On Tuesday night violent protests erupted in Charlotte, North Carolina, over the fatal shooting of Keith Lamont Scott earlier that day. The protests came the day after police in Oklahoma released video footage of the shooting of another man on Friday, Terrence Crutcher.

The protests started peacefully, close to where Scott, 43, was killed. They went on until late at night, with people chanting “Black Lives Matter.” In the early morning hours of Wednesday, demonstrators started blocking traffic on the interstate and even opened up backs of tractors and trucks to take out the cargo and set it on fire in the streets. Others broke into a local Walmart. Police used tear gas and flash grenades to interrupt the riots, during which at least 12 police officers and 11 civilians were injured.

#Charlotte #cmpd pic.twitter.com/LJVfhRcgUc

— Adam Rhew (@AdamRhew) September 21, 2016

On Tuesday afternoon police looking for another man with an outstanding warrant approached Scott, who was sitting in his car outside of an apartment complex. Police say Scott got out of the car carrying a gun, and then got back in. When they got closer he got out again, and according to the police statement, the officers felt their lives were in danger and felt compelled to shoot.

But according to Scott’s family, he was unarmed and disabled, and was reading a book in his car while waiting for the school bus to drop off his son.

Here’s the man’s sister. She says he did not have a gun. @CMPD says he did. @WBTV_News pic.twitter.com/JwHMixy9m7

— Sarah-Blake Morgan (@SarahBlakeWBTV) September 20, 2016

His brother said the cop that shot Scott was undercover and dressed in normal clothes. He was shot four times and pronounced dead at a local hospital.

The brother of the victim in the officer-involved shooting says that the cops were undercover. pic.twitter.com/PBrDwkjEdm #Charlotte

— Beatrice E. Peterson (@MissBeaE) September 21, 2016

The family claims Scott didn’t own a gun, but the police say they did recover a firearm at the scene. Police Chief Kerr Putney said that although the police officer who shot Scott was dressed in plainclothes, he also had on a police vest and there were uniformed police at the scene. But he couldn’t say for sure whether Scott aimed his weapon at anyone, nor did police specify what brand or model of gun they had found.

The man who was shot on Friday evening was Terrence Crutcher, 40. He was waiting for assistance next to his car that had broken down on a road in Tulsa, Oklahoma, when female police officer Betty Shelby, who responding to a domestic violence call, found him. When she asked what had happened, he didn’t answer, and according to her attorney, he kept ignoring her questions. When he reached toward his vehicle, she thought he was grabbing a weapon and shot him.

The video that police released on Monday show the man surrounded by several other officers before he falls to the ground. In another video from a police helicopter circling the scene, one officer is heard saying Crutcher is “looking like a bad dude,” and “looks like time for taser.”

“Looks like a Bad Dude” why don’t you Say his name instead #TerrenceCrutcher pic.twitter.com/USSL3TjBzE

— The HBCURoundTable (@HBCU_Roundtable) September 20, 2016

According to the Crutcher family’s lawyer, it is impossible that he reached inside the car for a gun, since the window was rolled up and blood stained on the outside.

Both officers involved in the shootings of Crutcher and Scott have been placed on paid 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 Protests in Charlotte Sparked by Shooting of Keith Lamont Scott appeared first on Law Street.

In retrospect Sandy Hook marked the end of the US gun control debate. Once America decided killing children was bearable, it was over.

— Dan Hodges (@DPJHodges) June 19, 2015

Every single time I see news of another mass shooting, an experience that has come pretty damn close to being an everyday occurrence, I think of the people who pointed out that if America’s gun control laws don’t change after Sandy Hook, they never will. Twenty children and six teachers were slaughtered, and nothing has changed. Since Sandy Hook, there has been roughly one school shooting per week. Since November 2012, this is the 994th mass shooting–by the time we hit the three year anniversary of Sandy Hook, we’ll probably be at 1000. Yesterday, 10 people were killed and seven more were wounded at Umpqua Community College in Oregon. This is an epidemic, and it shows no signs of stopping.

Mass shootings are no longer shocking–instead they’ve become routine occurrences. The cycle we’ll go through after this shooting: anger, arguments about the applicability of mental illness vs. gun laws, an analysis of the murderer’s background, then an unsteady return to normalcy, has become mundane. This weariness was echoed by President Obama at a press conference last night, where the president sounded embattled and exhausted. He talked about how the United States stands alone with this problem; how other developed countries don’t have to mourn their young people to a school shooter on an alarmingly regular basis, stating:

We know that other countries, in response to one mass shooting, have been able to craft laws that almost eliminate mass shootings. Friends of ours, allies of ours — Great Britain, Australia, countries like ours. So we know there are ways to prevent it.

He also pointed out the cyclical nature of our response as well, stating:

And what’s become routine, of course, is the response of those who oppose any kind of common-sense gun legislation. Right now, I can imagine the press releases being cranked out: We need more guns, they’ll argue. Fewer gun safety laws.

Does anybody really believe that? There are scores of responsible gun owners in this country –they know that’s not true. We know because of the polling that says the majority of Americans understand we should be changing these laws — including the majority of responsible, law-abiding gun owners.

So will anything change? I doubt it. To harken back to the quote I opened this article with, it does truly feel like the gun debate in the United States is over.

As a writer tasked with covering the law and policy news of the day, our response to mass shootings has started to feel overwhelming formulaic. At the risk of being crass, the hundreds and thousands of think pieces and op-eds that have been written and will be written about the tragedy in Oregon will follow the same rubric, and they’ll be no different than those that are written after the next shooting. Here’s the formula:

On ______ there was a mass shooting in _____. __ were killed, and the shooter was eventually killed by police. Victims include (insert here the names of the often young people whose lives were taken by senseless gun violence). President Obama and (politicians from the state that was affected) held press conferences to address the tragedy.

Insert impassioned anger, rhetoric, and arguments about why the gun laws should be changed or stay the same. Mention mental illness, maybe. Include a call to action.

The end.

There’s nothing new to say anymore and nothing new to write anymore, because no one is listening. Because there’s nothing new about these mass shootings. I mourn the victims in Oregon, but I truly have no idea what to say at this point. Because is there really anything else left to say?

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 The Depressing Routine of Mass Shootings in the United States appeared first on Law Street.

Residents of Phoenix, Arizona, and its suburbs are on edge after a series of shootings, possibly by a sniper, on busy Interstate-10. In the past 11 days, there have been 10 shootings, and although no fatalities have been reported, the pressure is on to find the culprit, or culprits.

The odd series of shootings began on August 29, when three different vehicles were struck by bullets while traveling down Interstate-10. Then, another vehicle was hit the next day. Shootings have continued at a relatively consistent rate since then–convincing most onlookers and the law enforcement in the area that these aren’t just random occurrences.

So far, there has only been one reported injury. A 13-year-old girl was cut by glass after a bullet pierced the window of a car she was riding in, shattering the window. But, that doesn’t mean that these attacks should be viewed as benign–potential future harm is a big concern.

For many, news of a “sniper” brings immediate memories of the DC, or “Beltway” Sniper, John Allen Muhammed, and his accomplice, Lee Boyd Malvo. The DC Sniper terrorized the greater Washington D.C. area in 2002, killing ten people and injuring three more. However there are important differences between the two cases–so far the Phoenix shooter has been aiming at cars only, along the highway, while the DC Sniper went after pedestrians and those outside of vehicles as well. While that doesn’t mean that the Phoenix shootings aren’t incredibly concerning, they don’t warrant too serious of a comparison.

Officials who investigated the DC Sniper have also noted some serious differences between that case and the current Phoenix mystery. Arthur Roderick, who was involved in the DC Sniper investigation pointed out to CNN that whoever is shooting in Phoenix appears to have used different weapons, indicating that there may be multiple shooters, or a copycat. In addition, the stretch of Interstate-10 on which the shootings have occurred is much smaller than the region in which the DC Sniper operated, indicating it might be easier to narrow down suspects.

That being said, pressure is certainly on to find the shooter, or shooters, if the theory of a copycat being involved is true. The shootings are being labeled as “domestic terrorism” by Arizona authorities, with Arizona Department of Public Safety Director Frank Milstead stating:

Anytime that you have multiple shootings against American citizens on a highway, that’s terrorism. They’re trying to frighten or kill somebody.

Given that there doesn’t appear to be any connections between the victims, besides the fact that they were all traveling along the same stretch of highway, it’s difficult to guess any sort of motive. Milstead’s assessment that these shootings are being committed from the motivation of causing fear or unrest seems likely. But for now, this remains an odd, open case, that will hopefully be solved soon to bring peace of mind to the greater Phoenix area.

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 What’s the Deal with the Phoenix Highway Shootings? 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.

Saturday was the beginning of August and the last carefree month of summer break for many. This is the month when people make the most of the free time they have with their loved ones and begin to prepare to get back into their normal work or school routine. But unfortunately in Chicago, Illinois, the beginning of August was marred by an influx of shootings in the Windy City.

Beginning Sunday afternoon, at least 15 people were shot across the city. This is consistent with recent trends–July also saw an elevated number of shootings. During the 4th of July holiday weekend about 10 people were killed and 55 injured during various shooting incidents.

The number of victims this weekend in Chicago is extraordinary–this Sunday afternoon a 17-year-old boy was shot at about 4 p.m. on the South Side.. As the day continued, in the Roseland neighborhood on the Far South Side a 16-year-old boy and 23-year-old man were shot during a drive-by around 7:15 pm. At 8:40 pm a five-year-old girl was shot in the leg in the Englewood neighborhood on the South Side. Five minutes later gunshots were heard in the Belmont Central neighborhood on the Northwest Side as a seven-year-old boy and 19-year-old man were shot. Two women, 34 and 39, and a man, 26, were shot at about 7:55 p.m. Sunday on South Brandon Avenue on the South Side, according to police spokesman Officer Thomas Sweeney. At 9:30 p.m. Sunday, a 19-year-old man was shot in the Cabrini Green neighborhood on the Near North Side, police spokesman Ron Gaines said. The largest shooting incident this Sunday occurred in the West Englewood neighborhood on the South Side of the city. According to Gaines, four men were shot on South Winchester Avenue around 9:50pm. The men were between the ages of 19 and 25. The violence continued all the way through the next morning when a 20-year-old man was shot at 1:40 a.m. Monday, in the West Englewood neighborhood. No one has been taken into custody yet for the shootings and police are still investigating each case. The variety of victims and geographical breadth are certainly concerning.

Over the past five years, Chicago has seen more than 12,000 shootings. By June of this year Chicago had reached a total of 1,000 shootings–almost three weeks earlier than when the city reached 1,000 shootings in 2014. Chicago has gun laws that have banned assault rifles, high-capacity magazines, and places to purchase ammo, which makes it one of the toughest places in the country to legally obtain a firing weapon. But even with these bans, gun violence has not decreased. Although the homicide rate has gone down, the number of shootings in the city is on the rise–indicating that the city still has work to do even with its restrictive gun laws.

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 The Number of Shootings In Chicago Continues To Rise: When Will it Stop? appeared first on Law Street.

This year, Chicago’s celebration of the Fourth of July quickly turned into a bloody massacre. Reports vary on the exact amount of fatalities and people injured, although it appears that at least ten people were killed, and over fifty others were harmed due to gunfire in multiple different incidents throughout the city. This bloodshed was horrifying, although it’s only one of many instances of gun violence in the Windy City in recent years that have left countless people dead and put residents on high alert.

Among the victims was a seven-year-old boy, Amari Brown, who was fatally shot while watching the fireworks with his father, Antonio. Investigators believe that the intended target of the gunfire was his father, who is a known gang member with forty-five past arrests and who refused to cooperate with detectives during the investigation into his son’s death. Chicago Police Superintendent Garry McCarthy made an emotional plea to the public, urging people to put an end to this senseless brutality that has swept the city in not only the past few months but throughout recent years.

Chicago has a notorious gang population and the usage of guns is staggering. The problem is not too little of a police presence on the streets, given that it was actually increased by thirty percent over the holiday weekend, nor was it a lack of gun confiscations and arrests since these numbers were also higher than usual. Instead, McCarthy believes that there is a “broken system,” since criminals never really have to deal with the repercussions of their actions. He claims that gun control laws are too lenient in the city, despite Chicago having some of the strictest gun laws in the country.

Shooting during July 4th celebration leaves 7-year-old dead; police say bullet meant for dad http://t.co/GmReoTORHe pic.twitter.com/KLyrggsJ3U

— CBS News (@CBSNews) July 6, 2015

Sadly, these vicious shootings aren’t anything new for Chicago–the city has a long history of gun violence. Police have amped up their seizure of illegal weapons, which has proven to be effective since shooting incident rates are actually down compared to this same short period of time last year, but it’s not quite enough. Chicago has been plagued with crime for many years, garnering attention from news sources nationwide. It is the third largest populated city in the country, and yet its homicide rate is drastically higher than New York or Los Angeles. Evidently, changes must be made in order to put an end to this constant carnage. The cops are working feverishly to deter and terminate gun usage, although this is impossible to do without the full support and cooperation of the public.

One of the victims last weekend was seventeen-year-old Vonzell Banks, who was gunned down in a park that was named after Hadiya Pendleton, an honors student who was murdered in cold blood there in 2013. Pendleton’s death became a symbol of national gun violence, as she was killed while walking with friends through the park only a mile away from President Obama’s Chicago home, not long after she attended his inauguration. Unfortunately, the amount of shootings in this city has hardly decreased since her passing.

Amidst tragedy, authorities are hoping that they can turn these deaths into something positive. In memory of the many victims, they are encouraging the public to band together and not only be vigilant for other possible acts, but also work toward discouraging future gang activity within the community. One tactic that officials have used is creating mentoring programs and day camps for local children as a way to discourage them from becoming involved in gang activity. They are trying to reach kids at a young age so that they always have somewhere to turn to where they can grow and prosper rather than resorting to violence or crime.

In recent years, Chicago has become what can only be compared to a battlefield in certain parts of the city, with some residents even giving it the nickname of “Chiraq.” It has been known for a long time that Chicago is experiencing a surge of unnecessary violence, although the death of the seven-year-old sparked citywide cries for justice and peace. Hopefully those cries will finally start to make a difference.

Toni Keddell

Toni Keddell is a member of the University of Maryland Class of 2017 and a Law Street Media Fellow for the Summer of 2015. Contact Toni at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Endless Bloodshed on the Streets of Chicago Mars Holiday Weekend appeared first on Law Street.

What scares you the most? That’s the question that Chapman University decided to ask America in a recently released study called the “Chapman Survey on American Fears.” In the study, researchers surveyed 1,500 Americans from different walks of life in order to create a strong representative sample. They split the types of fears into four categories: personal fears, crime, natural disasters, and fear factors. They were able to determine the most pressing concerns in each of the categories, as well as overall. Based on this study, Chapman University was able to come up with the five most common fears in the United States:

• Walking alone at night
• Becoming the victim of identity theft
• Safety on the internet
• Being the victim of a mass/random shooting
• Public speaking

The top five worries/concerns in the United States were:

• Having identity stolen on the Internet
• Corporate surveillance of Internet activity
• Running out of money in the future
• Government surveillance of Internet activity
• Becoming ill/sick

The survey also polled people about what kind of natural disasters they would find the most frightening. Tornado/hurricane, earthquake, flood, pandemic, and power outage ranked the highest on the survey. Despite that fact, the survey found that very few people have any sort of emergency preparedness plan in place.

Overall impressions of crime in the United States were also taken into account by Chapman University, and they were very interesting. The fears and concerns really don’t make that much sense. For example, the study discovered that most Americans think that crime rates are going up, and that’s not really the case. As one of the study’s co-authors, Dr. Edward Day, put it:

What we found when we asked a series of questions pertaining to fears of various crimes is that a majority of Americans not only fear crimes such as child abduction, gang violence, sexual assaults, and others; but they also believe these crimes (and others have increased over the past 20 years. When we looked at statistical data from police and FBI records, it showed crime has actually decreased in America in the past 20 years.

There’s really not that much logic to a lot of what people are now fearing if you look at it objectively. Public speaking is uncomfortable for many, but will probably not be life-altering. And while mass shootings are, of course, terrifying, they’re still statistically unlikely. The overwhelming feeling I get from this list is that people are scared of the unknown, and they’re scared of crimes that have been sensationalized. If you really think about things that are dangerous and should incite fear — car accidents, cancer, and obesity — they’re almost so ubiquitous that they don’t get coverage.

That would certainly make sense, given the way that people are panicking about Ebola to the point of failing to employ any sort of logic, or ISIS, or any other issue that never fails to get the talking heads on cable news flailing their arms. While there’s nothing wrong or flat-out incorrect about the concerns that people have, it is an interesting look at how susceptible we are to incensed media coverage.

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 Just in Time for Halloween: What Are Americans’ Top Fears? appeared first on Law Street.

The rate of “active shooter” incidents has been increasing since 2000, according to a new study from the FBI in conjunction with researchers at Texas State University’s Advanced Law Enforcement Rapid Response Training Center. The study identified 160 incidents occurring between 2000 and 2013, and concluded that there were over twice as many of these shootings in the second half of that period as there were in the first.

In total, these incidents caused over 1,000 casualties — which the FBI classifies as both injury and death — leaving 557 injured and 486 dead, not including the shooters themselves. Among the study’s many important conclusions is the finding that police officers are often not able to respond in time, making civilian response extremely important.

Researchers found an average of six active shooter situations per year between 2000 and 2006. That rate increased to over 16 in the second half of the years studied. The number of casualties – including both injuries and deaths– increased from an average of 35 per year in the first half of the study to 113 in the second.

It is important to note that active shooter situations are not the same as mass shootings. The agreed upon definition of an active shooter is “an individual actively engaged in killing or attempting to kill people in a confined and populated area,” though the FBI expanded it slightly for its research. In contrast to this definition, a mass shooting is an incident where a shooter kills three or more people.

Of the 160 total cases identified by researchers, 64 incidents or 40 percent would be classified as mass shootings. The distinction between “mass” and “active” shooter situations is small, but very important, as a person can be an active shooter without directly causing injury. Even the Wall Street Journal conflated the two, as the title of its coverage is “Mass Shootings on the Rise, FBI Says.”

James Alan Fox, a professor of criminal justice at Northeastern University, cautioned against the conclusion that mass shootings are increasing. In an interview with Time he said, “A majority of active shooters are not mass shooters… A majority kill fewer than three.” Fox went on to say that, if the study focused specifically on mass shootings it might not reveal an increase. Instead, he contends that the number of mass shootings have remained relatively steady since the 1970s.

Implications for Law Enforcement

While the findings about the rate of active shooter situations are important, the report’s primary purpose was to take a closer look at these incidents and their trends to see how law enforcement can better respond. The focus on active, rather than mass shooters is based on the underlying implication that the situation is in progress, meaning that law enforcement and bystanders may be able to influence the outcome.

One major finding about these situations is that they often end very quickly. In the 64 incidents where a duration could be determined, 44 ended in five minutes or less and 23 of those finished in just two minutes or less.

Equally important is the specific ways in which these incidents end:

 “At least 107 (66.9%) ended before police arrived and could engage the shooter, either because a citizen intervened, the shooter fled, or the shooter committed suicide or was killed by someone at the scene.”

-FBI’s Active Shooter Study

Additionally, over half of the situations (56%) ended on the shooter’s accord; the shooter either committed suicide, stopped shooting, or ran away. Also important is the fact that 21 incidents (13.1%) ended when unarmed citizens intervened, only two of which involved off duty law enforcement. Armed citizens were only involved in five incidents, four of which ended after armed security guards intervened, and only one ended after an armed civilian bystander engaged the shooter.

Also important is the location of these shootings. The three places with the highest rate of active shooter incidents are commercial areas (45.6%), educational environments (24.4%), and government properties (10%).

The study’s findings indicate that law enforcement may have a limited ability to respond to active shooters, as they typically end very quickly and before officers can arrive. However, they may also emphasize the importance of prevention and response training for citizens. Prevention remains the most important strategy for dealing with this problem, but the FBI’s recent emphasis on training may also help reduce the danger posed by shooters.

Featured image courtesy of [North Carolina National Guard via Flickr]

—-

Kevin Rizzo (@kevinrizzo10)

Featured image courtesy of [North Carolina National Guard/TSgt Richard Kerner, NCNG Public Affairs, 145th Airlift Wing via Flickr]

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 New FBI Report: Active Shooter Incidents on the Rise appeared first on Law Street.

While the World Cup brought some of the mot talented soccer players to the forefront, it also brought out some of the savviest criminals along with it. Much like the South African World Cup in 2010, spectators venturing to Brazil this summer were told to be wary and vigilant as crime was expected to make a meteoric rise as the games went on. Sadly, they were correct. From the cloning of debit cards to rudimentary muggings, fans from all over the world were victims of crimes during the World Cup

Crime was already on the rise in Rio de Janeiro in the months leading up to the World Cup, with muggings increasing an astounding 60 percent at the infamous Copacabana Beach. According to Rio’s crime statistics, muggings had increased 44 percent in the first four months of this year alone. As Brazil was expecting criminals to take advantage of the wide-eyed tourists exploring the country this summer, they started to “clean up” the infamous favelas. Police presence was amplified in the months leading up to the World Cup, which saw the arrests of dozens of hardened criminals. Despite this, fans still fell victim to crimes throughout the month-long tournament.

Jack Smith, an American who withdrew money in a Rio De Janeiro airport believes that his card was cloned instantaneously and used over the next couple of days to spend $12,000. Luckily, when he noticed the charges he immediately contacted his bank and they were able to cancel the card and cover the losses. “I’ve probably met 60 people here, and 20 have been hit,” Smith told Fox News. Some spectators were not as lucky as Smith and were unable to retrieve their stolen property.

Christian Alvarez, a Chilean fan, had $1,700 stolen from him at gunpoint outside his hotel. He contacted the Chilean consulate to try and get his money back but was unsuccessful. Another Chilean, Fabian Morales, lost his passport as he was celebrating Chile’s win over defending champions Spain.

Takeshi Itai, a Japanese tourist, was visiting a favela in the eastern region of Salvador when five men with guns approached his taxi. Luckily the taxi managed to drive away before the robbery could take place. “I’ll never go into a favela again. I never imagined I would have guns pulled on me,” Itai told the Japanese Times. Unfortunately for Brazil, it seems like the experiences from this World cup may discourage some fans from venturing to Rio for the 2016 Olympics.

At the start of the World Cup, the Brazilian government distributed a brochure detailing what to do in the event of a mugging. “Do not react, scream or ague,” the brochure said. They warned tourists to not carry a lot of cash on them, to not flaunt their valuables, and to do periodic checks to make sure no one was following them.

For those who could afford it, private security companies were available to provide round-the-clock security. iJET, a security company, estimates that between 30,000 to 60,000 people spent at least $10,000 on “enhanced security services,” at this World Cup. A lot of people are venturing down to the South American country not for pleasure, but for business. “These companies are sending their most valuable assets and customers down there,” John Rose, chief operator at iJET said.

Yet with the 25,000 police officers dispatched for the final, a 2-km police perimeter set around the stadium, and hundreds of personal security guards, chaos still ensued throughout the tournament. Fans watching the Brazil vs. Germany game at Fifa’s Fan Fest on Copacabana Beach were forced to flee after a group of masked men conducted a mass robbery, stealing bags and jewelry. An electronic store was looted, gunshots were fired into a large crowd, riots broke out, passports were stolen, fans fought each other, and buses were set ablaze. The buses burned in the neighborhoods of Sao Paulo, Brazil’s largest city; and when the flames were finally put out nineteen buses were destroyed in total.

In my eyes, Brazil has lost this World Cup on all accounts. Brazil certainly lost in on the field after an embarrassing  7-1 defeat by Germany, which will be remembered for decades. It has lost the faith of tourists, the people who traveled to Brazil in hopes of celebrating this joyous event and soaking in the Brazilian culture, but were instead held at gunpoint, robbed, and assaulted. And it has lost the faith of its own people, after spending so much money — $14 billion to be exact — while the country is plagued by massive economic inequality and an ailing economy. We can only hope that in four years, when the World Cup dawns upon us again, Russia will do better.

—

Trevor Smith

Featured image courtesy of [Breno Peck via Flickr]

Trevor Smith

Trevor Smith is a homegrown DMVer studying Journalism and Graphic Design at American University. Upon graduating he has hopes to work for the US State Department so that he can travel, learn, and make money at the same time. Contact Trevor at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Brazil Lost the World Cup and the Battle Against Crime appeared first on Law Street.

A man armed with a shotgun opened fire in an academic building at Seattle Pacific University on June 6, 2014. He walked up to three students and fired. One died; two were wounded. The following Friday, a man launched an assault against a courthouse in Forsyth County, Georgia. Only one person was wounded, but given the assailant’s stockpile of ammunition and bombs, it’s safe to assume he had much bigger plans. While the nation had a day off from similar violence that Saturday, Sunday was met with another shooting in Las Vegas. A couple killed two cops and a civilian before turning their guns on themselves. Last Tuesday, June 10, there was a school shooting in Oregon. Two are confirmed dead from that incident. That’s four shootings in six days with seven people dead.

Gun Rights and the Constitution 

Americans have long viewed the freedom to own a gun as a point of pride, one that is staunchly protected by the National Rifle Association, possibly the most successful lobbying group in modern American history. The NRA has shaped the way Americans currently view the Second Amendment.

But let’s look at what the Second Amendment really says. It reads: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

To be fair, the comma placement makes this a difficult sentence to interpret. But the historical purpose of this amendment came from states’ concerns that there would be a federal militia but no state militias. This amendment was created to protect a state’s right to form its own militia. But in recent years, the NRA has expertly convoluted the Second Amendment into the meaning it holds today — the absolute right to own a gun. It claims any gun control endeavor is a staunch violation of individual freedoms.

Now, I am not going to suggest banning individual ownership of guns in America. Not only is that a probable constitutional violation, the public would never allow that to happen. But I do not see any reason why restrictions cannot be placed on gun ownership. The constitution is not absolute. For example, the First Amendment says Congress can make no law abridging a person’s freedom of speech. Reading this as an absolutist, the amendment can be interpreted as allowing any person to say anything he wants. But both individual states and Congress have passed laws limiting speech, such as a law declaring it unlawful to use free speech to incite violence or intimidate. According to that law, the Ku Klux Klan cannot burn a cross to intimidate an individual. If the First Amendment was interpreted as absolute, this law would not have been possible.

There is no reason the Second Amendment should be treated as an absolute when the First is not. The government can restrict speech to protect its citizens, so it should also be able to restrict gun sales to do the same.  But when it comes to the Second Amendment, the NRA and the most vocal gun advocates deal in absolutes. David Metcalf, an avid gun user, former editor of Guns & Ammo and member of the NRA, recently made a similar argument to the one I just made. He was called a traitor and threatened just because he argued that regulating guns isn’t an automatic infringement on gun owners’ rights.

Gun Rights and Crime 

Now, regardless of the constitutionality argument, the NRA claims that regulation of guns will do nothing to stop crime. It argues that people need guns to protect themselves and that anyone can get a gun on the black market, so new restrictions will do nothing. But let’s look at some data. In 2012, Britain, a nation with strict gun laws, had a murder rate of 1.2 per 100,000, while America had a rate of 4.8 per 100,000. The gun murder rate for England and Wales is 0.1 per 100,000, while it is 3.2 per 100,000 in the United States. This isn’t an isolated example — the US has by far the highest per capita gun deaths among developed nations.

Several things could be done about this crisis. We could implement much stricter background checks and require gun licenses be subject to regular renewals. These changes need to be paired with better treatment and recognition of those who are mentally ill. We need to identify those who are at risk, and then prevent their access to guns. Furthermore, assault rifles, such as the AR-15, should not be legal. A variant of this weapon was used in the Sandy Hook shooting. The shooter stole the gun from his mother’s collection. If the gun was banned, even if it was still available on the black market, the Lanzas probably would not have purchased it illegally. Finally, there is a large black market for guns, so any legal restriction of gun use must be paired with money for the FBI and ATF to shut down it down.

I began this article by highlighting four shootings that took place in the span of six days. Many Americans have reacted by saying, “well, it could have been worse.”  This is an attitude of acceptance, because those deaths simply didn’t have to happen. Gun regulation is constitutional and it has worked elsewhere. We owe it to the past and future victims of gun violence to give it a try.

—

Matt DeWilde (@matt_dewilde25) is a member of the American University class of 2016 majoring in politics and considering going to law school. He loves writing about politics, reading, watching Netflix, and long walks on the beach. Contact Matt at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Sean Savage via Flickr]

Matt DeWilde

Matt DeWilde is a member of the American University class of 2016 majoring in politics and considering going to law school. He loves writing about politics, reading, watching Netflix, and long walks on the beach. Contact Matt at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post We Need to Stop Accepting Gun Violence appeared first on Law Street.

A TSA employee was fatally shot on Friday morning inside terminal three at Los Angeles International Airport when a gunman opened fire with an assault weapon at 9:20 a.m. The shooter has been identified as Paul Anthony Ciancia, 23 years old, from Pennsylvania. Ciancia moved to California approximately 18 months ago and has no prior criminal record. According to LAX Police Chief Patrick Gannon, the gunman “pulled an assault rifle out of his bag and began firing. He moved into the screening area and continued shooting.” Additional reports stated that authorities tracked down the suspect and shot him near a Burger King before taking him into custody. He was shot four times, including once in his mouth and twice in his chest; he remains heavily sedated with 24-hour armed guard protection at a local hospital.

The Los Angeles Fire Department reported that seven people were treated for injuries at the scene and were then taken to a local hospital. The TSA identified the victim as Gerardo Hernandez, 40 years old, working as a travel document checker. Two additional officers were injured and hospitalized.

Prior to the shooting, Ciancia’s father contacted Pennsville state police about a disturbing text from him to his brother. Although the incident is still under investigation, a note was discovered in his bag in which Ciancia stated that he “wanted to kill TSA and pigs,” and that he was a  “pissed-off patriot.” Witnesses reported that he walked from person to person, asking if they were affiliated with the TSA. The note also indicated that Ciancia thought that his rights were being violated by TSA.

State prosecutors have charged Ciancia with the first-degree murder and killing a federal officer. These charges makes him eligible for life in prison without parole or even the death penalty.

There has been a tremendous amount of loss. People are traumatized as one victim reported, “I’ve never been afraid like that.” Gerardo’s wife said, “I am truly devastated.” Moreover, the shooting resulted in troublesome flight delays due to the prolonged shutdown of the nation’s third largest airport terminal, which serves Virgin America, AirTran, Spirit Airlines, Horizon Air and JetBlue. After the shooting the terminal was out of service and all planes in the air were diverted to other airports. President Obama also took notice of the incident and expressed his condolences to the victim’s family.

Although the shooter has been arrested and charged within the criminal justice system, questions arise as to who is responsible, and how did the gunman manage to bring his weapon inside the nation’s largest airport? According to ABC News, one of Ciancia’s intentions was to display how easy it is to get a gun into an airport.

This is not the first killing spree in Los Angeles. A limo driver opened fire at the same airport, killing two police officers in 2002. In fact, several cases of mass shootings have caught national attention in the media lately. Another recent example is the Navy Yard shooting in which the shooter killed twelve people and wounded four in Washington, D.C.

Why has there been an increase in this type of tragic event all over the nation? There was a total of nine mass shootings last year at a variety of locations. Shooters have not explicitly targeted government buildings, rather, they have focused on sensitive areas in order to maximize the damage. Is this because of law enforcement’s ineffectiveness at security checkpoints or is it due to weak gun control laws? Whatever the reason may be, these incidents give a credible standpoint to all those who support gun control, but the question remains, are guns really the problem?

[Los Angeles Times]

—

Featured image courtesy of [Flobrio via Wikipedia]

Asim Mian

Asim Mian is a graduate of George Mason University. Contact Asim at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Mass Shootings in America: LAX Airport appeared first on Law Street.

Buying a $299 whiteboard that can stop bullets is a startling reality for educational professionals across the country. The LA Times estimates that Hardwire LLC sold around 100 such boards to schools in 5 different states. According to the website “the high-tech tablet — which hangs on a hook, measures 18-by-20 inches and comes in pink, blue, and green — can be used as a personal shield for professors under attack and as a portable writing pad in quieter times”.

Being an alternative to arming teachers, the invention of this multifunctional tablet draws attention to the fears in the American education system.

But does this mean that people are simply waiting for more mass shootings to happen? Does it mean that it’s no longer safe to send your kids to school, or pursue a career in education?

I decided to look at the statistics to find the definitive answer, specifically a Small Arms Survey New Armed Actors Research Note, provides a reliable data on gun ownership in participating countries. According to their report, the United States has 270,000,000 firearms in the possession of its civilian population alone, making the U.S. the world’s leader in civilian gun ownership. Although almost every American agrees that mass shootings, particularly those at schools, are a very important issue, there remains a great deal of disagreement on how to solve the problem. Anti-gun folks will argue that all mass shootings happened just for one reason: the availability of guns. The solution they offer is to prohibit guns, and voilà, the problem is solved! But the reality is – the prohibition of guns will not happened because American society is not ready for that. The latest poll by Gallup showed that 74 percent of Americans are against banning guns for civilians! Thus, it will take many more significant events like school shootings for Americans to change their perceptions on firearms and reform gun laws in the United States. Furthermore, the government can’t even tighten existing gun laws due to the political rivalry, and strong lobbying of pro-gun organizations. In contrast, pro-gun politicians suggest that we arm teachers, and again, voilà, the problem will be solved. The irony of this proposition is all too clear to me, so I have to ask: is it really going to help? Mother Jones analyzed 62 mass shootings in America, finding that not even one of these events was prevented by an armed bystander.  In fact, some of these heroes were actually injured or killed as a result of their attempts to stop the attack.

Live Science indicates that although mass shootings are not a common phenomena, when compared to other violent crimes in America, the amount has been steadily increasing. The same source suggests that most of the shooters had difficulty to connect with other people and wanted to be seen as notorious as possible. The interesting characteristic of almost all mass shooters is their ability to plan and execute their projected shootings despite their mental instability. This reminds me of Edgar Allan Poe’s “Tell-Tale Heart” where murder was meticulously planned and executed by the unknown narrator who is suffering from a mental disease. The Huffington Post suggests that “a history of abuse or ineffective parenting, a tendency to set fires or hurt animals, a sadistic streak, and self-centeredness and a lack of compassion” all can characterize mass shooters. So will arming teachers prevent these people from shooting until their last breath? Probably not.

The problem of mass shootings, especially on campuses, is not only due to the availability of guns, but also to the lack of proper treatment for the mentally-ill. Real Clear Politics encourages us to address the widespread problems of young unstable adolescents and to stop meaningless fight about gun control. The violence exposure through TV and video games combined with alienation, individualistic culture, pressure to succeed, and mental disturbance, can create a lonely mass shooter who might come to your college, school, movie theatre, or grocery store tomorrow.

I decided to look at the statistics again, but now within the American mental health care system. Washington Post provides seven facts about mental health system in the United States, among those are high price tags on mental health services, bias in mental health treatments, and restricted access to mental medical care. Fox News also breaks down for us what is wrong with mental health care in America, and the picture is not all bright. Inadequate training of professionals in the industry and sky-high costs of treatment itself are only two perplexing realities of mental health care system today.

So how do we cure campuses form mass shootings? Changes can happen, but people should not only be aware of the issue realities, they should fiercely advocate for changing the ineffective policies that currently exist. Tightening gun laws to prevent mentally-ill people from accessing firearms, and providing more mobility and resources to mentally-ill people alone can decrease mass shooting incidents. The problem itself should be viewed as multidimensional issue that involves government, local communities, educational system, and healthcare.

There is no time for meaningless fights about gun control and dubious ideas to transform schools and colleges to citadels with armed teachers. A $299 pink board also won’t help tackle the problem.

But what should teachers and students do in the meantime?

Teachers will buy those colorful boards hoping they will never use them as “protection shields”, put guns in their classroom drawers, and start to teach hoping that history will never repeat itself.

In memory of Sandy Hook Elementary Shooting.

—

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.

Featured image courtesy of [woodleywonderworks via Flickr]

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 Guns, Whiteboards, and the Mentally Ill: How to Cure Campuses From Mass Shootings appeared first on Law Street.