic–this is what the newest frontier in the race war has come to look like in the United States. 

The tension between minority communities and the police is neither a small nor a dying issue. #BlackLivesMatter protests across the country have called for reforms and increased accountability surrounding police shootings and a reduction in the use of military equipment by local police departments.

“The system of policing has earned our mistrust,” said Opal Tometi, a New York-based activist and co-founder of the #BlackLivesMatter campaign.

It seems like every day you turn on the news and hear a story of yet another Black male who has died at the gun of a White police officer. There are tensions between communities and police officers, particularly when stories of corrupt police officers stealing drugs or money abound. Stigmas develop as these stories are passed throughout communities. This anger has built up to an all-time high. Black Americans are frustrated, sick of being mistreated, and it has gotten to the point where they believe the only solution is to take matters into their own hands. Black communities often feel like the people who are supposed to protect them are becoming those who victimize them instead. 

There are some understandable explanations for this. Police officers do not always understand the communities they are patrolling. Sometimes they enter these communities, and don’t know what they’re dealing with or how community members are feeling. There are many factors that can contribute to problems with the police, but this is a common problem with police officers in minority communities. This does not, of course, excuse genuine wrong they’ve done, but can be a starting point for a discussion about the issues they face as officers of the law.

On the other hand, in the defense of the police officers, their jobs require them to risk their lives regularly. In interviews with media outlets, officers often speak of being afraid during particular incidents and discharging their weapons because they feel it’s the best way to protect themselves. Granted, there are police officers who lie about this to cover something they’ve done, but  fear can certainly affect how a police officer does his job. It’s easy to forget that our police officers may genuinely be scared in some instances–after all we don’t want to picture our protectors fearful. But they’re certainly not perfect–just like the rest of us experience personal problems and pressures outside their jobs, they do too.

Arguably the biggest issue between minority communities and police officers is a lack of respect. Minority communities do not respect police officers, and because police officers know there is disrespect, they have the potential to act out of anger and frustration. So how can we improve this growing issue? One way is to advocate and speak up. For example, Black Lives Matter has given national attention to the growing mistreatment African-Americans face. People usually turn the other cheek because it’s not their problem, but this really is a problem for all of us. 

There is some potential for improvement–by investing in solutions like community policing, we can hope to build that mutual respect. Through partnerships with community organizations, community members can feel heard, respected, and empowered to help police control crime in their neighborhoods. Developing these relationships, while not a complete solution, is certainly a step in the right direction, and may break the us vs. them narrative. Harmon’s actions and King’s statements are just one example of the compelling need to fix this horrible division in American society. 

Angel Idowu

Angel Idowu is a member of the Beloit College Class of 2016 and was a Law Street Media Fellow for the Summer of 2015. Contact Angel at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post An Us Vs. Them Mentality Won’t Fix the Problem of Police Brutality appeared first on Law Street.

Within the past few years there has been an enormous amount of shocking incidents involving police brutality. Even with protests nationwide it seems that nothing has been done to stop this issue. Now, people are angry yet again over another incident involving the ridiculous actions of a police officer. The video aftermath of a pool party in McKinney, Texas has gone viral, and infuriated many who have seen it.

On Friday, June 5, a group of Texas teens gathered together at Craig Ranch North Community Pool. Craig Ranch’s strict homeowners’ association rules prohibit bringing more than two guests to the pool. But the invite to the pool party spread around Twitter, leading to many other guests. According to bystanders, when a crowd of teenagers showed up, stood by the gate, and yelled to be let in, things got out of control. Kids began to jump over the fence as a security guard tried to get them to leave. The security guard was outnumbered, and called the police. The authorities were told there was a “a disturbance involving multiple juveniles at the location, who do not live in the area or have permission to be there, refusing to leave.” There were also numerous calls to the police reporting fights as well.

But Tatiana Rhodes, the 19-year-old girl who hosted the pool party, shared a different side of the story. Tatiana said that she and some friends had organized the party and were enjoying it when a conflict with a white neighbor broke out. Rhodes told E. Johnson IV, a photographer who recorded the conversation and uploaded it online:

This lady was saying racial slurs to some friends that came to the cookout. She was saying such things as ‘black effer’ and ‘that’s why you live in Section 8 homes.’

According to Rhodes, who is black, a white neighbor approached her and smacked her in the face.“That’s when both of the women attacked me,” the teen said.

However, what really sparked national outrage was a video taken by Brandon Brooks and posted on Twitter. In an email to NBC News Brooks stated:

When I started the video was right after all the kids who got put on the ground had gotten up and ran away. The cop was chasing after all those kids just putting every black person he saw on the ground.

Here’s the video, but keep in mind, it is NSFW due to language and violence:

The video went viral, leaving people truly disgusted at the actions of the police. One of the officers, later identified as Eric Casebolt, was recorded forcefully pinning an unarmed 14 year-old-girl in a bikini to the ground and handcuffing her. In the video Casebolt can even be seen pulling the girl’s hair and pushing her face toward the ground. The officer also drew his gun and pointed it at several unarmed teens in the area as well. Casebolt, a Navy veteran with 10 years on the McKinney force, has been place on administrative leave after the video surfaced. Police Chief Greg Conley stated:

Our initial reaction was to place the officer on administrative leave until we can conduct a complete and thorough investigation of the incident….The McKinney Police Department is committed to treating all persons fairly under the law. We are committed to preserving the peace and safety of our community for all of our citizens.

The girl who was tackled by Casebolt was detained and released. “Ultimately, everyone was freed. Other than the person who was arrested, everyone was released to a parent or guardian or to a responsible adult,” Conley said. McKinney police had to call in extra dispatchers to handle incoming phone calls, many asking for Casebolt to be fired. Mayor of McKinney, Texas, Brian Loughmiller, described feeling “disturbed and concerned” over this incident. Overall, the incident left many people with one question: how threatened could an experienced police officer feel by an unarmed 14 year-old-girl?

Spoke with my family about #McKinney. My dad’s response: “If you are that afraid of a bunch of teens in bikinis, you shouldn’t be a cop.”

— Russell Drew (@RussOnPolitics) June 8, 2015

Who can we call when the police are the ones threatening our safety? Police once made citizens feel safe and secure but many now feel even more threatened when the police are present. This video leaves parents angered and frightened for their children’s safety, as well as teens who could become an officer’s next target. With situations like these becoming more and more common, one can only hope that justice will begin to be served.

Taelor Bentley

Taelor is a member of the Hampton University Class of 2017 and was a Law Street Media Fellow for the Summer of 2015. Contact Taelor at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Police Brutality in McKinney, Texas? Video of Officer Goes Viral 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.

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.

Mayor of London Boris Johnson just announced that by the end of March 2016, the majority of Metropolitan Police officers will be supplied with 20,000 body cameras in an effort to help officers gather evidence to fight crime and boost public confidence. Metropolitan Police Commissioner Bernard Hogan-Howe said, “For too long our equipment has lagged behind the technology almost everyone has in their pockets to capture events as they unfold.” But while this now-international trend toward implementing body cams can help to uphold the law in theory, there are still concerns about whether this technology can really do its job in practice.

Mayor Boris Johnson confirms plans to roll out 20,000 police body cameras across the Met: https://t.co/JTlW1tKUpj pic.twitter.com/2W32Hznv4K

— MOPAC (@MOPACLdn) June 3, 2015

This development will make London the most body camera heavy city in the world, further advancing Britain’s status as one of the most surveilled states. The British Security Industry Authority (BSIA) estimates that there are up to 5.9 million closed-circuit television cameras in the country, or one camera for every eleven people in the United Kingdom.

For the past year, police officers in London have undergone trials of the body cameras and have reported positive results. The trial has allowed officers to generate about 6,000 video clips per month, which are uploaded daily and referenced when the footage is considered necessary for evidence. These trials, set to end later this summer, suggest that the implementation of body cameras can increase the number of guilty pleas and reduce complaints, speeding up the justice system. London police have come under scrutiny for controversial stop-and-search laws, which disproportionately target minority groups. London officials hope that body cameras will help to improve public trust and increase officer accountability in these scenarios.

While body cameras may be useful for monitoring daily operations of police officers, some civil rights groups are concerned that the technology will prove to be an intrusive surveillance tool that can be easily exploited. There is also concern about who has access to the footage and if it will be publicly accessible. The Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime has plans to lead a citywide public engagement training to explain how the cameras work and when Londoners might encounter them. The London Policing Ethics Panel intends to produce the United Kingdom’s first report regarding the ethics of officers’ use of the cameras, which will be published in the fall.

Cities across the United States are also providing their officers with cameras. The company Taser, a maker of body cams, reported a 50 percent increase in sales in the first three months of 2015. While continued proliferation of body cameras seems forthcoming, critiques of the cameras’ use are also widespread. Most footage caught on camera is not considered public record, which has proved problematic–police departments can easily erase destructive footage. In some cases, officers forget to turn on their body or dashboard cameras, since neither device is constantly recording, but needs to be manually switched on. Some police officers’ cameras have conveniently malfunctioned at the time of an encounter, leaving victims of police brutality without evidence of their claims. Had the Ferguson, Missouri police department mandated the use of police officer body cameras or used dashboard cameras in patrol cars, the mystery surrounding what truly happened leading up to and during the fatal Michael Brown shooting of 2014 would have been absolved.

Necessary changes must be made to officer accountability in the wake of years of unrest. London is taking a huge step forward in what may become a revolution in police liability and encouraging a positive shift in public discourse about law enforcement. Video clips should be accessible by the public. Police officers should be held individually accountable for the use of their cameras, by disciplining those who routinely forget to turn on their body cams. Police departments, prosecutors, and every other chain of command throughout the justice system should work toward preserving footage to protect the rights of the abused, even if—and especially when—police officers are in the wrong. While implementation of body cameras is the first move going forward–and London should be applauded for its efforts–effective, ethical execution of their use is the most important step.

Emily Dalgo

Emily Dalgo is a member of the American University Class of 2017 and a Law Street Media Fellow during the Summer of 2015. Contact Emily at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post London Moves Forward with Police Body Cams: Will the U.S. Follow? 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.

Mental illness is something that the American justice system has been dealing with for decades; particularly how to handle suspects suffering from it, how to determine who is mentally ill, and what are the best practices for apprehending, sentencing, and holding those people.

Mental illnesses are defined medically as “disorders that affect your mood, thinking, and behavior. Examples of mental illness include depression, anxiety disorders, schizophrenia, eating disorders, and addictive behaviors.” There’s no easy way to define a mental illness, and certain diseases don’t affect everyone in the same ways. That ambiguity is where many problems stem from–how should police deal with those who have mental illnesses?

Accusations of Police Brutality Against the Mentally Ill

The United Nations

The United States had to stand before the United Nations in Geneva last week to defend its human rights record. While this is a routine endeavor, it is still something that reflects badly upon the country and its leaders. There were a lot of topics to cover, but the most prevalent was police brutality. A staggering 120 countries were there to offer recommendations, making it one of the best-attended hearings in the history of the UN, and each country was given 65 seconds to speak. Countries from every corner of the globe stressed that police brutality and discrimination has to end. One of the main things that the discussions centered upon was the way that police officers treat mentally ill suspects.

Human Rights Watch Report

That wasn’t the end of the criticism over the way that the United States treats people with mental illnesses in the justice system. Also last week, Human Rights Watch produced a report that chronicled the daily lives of mentally ill inmates in America’s prisons, showing that the issues in the justice system extend far beyond police brutality. The report, coming in at a staggering 127 pages, is packed with stories of neglect, abuse, improper medical care, corporal punishment, and unnecessary solitary confinement.

Some of the stories reported were particularly troubling. There is one incident about a man with schizophrenia who lunged for a police officer. As punishment, they strapped him to a chair, put a mask over his face, and sprayed pepper spray directly into his face under the mask. There are stories of many inmates who were found dead or unconscious laying in pools of their own urine, vomit, blood, and feces.

One of the most harrowing stories is what happened to 50-year-old Darren Rainey, who, according to the report, had a “diagnosis of schizophrenia, [and] was housed in the inpatient mental health unit at Florida’s Dade Correctional Institution while serving two years on a cocaine charge.” His mental health caused him, at times, to smear feces on himself. The correctional officers would then have to transport him to the showers and help him clean up. The report alleges that the officers took Rainey to a broken shower that could be turned to scalding. He could not control the water nor leave the shower as the police closed the door. He stayed in the scalding shower for nearly two hours. When the police finally opened the door, they found him unresponsive and without a pulse. When they moved him, it was discovered that “he had burns over 90 percent of his body, and his skin was hot/warm to the touch and slipped off when touched.” There has not yet been a medical report on his death and the police investigation is ongoing.

The Treatment Advocacy Center estimates that there are about 360,000 prisoners in 5,100 American jails and prisons with serious mental illnesses–particularly schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, and severe depression. That statistic has caused many people to wonder what exactly are the “rules” that the police have to follow when dealing with the mentally ill?

Should the mentally ill even be incarcerated?

There have been many discussions about exactly what rights a person with a mental illness has when he is arrested. Of course, there should be differences depending on the type and severity of the mental illness. But as a general rule, most protocols haven’t been broken up that way–instead, there are blanket policies for everyone, and they often deal more with procedures that need to be followed after the arrest. There are many allegations that the police act too harshly when dealing with suspects who have mental illnesses.

Some states have taken their own unique approaches. California, for example, has thoroughly questioned whether or not the Americans with Disabilities Act protects mentally ill suspects from being arrested and brought into the traditional justice system. That notion stems from a situation where a mentally ill woman, Theresa Sheehan, was shot five times after she waved a knife at police officers–police officers who knew she was mentally ill, as she had a history of mental breaks and was in a halfway house. The case was recently investigated by the United States Supreme Court.

In light of that case, Ron Honberg, Director of Policy and Legal Affairs at the National Alliance for Mental Illness (NAMI), said that law enforcement officers “have become first responders to people in psychiatric crisis,” but that “oftentimes, their traditional academy training doesn’t really teach police how to respond to such crisis.”

The Supreme Court found that the police were “immune” in the Sheehan case, stating:

A federal district court sided with the police, ruling that it would be unreasonable to ask officers trying to detain a violent, mentally disabled person to comply with the ADA before protecting themselves and others. But the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said a jury should decide whether it was reasonable for the officers to use less confrontational tactics.

Testing and Treatment

So what are the policies once someone who may have a mental illness is actually arrested? If the police arrest someone whom they suspect is mentally ill, they are supposed to have them checked out by a mental health professional, which will typically result in a 24-to-72-hour stay in a mental health facility.

Family members of the mentally ill person can also ask for a police transport to the hospital if that was not an option during the arrest. This is sometimes called a “5150 hold.”

Certain states have stipulations against arrests of the mentally ill. A New York State guide for lawyers explains:

Under Criminal Procedure Law section 730, a judge who has reason to believe that a criminal defendant may be ‘incapacitated’ must order that the defendant undergo a psychiatric examination. ‘Incapacitated’ in this context means that because of mental disease or defect, the defendant is unable to understand the proceedings against him or assist in his own defense. A ‘730 exam,’ as such exams are referred to, can be requested by a defense attorney or an assistant district attorney, or may be ordered upon the judge’s own initiative.

Other states have similar stipulations. Denver has seen 11 deaths in 2015 after police have been called to the site of a mental breakdown–including one where a veteran was wielding scissors. The state is looking at its training and laws, but also considering on-site questions and tests.

The Supreme Court of Michigan recently ruled in a case against police that they used force against a mentally ill inmate:

That the evidence provided by plaintiff, indicating that the police were inadequately trained in dealing with the mentally ill and using impact projectiles, is sufficient to survive summary judgment. Plaintiff’s expert, retired Captain Van Blaircom, who is former chief of police for the City of Bellevue, Washington, testified that the Defendant officers should have known that the manner in which they approached the decedent would escalate the confrontation. According to Van Blaircom, the officer’s treatment of the situation, combined with their statements that a mentally ill person should be treated as any other person, regardless of the situation, indicates that the police department’s training dealing with the mentally ill falls well below the reasonable standard of contemporary care.

Conclusion

Overall, there seems to be some movement toward reform for police brutality against the mentally ill, but there is still a lot of ground to be covered, and covered quickly before anyone else dies. Procedures need to be enacted to ensure that officers deal fairly and effectively with suspects who are dealing with a mental illness. It is only through developing those policies that we can ensure all Americans are treated humanely.

Resources

ABC News: High Court: Police Immune Over Arrest of Mentally Ill Woman

Human Rights Watch: Callous and Cruel

Guardian: Police Shooting of Mentally Ill Woman Reaches US Supreme Court

Mayo Clinic: Mental Illness

Public Agency Training Council: Dealing With the Mentally Ill and Emotionally Disturbed in the Use of Force Context

Urban Institute: The Processing and Treatment of Mentally Ill Persons in the Criminal Justice System

Urban Justice Center’s Mental Health Project: How to Help

Aljazeera America: US Cited for Police Violence, Racism in Scathing UN Review on Human Rights

Coloradoan: Supreme Court to Rule on Arrests of Mentally Ill

Mother Jones: There Are Ten Times More Mentally Ill People Behind Bars Than in State Hospitals

National Alliance on Mental Illness: A Guide to Mental Illness and the Criminal Justice System

National Institute of Corrections: Mental Illness in Corrections

Schizophrenia: How to Help a Mentally Ill Family Member Who Has Been Arrested

Treatment Advocacy Center: More Mentally Ill Persons Are in Jails and Prisons Than Hospitals: A Survey of the States

LA Times: L.A. Police Accused of Excessive Force in Arrest of Mentally Ill Man

Mental Illness Policy Org: Criminalization of Individuals with Severe Psychiatric Disorders

Noel Diem

Law Street contributor Noel Diem is an editor and aspiring author based in Reading, Pennsylvania. She is an alum of Albright College where she studied English and Secondary Education. In her spare time she enjoys traveling, theater, fashion, and literature. Contact Noel at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Police Brutality and the Mentally Ill in America appeared first on Law Street.

After the death of Freddie Gray in Baltimore and several other high profile deaths at the hands of the police, people may ask whether an increasing trend is starting to emerge. Although it is nearly impossible to say for sure, most evidence suggests that police-involved shootings are not really increasing. Instead, these cases have started to garner much more attention among the media and the public.

The deaths of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri, Eric Gardner in New York, Tamir Rice in Cleveland, Walter Scott in South Carolina, and now Freddie Gray in Baltimore are among a long list of recent deaths that have garnered a substantial amount of public discussion. There are several different explanations for this, notably the availability of video for these incidents and the growing sensitivity to police misconduct among the American public.

In a recent article, CNN interviewed executives at black newspapers who have been covering police shootings of black men for a long time. Tracey Williams Dillard, a publisher of the Minnesota Spokesman-Record told CNN, “It not only feels like there’s more coverage, there is more coverage. … It’s not a perception, it’s definitely real.”

Criminal justice advocates have long decried police officers’ disproportionate use of force against black men, but until recently such instances rarely received national attention. The growing availability of video recordings of police encounters has helped promote the importance of this issue in the public’s consciousness. This is particularly true in the case of Walter Scott, where in the absence of video evidence, media coverage could have been taken in a dramatically different direction. Instead of self defense as officer Slager and the attorney general stated, a video that came out after the fact revealed the murder of a defenseless man attempting to run away from a police officer.

One snapshot of the amount of public attention paid to these incidents can be found in Google search trends. The chart below illustrates the usage of the search term “police shootings” over time. While that is not a definitive example of the public’s interest, it does indicate that since last August police shootings have received more attention than usual.

What does the data say?

It’s clear that police misconduct and the use of force has become a hot button issue in the media and among the public, but do we really know police shootings haven’t increased? Unfortunately, there is no way to know for sure. Typically to answer questions about law enforcement and crime we rely on the wide range of available criminal justice data sources; however, there is a glaring lack of information when it comes to officer-involved deaths.

The FBI collects and publishes a wide range of crime and criminal justice statistics in its annual Crime in the United States publication. While these statistics are far from perfect, they are an extremely important measure of crime in America. Unfortunately, the FBI does not have an overall count of people who are killed by police officers. The only available data details the number of justifiable homicides, which involves “the killing of a felon by a law enforcement officer in the line of duty.” This count does not include unlawful killings by police officers. For example, Michael Slager, the officer who shot Walter Scott, now faces murder charges. If he is convicted, Scott’s death would not be considered a justifiable homicide and as a result would not be counted in the FBI’s statistics.

A Wall Street Journal review of the Supplementary Homicide Report from the FBI found that the voluntary nature of submitting data has created significant holes, concluding that there are “hundreds of homicides by law-enforcement agencies between 2007 and 2012 that aren’t included in records kept by the Federal Bureau of Investigation.” A recent Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) report also cast doubt on the accuracy of various homicide measures. The BJS review found that the FBI’s Supplementary Homicide Report captured only 46 percent of police killings and the BJS’s Arrest Related Death Program captured only 49 percent. Even after combining these two measures, an estimated 28 percent of police homicides were not counted in 2011.

Congress passed a law last year that will require all law enforcement agencies to track the death of any person in police custody, which includes deaths that occur while being arrested. The Death in Custody Reporting Act of 2013 is a significant step forward because it requires annual submissions of reports to the Justice Department detailing the name, race, gender, ethnicity, and age of the deceased. The report will also require the attorney general to report these findings to Congress; however, we may have to wait some time to see these statistics as the first report will come “not later than two years after the date of the enactment of this Act.”

FBI Director James Comey and former Attorney General Eric Holder recently called for better data on police officer-involved deaths. This issue is also going to be an important topic in the next CJIS Advisory Policy Board Meeting this summer, where changes to the FBI’s crime-reporting procedures are discussed. But sadly it took several high profile incidents to get the government to count these incidents accurately, and it will take some time before improved statistics are available.

So no, police officer-involved deaths are probably not on the rise; instead media coverage and public attention have increased dramatically. Some may question what caused this to become a national issue, but the more appropriate question seems to be: why wasn’t it an issue already?

Kevin Rizzo

Kevin Rizzo is the Crime in America Editor at Law Street Media. An Ohio Native, the George Washington University graduate is a founding member of the company. Contact Kevin at krizzo@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Are Police Shootings on the Rise, and Why Isn’t the Government Counting? appeared first on Law Street.

Freddie Gray was a Baltimore man who died after injuries he received while in the custody of the Baltimore police department. Multiple protests, some violent, have occurred against Gray’s treatment that Gray received in police custody on April 19. Although exact numbers appear unknown, reports cite that 34 people have been arrested as a result of the protests.

Arrests last night in Baltimore during a protest of the death of #FreddieGrayhttp://t.co/j5mU7B7Jfjpic.twitter.com/5JcRDP2vtg

— Newsweek (@Newsweek) April 26, 2015

Demonstrators in Baltimore continue protesting #FreddieGray‘s death. PHOTOS: http://t.co/FvUWbmnHi4pic.twitter.com/Dh9LGIJFPf

— 99.1 WNEW (@WNEW) April 23, 2015

#UPDATE: Crowd continues to grow. Protestors want officers suspended in death of #FreddieGray arrested. pic.twitter.com/XVRtcIZP55

— WJZ | CBS Baltimore (@cbsbaltimore) April 21, 2015

Gray was arrested after he saw a police officer and then started running. Regardless of that not being a reason to arrest someone,  police caught up to him. At this point it was discovered that Gray had a knife on him, and was brought into police custody. He sustained a spinal cord injury at some point during this incident, and desperately needed medical attention. It’s not clear how he got the injury–although hopefully that will eventually become clear as a few different investigations delve into the events. The bigger issue here, however, is that once officers caught up to Gray and arrested him, they should have sought medical help for him. Their failure to do so appears to have directly led to Gray’s death. The Baltimore police have even admitted that they should have gotten medical help for Gray. According to CNN:

Police Commissioner Anthony Batts told reporters there are no excuses for the fact that Gray was not buckled in as he was transported to a police station.

It’s in light of this news that protesters have taken to the streets in Baltimore. Some are calling for the arrest of the six officers involved in Gray’s case–they have already been suspended without pay. Last night an estimated 1,200 people gathered in protest at City Hall in Baltimore. This caused some problems for the city–thousands of fans were trapped inside the Baltimore Orioles’ Stadium last night after the game. Unfortunately, as protests continued, things did grow violent. Looters damaged a local convenience store, and at one point a protester “tossed a flaming metal garbage can toward police officers in riot gear trying to push back the crowd.”

After the deaths of Michael Brown, Eric Garner, and Tamir Rice in 2014, and the recent death of Walter Scott, the United States is still dealing with discontent over police violence and the treatment of black men by police officers. While Baltimore PD admitting that it should have sought treatment for Gray sooner certainly can be viewed as a step in the right direction when it comes to accountability, what exactly happened to Gray still needs to be determined. Until then, there will almost certainly still be protests and critics.

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 Protests Continue After Freddie Gray’s Death in Baltimore appeared first on Law Street.

Criminal justice reform in the United States is long overdue as prisons are overcrowded, racial profiling remains a problem, and rehabilitation practices are often overshadowed by questionable “tough on crime” policies. After high-profile incidents of police brutality began circulating media outlets, the push for criminal justice reform has become greater than ever. Recently, both Republicans and Democrats decided to work together to transform the American criminal justice system, announcing the creation of a bipartisan coalition that would partner with non-governmental organizations and advocacy groups to craft and implement reform. The media called this left and right-wing union an “unlikely alliance,” emphasizing ideological and political differences between the two parties, and highlighting the fact that bipartisanship doesn’t happen very often on Capitol Hill. The question remains whether this bipartisan coalition can transform American criminal justice practices into a more fair, unbiased, and swift system? Read on to learn more about the current bipartisan efforts to reform the criminal justice system in America.

How is bipartisan criminal justice reform coming along?

The Coalition for Public Safety

One of the first  tangible results of this consensus culminated in the creation of the Coalition for Public Safety, introduced on February 19, 2015. It’s a bipartisan coalition of funders and advocacy groups that will work on reforming the current criminal justice system and hopes to find solutions to the most pressing issues in the realm of current practices. The coalition is funded by both conservative and liberal groups such as Koch Industries, the Ford Foundation and the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation. In addition, both right and left-wing organizations such as FreedomWorks, Americans for Tax Reform, the ACLU, and the Center for American Progress will partner with the Coalition to work at all levels of the government (local, state, and federal) to overhaul ineffective criminal justice policies. The initial funding is $5 million, and will be used to launch a campaign to tackle prison overpopulation, mandatory sentencing practices, reduce recidivism, and address many other issues endemic to the American criminal justice system.

The Coalition for Public Safety emphasizes a smarter, fairer, and more cost-effective criminal justice system. It identifies five main goals:

Reduce our jail and prison populations and associated costs; end the systemic problems of overcriminalization and overincarceration — particularly of low-income communities and communities of color; ensure swift and fair outcomes for both the accused and the victim; and make communities safe by reducing recidivism and breaking down barriers faced by those returning home after detention or incarceration.

The overall plan of the Coalition is to replicate state practices that have proven to be successful in dealing with specific issues of the criminal justice system on the federal level. As the Coalition is diverse in its political affiliations, the plan is to divide spheres of influence between conservatives and liberals while lobbying for reform.

Koch Industries and other organizations on the right will try to persuade Republicans, while the Center for American Progress and other liberal think-tanks will work on convincing Democrats to engage in meaningful dialogue about criminal justice reform. Other organizations such as the ACLU will lobby at the state level to include criminal justice reform issues on state ballots in 2016.

The Bipartisan Summit for Criminal Justice

Another early milestone of the criminal justice reform movement was the Bipartisan Summit for Criminal Justice held in Washington D.C. on March 26, 2015.

The summit brought together lawmakers, advocates, religious groups, and criminal justice leaders, totaling 600 people. There were 90 speakers who shared their experiences and proposed possible solutions to fix the American criminal justice system. Newt Gingrich and Van Jones hosted the event, putting their differences aside. Among the most prominent speakers and participants were Attorney General Eric Holder, Mark Holden (senior counsel for Koch Industries), David Simon (“The Wire” creator), Labor Secretary Tom Perez, Georgia Governor Nathan Deal, Piper Kerman (author of “Orange is the New Black”) and Senator Cory Booker. Non-profit organizations that advocate for justice were present  as well.

So, it’s clear that criminal justice reform is gaining momentum, but why did both parties come on board in the first place?

 Why are both parties on board with criminal justice reform?

Players across the political spectrum have begun to form a bipartisan consensus, but do they care about the same things? Both conservatives and liberals have agreed that criminal justice reform is necessary, however, their reasons for engaging in the initial dialogue seem rather different.

Conservatives are particularly worried about the high costs of maintaining the prison complex as it operates right now. Financially speaking, criminal justice spending is soaring. Some conservatives also cite religious arguments as a reason to give second chances to those who acted wrongly. This philosophy is in accordance with Christian tradition. In this view, prison reform requires rehabilitation, not just incarceration.

Democrats tend to be more concerned with minority rights and the personal freedoms of American citizens that are being diminished by the current criminal justice system. They propose well-funded social programs in impoverished and vulnerable communities instead of an aggressive expansion of the prison complex.

Why does America need criminal justice reform?

(Un)Fairness of the Current System

The American criminal justice system has multiple issues with which to contend. One of the biggest is the disproportionate incarceration of Black and Latino youth and men. In addition, 60 percent of those who await trial, meaning they have not yet been formally convicted of any crime, are housed in detention facilities for months. The majority are lower income individuals who cannot afford to make bail. These holdings lead to many issues for these individuals, including loss of employment, housing, and even family.

In addition, civil asset forfeiture practices are often viewed as unfair as property can be confiscated at the pre-trial stage, without a formal conviction. In some cases, family members can suffer property seizure due to the actions of their children or other close family members.

Overall, the prison population is soaring with non-violent offenders, who are incarcerated for drug crimes, including simple possession or selling a small amount of marijuana.

It’s Too Expensive

The criminal justice system, particularly prison complexes, drain taxpayers’ money. On average, it costs $80 billion a year to maintain the American correctional system, not counting other criminal justice agencies and courts. As 86 percent of all prisoners are housed in state, not federal, correction facilities, state governments spend large sums of money on incarceration, leaving fewer resources for education, mental health, and social services. In addition, it costs around $88,000 a year to house a young offender in a juvenile facility. Juveniles in particular have more developmental and educational needs which have to be addressed by the prison facility where they are housed.

Recently, costs associated with police misconduct, such as fees and settlements, are also soaring as more incidents are published and openly discussed.

It Doesn’t Solve Problems

The current criminal justice system incarcerates violent and non-violent offenders alike without any consideration for the mental health, drug, or alcohol issues these people may face. Moreover, it doesn’t provide tools for those who have been released from prison to reintegrate back into society. Formerly incarcerated individuals are largely disenfranchised through laws restricting Pell Grants, voting, certain types of employment, and housing.

Overall, left and right-wing politicians have gotten it right: current criminal justice system is costly, ineffective, and unfair in many ways, and it needs fixing. Watch the video below to learn more about reasons why America needs a comprehensive criminal justice reform:

Are there any signs of progress?

This new wave of bipartisan criminal justice reform is still in its infancy, but signs of progress in changing ineffective criminal justice practices are seen in both state and federal initiatives.

State Practices

Many states have already enacted innovative programs to overhaul civil assets forfeiture practices and restore voting rights to those who bear the stigma of a criminal conviction. For example:

• State Representative David Simpson (R) introduced a bill that could potentially prohibit civil asset forfeiture without formal conviction in Texas. State Senator Nathan Dahm (R) proposed similar legislature in Oklahoma.
• Many states have enacted so-called “Ban the Box” laws that prohibit asking about criminal convictions in employment applications. Currently, “Ban the Box” laws have been successfully implemented in states such as Colorado, Connecticut, Georgia, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota and New Mexico. In addition, individual jurisdictions in various states have begun to use this practice.

Watch the video below to learn more about “Ban the Box” movement:

Federal Initiatives

On a federal level, Senator Rand Paul, a Republican from Kentucky, is one of the most vocal proponents of criminal justice reform:

• Paul and Tim Walberg (R) from Michigan introduced the Fifth Amendment Integrity Restoration (FAIR) Act, that raises the burden of proof on the government for asset seizure.
• Rand Paul and Senator Harry Reid, the Senate Minority Leader, re-introduced the Civil Rights Voting Restoration Act of 2015 as a bipartisan effort to restore voting rights to non-violent formerly incarcerated individuals.
• Rand Paul, Brian Schatz (D) from Hawaii, and two U.S Representatives, Corrine Brown from Florida and Keith Ellison from Minnesota introduced the Police Creating Accountability by Making Effective Recording Available (Police CAMERA) Act of 2015 that creates a pilot grant program for police departments across the country who are willing to use body cameras.

In addition, education reform is being worked on, and the Comprehensive Justice and Mental Health Act is on its way. Both pieces of legislation are important components of re-designing the American criminal justice system by breaking the school-to-prison pipeline, and increasing access to treatment for mentally-ill people in the criminal justice system.

What are the concerns over bipartisan criminal justice reform?

Not everybody believes in the future of bipartisanship, as history has consistently proven that consensus could be compromised at any stage of the process. For example, a recent human trafficking bill with bipartisan support was filibustered over anti-abortion language, and, consequently, died in the chamber. Doubts remain that bipartisanship could be successful as Congress starts its legislative process. Such concerns are voiced due to the profound differences in the two parties’ ideologies, as well as their social and economic views.

These differences also incite worries over the redistribution of prison money. Liberals generally seem to hope that after reform, money that was formerly used for incarceration will be released for education and social services. However, conservatives mostly remain silent on this issue, postponing the discussion for a later date.

Some critics on the left believe that bipartisan criminal justice reform was “right-wing” from the beginning, initiated by the Koch brothers, and then marketed as a “bipartisan” effort. In this view, the movement serves the conservative agenda by pushing the expansion of for-profit community correctional facilities, including the consolidation of medical treatment programs within prison complexes. The rationale is as follows: if non-violent offenders are released to community corrections rather than to prison confinement, it will produce a new source of revenue for private companies that provide treatment for addiction and other medical and mental health issues. The money will be channeled through non-profit organizations that are free to sub-contract their services.

In addition, the Coalition has heavy representation of conservative think-tanks and  prominent liberal groups, but it doesn’t include grassroots community and advocacy groups that could bring the voices of poor communities of color to the table.

Another point of criticism is centered on the notion that the Coalition doesn’t ask the right questions and completely ignores the issue of structural racism that fuels the community-to-corrections pipeline. It acknowledges “over-criminalization” and “over-incarceration” of individuals from these communities, but doesn’t address the underlying reasons for it.

Conclusion

Criminal justice reform is inevitable as there are multiple concerns about the current criminal justice system. However, will it produce the intended changes and improve the American criminal justice system? The Coalition has all the tools to initiate reform, but political differences and personal motivations of certain players can easily change the course of reform at any given moment. It’s a shaky “unlikely alliance,” but it’s certainly better than nothing at all.

Resources

Primary

LegiScan: Bill Text: TX HB3171 | 2015-2016 | 84th Legislature | Introduced

LegiScan: Bill Text: OK SB621 | 2015 | Regular Session | Introduced

Rand Paul: Sens. Paul, Schatz & Reps. Brown, Ellison Introduce Bipartisan Legislation To Help Expand Use of Police Body Cameras

Rand Paul: Sen. Paul Introduces Civil Rights Voting Restoration Act

The U.S. Department of Justice: Attorney General Prohibits Federal Agency Adoptions of Assets Seized by State and Local Law Enforcement Agencies Except Where Needed to Protect Public Safety

Additional

#cut 50: A Bipartisan Summit on Criminal Justice Reform

Huffington Post Politics: Georgia Governor Signs ‘Ban The Box’ Order Helping Ex-Offenders Get Jobs

National Journal: This May Be the Year Crime Finally Stops Being a Wedge Issue

NBCNews: Editorial: Could Criminal Justice Reform Create Bipartisanship?

Politico: Fixing Justice in America

Slate: A Koch and a Smile

Southern Coalition for Social Justice: Ban the Box Community Initiative Guide

The Daily Caller: Red State Forfeiture Bills Signal Bipartisan Push For Justice Reform

Truth Out: “Bipartisan” Criminal Justice Reform: A Misguided Merger

Truth Out: Smoke and Mirrors: Essential Questions About “Prison Reform”

Truth Out: Confidence Men and “Prison Reform”

U.S. News: Lawmakers Outline Path Forward on Criminal Justice Reform

U.S. News: Democrats Block Human Trafficking Bill Over Abortion Language

Justice Policy Institute: The Costs of Confinement: Why Good Juvenile Justice Policies. Make Good Fiscal Sense May 2009

Vera Institute of Justice: The Price of Prisons. What Incarceration Costs Taxpayers

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 Bipartisan Criminal Justice Reform: Can it Succeed? appeared first on Law Street.

On Tuesday night, 20-year-old University of Virginia student Martese Johnson was brutally arrested. His treatment has sparked outrage around the country, and has led to protests at the university. Moreover, Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe has called for an investigation into the police officers’ use of force.

Read More: Militarization: Arming the Police Against Against American Citizens

Like many Americans, students at the University of Virginia went out to celebrate St. Patrick’s Day Tuesday night. Martese Johnson, a junior double majoring in Media Studies and Italian, was one of them. Johnson was with friends trying to get into the Trinity Irish Pub, when he was stopped by a bouncer guarding the door. At this point, an agent from the Virginia Department of Adult Beverage Control, or ABC, grabbed Johnson and brought him over to a group of other ABC agents. According to eyewitness Bryan Beaubrun, when Johnson asked the agent to let go and backed away, he was grabbed from behind and then wrestled to the ground by multiple agents. In the process, he hit his head on the ground, and sustained injuries that required ten stitches.

I stand with Martese Johnson. There is no excuse for this. @VirginiaABC you should be ashamed. pic.twitter.com/4j3bnfDlBI

— UVAProblems (@UVAProbs) March 18, 2015

After being arrested, Johnson was charged with resisting arrest, obstructing justice without threats of force, and profane swearing or intoxication in public. He was released on bail later the next morning.

After the release of pictures and footage of the aftermath of Johnson’s arrest, many have been protesting the way in which he was treated. McAuliffe has authorized an investigation into the circumstances, and UVA president Teresa Sullivan has put out a statement detailing her concerns. In an email sent to the student body, she stated:

Today, as U.Va. students, faculty, and staff who share a set of deeply held values, we stand unified in our commitment to seeking the truth about this incident. And we stand united in our belief that equal treatment and equal justice are among our fundamental rights under the law.

She also stressed, however, that details aren’t yet clear at this time, and encouraged anyone with any information about the arrest to come forward and provide eyewitness testimony.

Last night, hundreds of UVA students, as well as faculty and other members of the community, rallied in support of Johnson, who also attended the march. His face clearly still showed signs of his injury from the night before.

Photos from protest at #UVa in response to #MarteseJohnson‘s injuries from ABC arrest http://t.co/i6XFYmlsz0pic.twitter.com/rXCJX33Et1

— Amy Friedenberger (@AJFriedenberger) March 19, 2015

Johnson thanked the community for coming out to support him, saying:

This University opened me up. You being here is the reason why I still believe in the community of trust even with a busted head standing here on this stage.

The gathering featured other students speaking about their personal experiences, expressing dismay about how Johnson was treated, and talk about how to move forward. It’s certainly moving to see the university community standing together to protest the inhumane treatment of one of its own, but the fact that such inhumane treatment happened in the first place remains troubling. It’s yet another example in national conversation about race and discrimination that seems to get more complicated and upsetting every day.

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 UVA Community Gathers in Support of Martese Johnson appeared first on Law Street.

There have been edits made to Wikipedia pages about some high profile deaths at the hands of police in New York City. Those edits have now been traced to 1 Police Plaza, the headquarters of the New York Police Department (NYPD).

The edits seem to have focused on the pages regarding three of those deaths–Eric Garner, Sean Bell, and Amadou Diallo. Eric Garner was killed on July 17, 2014, after being put into a chokehold by an NYPD officer. While in the chokehold, he wasn’t able to breathe, lost consciousness, and passed away. Sean Bell died after being shot by an NYPD officer in Queens in 2006. He and two friends were shot a total of 50 times after leaving his bachelor party. Amadou Diallo was shot at approximately 41 times by NYPD officers and passed away in 1999. These three instances are often cited as examples of profiling, discrimination, and racial biases in the ranks of NYPD.

Most of the edits to those entries attempted to diminish the seriousness of the situations, and downplay the allegations levied against NYPD after each of them. For example, the Garner entry was edited so that “chokehold” was changed to “respiratory distress.” There was also an instance in the Garner entry where the sentence “use of the chokehold has been prohibited” was edited to read “use of the chokehold is legal, but has been prohibited.” The explanation of what happened before the takedown was changed from “Garner raised both his arms in the air” to “Garner flailed his arms about as he spoke.” The line “Garner, who was considerably larger than any of the officers, continued to struggle with them” was also added. While some of these changes seem subtle, they are clear attempts to imply that the NYPD’s actions against Garner were justified.

There was also an attempt to delete Sean Bell’s page altogether. According to Capitol New York, the user made a note on Wikipedia’s list of “articles for deletion” saying:

He [Bell] was in the news for about two months, and now no one except Al Sharpton cares anymore. The police shoot people every day, and times with a lot more than 50 bullets. This incident is more news than notable.

There were also attempted edits or edits made to other pages, including NYPD’s very controversial “stop-and-frisk” policies. Capitol New York pointed out (bolding theirs):

‘The stop-and-frisk program of New York City is a practice of the New York City Police Department to stop, question and, if the circumstances of the stop warrant it, conduct a frisk of the person stopped.’ was changed to ‘The stop-and-frisk program of New York City is a practice of the New York City Police Department by which a police officer who reasonably suspects a person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a felony or a Penal Law misdemeanor, stops and questions that person, and, if the circumstances of the stop warrant it, conducts a frisk of the person stopped.’

This was also added to the entry on stop-and-frisk:

The rules for stop and frisk are found in New York State Criminal Procedure Law section 140.50, and are based on the decision of the United States Supreme Court in the case of Terry v. Ohio.

An internal review is being conducted due to the edits. At this point, it’s not known who was involved or how many pages were affected. A watchdog Twitter account has been set up to tweet whenever Wikipedia edits are made from a computer with an NYPD IP address, although it has yet to catch anything since it was created. It may have been inspired by one of those for Congress, called @congressedits. That account tweets anytime a computer with a Congressional IP address edits a Wikipedia entry.

The NYPD’s edits look bad–it’s an attempt to downplay legitimately dark spots in its history. Its time and resources would certainly be better served working to prevent incidents like the deaths of Eric Garner, Sean Bell, and Amadou Diallo in the future.

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 NYPD Caught Editing Negative Wikipedia Entries appeared first on Law Street.

News of a secret detention facility in Chicago broke this week and it’s sparking horror and outrage across the country.

This “black site,” revealed by the Guardian, is a nightmare image straight out of a post-apocalyptic movie. People are “arrested” and taken to this site, which is inside a warehouse in Chicago’s Homan Square. Then they are subjected to inhumane treatment. They aren’t afforded the rights that the U.S. Constitution promises all of us. For example, lawyers claim they aren’t able to visit their clients at the site, and beatings and other forms of violence occur. In some ways most disturbingly, it’s all off the books. People who are taken to the Homan Square site aren’t entered into the Chicago PD system, or have any records of their detainment. As Anthony Hill, a criminal defense lawyer put it, “They just disappear, until they show up at a district for charging or are just released back out on the street.”

Read more: Chicago Still Dangerous Despite Absence From Crime Rankings

The facility at Homan Square is being dubbed a “black site” as a nod to the CIA detention facilities in the Middle East, although others have called them “shadow sites.”

The Chicago Police Department is, of course, trying to play Public Relations catch up. It’s claiming that nothing untoward has happened at Homan square, providing a statement that included:

CPD [Chicago police department] abides by all laws, rules and guidelines pertaining to any interviews of suspects or witnesses, at Homan Square or any other CPD facility. If lawyers have a client detained at Homan Square, just like any other facility, they are allowed to speak to and visit them. It also houses CPD’s Evidence Recovered Property Section, where the public is able to claim inventoried property…There are always records of anyone who is arrested by CPD, and this is not any different at Homan Square.

These revelations come at an interesting time–the United States has been engaged in a discussion over the power of our police forces for a while now. Reports of increased militarization, racial profiling, and human rights abuses are finally seeing the light of day and mainstream news coverage. From Ferguson, Missouri, to New York, New York, people this Fall stood up in protest against police treatment of Michael Brown, Eric Garner, Tamir Rice, and others. This information out of Chicago seems to be just the latest in a long, terrifying list. It’s horrible, reprehensible, and heartbreaking, but it’s by no means unsurprising.

Reading the Guardian piece, complete with the many, many horrifying examples of what purportedly happens at this detention center, reminded me of a powerful speech by FBI Director James Comey just a few weeks ago. He talked a lot about innate racial biases in law enforcement, particularly in light of those events I mentioned above. Although his speech was by no means faultless, there were many honest truths to which Comey seemingly spoke. At one point, he said:

A mental shortcut becomes almost irresistible and maybe even rational by some lights. The two young black men on one side of the street look like so many others the officer has locked up. Two young white men on the other side of the street — even in the same clothes — do not. The officer does not make the same association about the two white guys, whether that officer is white or black. And that drives different behavior. The officer turns toward one side of the street and not the other. We need to come to grips with the fact that this behavior complicates the relationship between police and the communities they serve.

While there’s no indication exactly what race those interred at Homan Square are–there are certainly claims that many of the people brought there are low-income, and black, Hispanic, or members of other minority populations. It’s sad, in light of Comey’s speech and the events of this summer, how easy this becomes to imagine. Chicago’s police force taking those who lack resources, subjecting them to inhumane treatment, and not worrying about the consequences. It’s easy to silence a voice when that voice is nowhere near a microphone. While it’s yet to be seen what will be borne out of these revelations, I wouldn’t be surprised if more “black sites” exist in other cities. There’s a big problem here–and this is just one more piece of the puzzle.

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 Chicago “Black Site” Allegations Yet Another Example of Police Brutality appeared first on Law Street.

Almost six months after Michael Brown was killed in Ferguson, Missouri, we’re still having a conversation about the potential of police officers wearing body cameras to ensure accountability and answer the questions that naturally spring up after a police shooting. But will body cameras be enough? A new app called “Alibi” doesn’t think so–and it wants to be the “body camera” of the private citizen, as well as so much more.

Right now, Alibi is only available on Android devices; it’s a $0.99 download. Alibi essentially serves as a mobile witness–depending on how you set it, it can record video, audio, still images, and GPS locations. It doesn’t store this data forever; unless you tell it otherwise, it dumps everything after an hour, or else the storage on a phone would be filled up way too quickly. One of the biggest challenges in developing the app came from making sure that it wouldn’t immediately drain a phone battery. But because the video being recorded is so low-caliber, they’ve managed to make it so even running video all day, it only takes up 1.2 times the battery consumed during normal usage.

So why would a normal person want a device that, to be completely honest, seems a bit paranoid? There are plenty of reasons. The reasoning that inspired the app itself is pretty simple–many people in the U.S. are worried about the increase in police brutality and profiling. Alibi founder Ryan Saleh explained his inspiration for the app in an interview, saying:

The way that Alibi came to be was that I was pulled over for a traffic ticket in New York City. Two cops came up to my windshield and knocked on the windshield, and one of them’s just talking, totally normal, and the other one takes the liberty of asking me to roll down the window and sticks his head in the car and pokes a flashlight around. I’m a straight-laced person, I have nothing to hide, and it didn’t bother me that much at the time, but I was thinking about it, and was like, ‘You know, that probably wasn’t legal.’

I never would have thought to pull out a camera and record the guy, and that probably would have caused more pain than it was worth in the situation, but the number of times in my life that I wish I was recording something — you don’t think to do it at the time, but you go back and you wish you were recording something — is outrageous. I said to myself, ‘You know, we all walk around with a device in our pocket that has a GPS in it, a microphone and a camera.’

Obviously, interactions with police aren’t the only thing that Alibi would be used to record. It could actually be used in reverse–as a tool for the police. Obviously, a 99-cent app is cheaper than a body camera; Alibi could be required by police departments in lieu of body cameras.

Other things that Alibi could be used for are plentiful. It could be used to prove a literal alibi with the GPS and pictures function. It could be used to record something you saw as a passerby. But it could also be used in really creepy, negative ways as well. Imagine if everything you did or said could be recorded by someone who had a smartphone. It could easily be used for nefarious purposes. There are also legal issues here–there are certain laws that restrict photographing people in private places, or places where they have a reasonable expectation of privacy. Having a constantly recording device could break those laws.

Alibi definitely has its practical uses, and it’s an intriguing solution to the issue of American concerns about our police force. That being said, it’s also a little creepy, and may not be something that will worm its way into daily life too quickly. Privacy is still an important right, and while Alibi may protect other rights, privacy can’t be forgotten.

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 Alibi: New App Aims to Record Everything, Including the Police appeared first on Law Street.

The decisions by grand juries not to indict the police officers who killed Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri and Eric Garner in Staten Island, New York–both unarmed black men–have sparked a visceral reaction from many Americans coast to coast. In the case of Garner, the reaction transcended partisan politics, with conservative voices such as Glenn Beck expressing disbelief at how an unarmed man being choked to death on camera was not enough to even start a criminal proceeding against his killer, Officer Daniel Pantaleo.

On the other hand, there are those who reject the idea that the system failed these victims and their families, and that these outcomes are indicative of a larger institutional design that disproportionately victimizes black people. They tend to view these cases as “isolated incidents,” unfortunate yes, but perhaps unavoidable in a society where police are confronted with violent crime on a daily basis. Inevitably, they veer into defaming the victim’s character. “It’s not like Michael Brown was an angel. Did you see the video of him robbing that store just before the shooting?” I have even heard some version of these quotes uttered by people very close to me, whose opinions I hold in high regard. Yet, here they are apologizing for murderers.

It is not difficult to see the striking parallel between this behavior and the victim-blaming that surrounds cases of rape and domestic abuse involving women. “Well she was wearing a short skirt” “Wasn’t she drunk?” “Why did she go back to him?” A system designed to protect men at the expense of women will scrutinize the woman’s actions to see what she did to bring such misfortune upon herself, rather than investigating the criminal actions of the male perpetrator. This, in turn, engenders a deep distrust of the system among women and explains why a majority of sexual assaults go unreported.

Similarly, a system designed to protect white lives at the expense of black lives makes it acceptable to blame the black victim of a senseless murder. Whether 18–year-old Brown or 43-year-old Garner were “angels” before their lives were cut short bears no relevance on whether their killers should be held accountable for their untimely deaths. Those who feel these are appropriate counterarguments to an issue that’s been blown out of proportion by the media are products of this system and these are misplaced attempts at appearing “fair and balanced.” That Officers Wilson and Pantaleo may never face a public trial for their actions means that the system worked as it was designed. Unfortunately, this also means that the distrust of law enforcement in black communities was only compounded. Obama’s call for $263 million for body cameras on police may increase transparency, but trust will elude us until we can seek justice in a system untainted by vestiges of the racial caste system that this country was built on.

Kesav Wable

Kesav Wable is an attorney practicing in New York, as well as an accomplished actor and writer. His short film For Flow, an HBO American Black Film Finalist in 2011, was broadcast on HBO/Cinemax, and he continues to develop scripts for the stage and screen. Contact Kesav at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post How Victim Blaming Nurtures an Unjust System appeared first on Law Street.

We have apps for everything, especially for ranking things. If I want to know what a particular restaurant is like, I can use Yelp. If I need to hire a contractor (someday), I can use Angie’s List. Websites that help people share advice and feedback about doctors even exists in Healthgrades. When I was in college, I would look at my professors on Ratemyprofessor.com. At any given point, I can see rankings on pretty much anything I want, so it make sense that we’d be able to rank our civil servants as well. That was exactly the thought behind Five-O, a new app to rank cops created by teens.

Five-O was created by Ima, Asha, and Caleb Christian, three siblings who live outside of Atlanta. They wanted to provide a Yelp-like service for people who interact with members of the police force. This is how it works:

After interacting with a cop, users open the app and fill out a Yelp-like form on which they can grade the officer’s courtesy from A to F, check a box if they were verbally or physically abused, and add details about the incident. They can view ratings on other cops and police departments across the country, participate in community forums, and check out a Q&A titled “Know Your Rights.”

The Christians got the idea in light of incidences like Michael Brown’s death. They wanted to prevent tragedies like that from happening again by providing more information to the public.

The premise does seem a bit weird, I know. Services like Yelp, Angie’s List, or Healthgrades all provide rankings for industries that do allow consumer choice. If you don’t want to go back to a restaurant or doctor, you can choose to vote with your feet and walk away. The same isn’t true with cops — you don’t get to choose which officer pulls you over.

The app is important, however, for a different reason: accountability. In light of the horrifying events occurring in Ferguson, Missouri over the last few weeks, there are a lot of conversations floating around about accountability for cops. Some have suggested requiring cops to wear cameras would be make them more accountable for brutality and militarization.

Five-O would do something similar — it would allow the community to create and share information about their interactions with the police force. In towns where the police force has begun wearing cameras, interactions that led to complaints have gone down. In Rialto, California, cops have been wearing body cameras since 2012. After just one year wearing the cameras, complaints have gone down by almost 90 percent, and use-of-force incidents fell by 58 percent; however, those cameras can be very pricey. While the cheapest version of the software is about $40 per month per user, the app is a less invasive, and cheaper, way to provide some form of accountability.

Of course, the Five-O is significantly more subjective than a camera would be. If users are reporting their interactions, it’s possible that people will report inaccurately. But since incidents reported to the app don’t have any official status, hopefully no cops will be falsely accused.

The Christians say it’s not just about accountability, but it will also provide a way to thank and recognize police officers who do a good job. In general, it will provide a better way for communities to interact with each other about the police force. As the protests in Ferguson wage on and there’s a greater American conversation about cops and accountability, Five-O could prove to be an excellent idea to measure community interactions with police.

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 Teens Invent New App to Track Community Interactions With Police appeared first on Law Street.

The Department of Justice (DOJ) has reached an agreement with the mayor of Albuquerque for an independent monitor to oversee the city’s troubled police department. The Albuquerque Police Department (APD) has been under investigation by the DOJ since November 2012 due to mounting concerns that their habitual use of excessive force violates citizens’ constitutional rights.

The investigation was launched following a series of high profile police shootings under questionable circumstances. Iraq war veteran Kenneth Ellis III was shot while holding a gun to his own head, and Alan Gomez was shot at his home while “armed” with a plastic spoon. A graphic video released by the APD showed homeless camper James Boyd being shot four times after he appeared to be surrendering to officers.

Changing the “shoot-first-ask-later” mentality of the department will not be easy, to say the least. According to the Associated Press, the APD has shot 41 people over the past four years, 27 of them fatally. With a population greater than 550,000 people, the city of Albuquerque is ahead of both Chicago and New York in terms of police-related deaths per capita.

The high number of incidents involving alleged police misconduct has eroded community trust in both city officials and the police, spurring a series of protests that have even included an attempted “citizen’s arrest” of Police Chief Gorden Eden. “It has reached a boiling point,” one protester told the Associated Press, “people just can’t take it anymore.”

The agreement comes just three months after the DOJ released a report stating that:

APD officers too frequently use deadly force against people who pose a minimal threat and in situations where the conduct of the officers heightens the danger and contributes to the need to use force.

The report also found systematic deficiencies in the department that contribute to its troubling pattern of excessive force. Failed accountability systems, deficient policies, and a lack of sufficient civilian oversight were all listed as contributing causes.

According to a joint statement, the DOJ and the city will focus on reforming eight areas of concern: use of force policies, interactions with individuals with mental illness and other disabilities, tactical units, training, internal investigations and civilian complaints, management and supervision, recruitment and selection of officers, and community engagement and oversight.

This process will be overseen by an independent monitor appointed by the federal government, and will rely heavily on cooperation from the APD as well as input from community leaders. The agreement, formally known as a consent decree, is legally binding and puts the city of Albuquerque under the oversight of a federal court until the APD is in full compliance with the mandated reforms.

About 20 cities have entered into similar agreements with the DOJ since the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act was passed in 1994. Simply put, the act allows the DOJ to effectively sue police agencies that exhibit a “pattern and practice” of using excessive force and violating constitutional rights. The DOJ can then force those departments to implement a series of reforms that are meant to prevent any future abuses.

The success of the agreements depends largely on how resistant the police department in question is to change. There is no set time limit for a consent decree–the Oakland Police Department has been under one for nearly a decade–but some departments push back against the court-mandated reforms, which can prolong the process.

David Correia, a professor at the University of New Mexico and local organizer, doubts that the APD will be able to successfully implement reforms. “If history is any guide then [this process] won’t work,” Correia told Truthout. In 1997, a different report found some of the same exact systematic deficiencies that were listed in the DOJ’s report. As it turns out, reforms were implemented by some of the same people who are still in charge today, and they clearly did lead to the necessary changes in the department. “As a result, six years after those reforms, [the APD] killed more people at a higher rate” Correia explained. “So there can be no day-to-day control of the police department by [Police Chief] Eden, Huntsman, any of the deputy chiefs, or [Mayor Berry], but the DOJ won’t go that far”

Only time will tell if the consent decree will be embraced by police and city leadership in Albuquerque. The community remains weary and distrustful after years of abuse, but feels that the agreement is definitely a step in the right direction. Attorney General Eric Holder is also optimistic that the APD can correct troubling practices and restore public trust. Holder stated:

This agreement marks an important step forward in addressing the unreasonable use of deadly force uncovered in our investigation into the Albuquerque Police Department. The residents of Albuquerque depend on their police department to serve their community with honor and integrity.

Consent decrees and federal monitoring have been able to successfully reform a number of police departments, but departments generally get out what they put in. The APD is being presented with a chance to turn over a new leaf, but whether they will grasp this opportunity or cling to their old ways has yet to be seen. Either way, change is coming to the department, and all that the residents of Albuquerque can hope for is that these changes extend past the moment that federal oversight ends.

—

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 [Joseph Morris 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 Albuquerque Police Department Brought Under Federal Oversight 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.

Recently, an independent investigation into 22 years worth of court filings revealed a history of misconduct by the Oakland Police Department. Among the findings is the conclusion that the police department spent $74 million in civil rights lawsuit settlements, as well as an emerging trend of brutality among decorated officers.

Oakland Police Beat is a project created by Oakland Local, which provides an unprecedented look at police department records and statistics about the history of the Oakland Police Department. The research was conducted by a small team of journalists and interns, who seek to improve transparency in the local police force as well as reveal historical trends using publicly available statistics and court records. The site is funded by The Ethics and Excellence in Journalism Foundation and the Fund for Investigative Journalism.

The most notable finding revealed by Oakland Police Beat so far concluded that the city has spent a considerable amount of money for settlements on civil rights cases. According to their research, the Oakland Police department spent $74 million on settlements for at least 417 cases involving misconduct, brutality, and civil rights violations. They also note that Oakland ranks third amongst California cities (that make data publicly available) for highest settlement payouts.

The project also identified an alarming trend among Oakland’s decorated police officers. Oakland Police Beat found that 40 percent of the 35 most decorated officers were part of one or more officer-involved shootings- a total 29 shootings. Of the same group of officers, 61 percent were named in civil rights lawsuits, 14 of which were in two or more cases. Finally, at least four of the 35 most decorated officers were involved in the police response of the Occupy Oakland protests of 2011 and 2012. Oakland Police Beat notes that this response “used chemical agents as well as beanbag and explosive projectiles during violent clashes.” The city has already spent over $6 million in settling lawsuits related to these incidents.

Oakland Police Beat went through 1,368 lawsuits and complaints that were filed from Jan. 1, 1990 to Jan. 1, 2013. They focused on settled cases, which they found represented roughly 75 percent of the cases filed against the OPD. Using public records the organization was able to identify how many cases were civil rights related and then used those as the basis for their conclusions.

Although anyone can file a lawsuit against the police department, Oakland Police Beat noticed that over 100 cases were dismissed by the court. However, the remaining 417 civil rights cases that were settled outside of court represent instances that the police department determined were substantive enough to deal with. Alex Kats, the City Attorney’s Chief of Staff, told Oakland Police Beat that expected costs are often an important factor in deciding to settle a case. The city will typically settle out of court if they foresee that the costs of litigation or a judgment are higher than settlement. This course of action also does not require the police department to admit fault. It is important to note that in settled cases, there must typically be some legitimate claim made to prevent it from being thrown out by the court.

Why Oakland?

In addition to being ranked by Law Street as the second most dangerous city over 200,000, the Oakland police department has faced issues with its officer’s use of force in the past. The issue first came about with “the Riders” scandal in 2000, where a group of officers were alleged to have planted evidence and excessively beat suspects which sparked an investigation into the police force. Although after two mistrials, prosecutors decided not to attempt a third criminal trial, the civil suit marked a very important settlement.

The terms of the settlement agreement required Oakland to pay out nearly $11 million to the plaintiffs, implement 51 reforms to the police department, including new guidelines for officer’s use of force, as well as dismiss the three accused officers from the police force. Despite settling in 2003, the city has not yet complied with the full terms of the agreement and currently faces problems managing its crime levels.

Oakland Police Beat’s in-depth research into the Oakland Police Department reveal several startling conclusions about police brutality and civil rights cases, and will continue release further findings over the next several weeks. The project marks an never before seen look into Oakland’s historically troubled police force, and provides further understanding as to why Oakland is ranked the third most dangerous city in America.

—

Kevin Rizzo (@kevinrizzo10)

Featured Image Courtesy of [Flickr/Gregory Veen]

Kevin Rizzo

Kevin Rizzo is the Crime in America Editor at Law Street Media. An Ohio Native, the George Washington University graduate is a founding member of the company. Contact Kevin at krizzo@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post What’s New: Police Brutality is the Norm in Oakland appeared first on Law Street.

The parents of Robert J. Thomas have received a $7.5 million jury award. Police shot the 21 year old seven times outside of a Los Angeles County party with more than 60 other attendees. The parents claim that police assumed assumed their son and the other attendees to be members of the Crips gang.

The deputies arrived at the party and frisked Thomas as he stood outside. When Thomas fled he was shot seven times when the officers believed he was reaching for a gun. The police department says Thomas was a known gang member. After two days a deliberation, a 7 person jury, of which five were female, found that Thomas had been unarmed at the time of the shooting despite the fact that sheriffs department showed the jury the gun that they said was recovered from Thomas’ pocket.

After the verdict Thomas’ father, Robert Sr., said “it feels great for it to be proven that my son was never a gang member.” The family’s attorney said that the deputies believed they were arriving at a gang party, however, Thomas was simply working security and showed no signs of any involvement with the gang.

[Full Article: JDSupra]

—

Featured image courtesy of [Steve Devol via Flickr]

Davis Truslow

Davis Truslow is a founding member of Law Street Media and a graduate of The George Washington University. Contact Davis at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Parents of Son Shot Dead by Police Win $7.5 Million appeared first on Law Street.