Wednesday Writs: Joseph DeAngelo Gets What He Deserves Edition

Avatar

Em Carpenter

Em was one of those argumentative children who was sarcastically encouraged to become a lawyer, so she did. She is a proud life-long West Virginian, and, paradoxically, a liberal. In addition to writing about society, politics and culture, she enjoys cooking, podcasts, reading, and pretending to be a runner. She will correct your grammar. You can find her on Twitter.

Related Post Roulette

23 Responses

  1. Avatar Jaybird
    Ignored
    says:

    L4: What do we have these laws *FOR*? I mean, I look at the cops and I ask “what was their thought process?”

    And I think it’s just “what punishments are at our disposal? These are they. We will use them.”

    And that’s it.

    And that’s it.Report

    • Avatar DensityDuck in reply to Jaybird
      Ignored
      says:

      Pour encourager les autres. They can’t possibly catch all the criminals, so they figure that they’ll engage in Massive Overreaction on the ones they do catch, as a deterrent effect. “In fact,” they say, “we take this crime so seriously that we’ll punish people who didn’t actually commit it, so, imagine what we’ll do you you if we catch you!”Report

      • Avatar Jaybird in reply to DensityDuck
        Ignored
        says:

        It’s like they’re taking turns.

        “Maybe we should get rid of the cops…”
        “WE ARE THE AMATEUR SECURITY FORCES THAT WILL REPLACE THE COPS!”
        “Yeeeesh. Maybe we shouldn’t get rid of the cops.”
        “We’re going to not change. Maybe shoot some people in the back.”
        “Maybe we should get rid of the cops…”Report

        • Avatar DensityDuck in reply to Jaybird
          Ignored
          says:

          I mean, you’d think that if there were any time for the cops to Not Shoot People, it would be nowReport

          • Avatar Jaybird in reply to DensityDuck
            Ignored
            says:

            The inability of police to modify their behavior in response to (waves arms around) is one hell of an argument against police.

            While I still think that we should prefer Oscar’s excellent list of proposed reforms to Police Abolition, the police are doing a great job of trying to talk me out of that.

            Which is nuts.Report

            • Avatar Philip H in reply to Jaybird
              Ignored
              says:

              And you expected something different why, exactly?Report

              • Avatar Jaybird in reply to Philip H
                Ignored
                says:

                I honestly expected leadership in the various back rooms to sit down with the most likely bad offenders and say “knock it off, at least until after the election. They’re trying to defund us. Don’t give them an excuse.”

                As, you know, not-stupid self-preservation.Report

              • Avatar Chip Daniels in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                Why should they? The police read the same papers you do.

                They know that they have an excellent chance of the Department of Justice being headed by Bill Barr for another 4 years, and people like Tom Cotton advising that the only solution is more gunfire and violence.

                Even in the most liberal cities, the police enjoy an almost unbreachable level of support among the political class, the people who write checks and fund campaigns.

                The police don’t view themselves as answerable to the citizens.Report

              • Avatar Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                While it’s true that there are a handful fewer people on the left who offer automatic knee-jerk defenses of stuff like “Police Unions” whenever the status quo is questioned, you’d still be surprised by the number of people who, in response to concrete policy proposals, respond with “but that’s not a magic bullet” rather than with “that’d be a good starting place”.

                I’ll link to Oscar’s post with policy suggestions and you can see how people you probably consider on “the left” responded to it.Report

              • Avatar Chip Daniels in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                I’ll go further and say there are plenty of people on the left who nonetheless prefer white schools and suburbs and are willing to turn a blind eye to the massive injustice required to maintain them.

                There are plenty of people on the left who enjoy the benefits of a hierarchical society that privileges some over others and object when the privilege is challenged.Report

              • Avatar Philip H in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                You missed Chip’s most salient point:

                The police don’t view themselves as answerable to the citizens.

                The leadership in the majority of cases rose through the ranks. Bigger departments head hunt, but even then they generally choose people who have been cops their whole careers. And many, many Sheriffs are elected, but again are career LEOs before they get elevated.

                They have to have a major house cleaning and generational turn over at a minimum to correct this.

                Because while the policy proposals are sound, and even lefty defenders of police unions can get behind them, the police themselves are not YET incentivized to do anything different.Report

              • Avatar Jaybird in reply to Philip H
                Ignored
                says:

                If we want to incentivize the police to change, I suggest changing things that will change incentives.

                If you want a specific list of things to change, I can dig up a post with some policy proposals.Report

              • Avatar Chip Daniels in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                Policy proposals are a dime a dozen. We are awash in very smart, very focused and achievable proposals for police reform.

                What we lack is the political will to implement them.

                Until the reform candidates start winning elections, the Blue Line will hold.

                And again I will note that the Blue Line candidate has a pretty good shot at running the nations justice department in November.Report

              • Avatar Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                Well, Jo Jorgensen it is, then.

                I hope I can get you to vote for her too.Report

      • Avatar Oscar Gordon in reply to DensityDuck
        Ignored
        says:

        Pretty sure there was an amendment about that… Too bad the SCOTUS only occasionally entertains arguments from that.Report

    • Avatar Chip Daniels in reply to Jaybird
      Ignored
      says:

      There are a tremendous number of crimes that occur only because the police decide they occur.

      Like for instance, some crimes like murder or burglary happen because a citizens makes a complaint or a body is found.

      But there are a lot of other crimes where the complaint is filed by the officer.
      Like traffic crimes, public disturbance, intoxication, failure to disperse. And a lot of white collar crimes fall into this category. If Steve Bannon was skimming off the Wall Fund, no citizen made a complaint; It was law enforcement who decided to make the complaint.

      And because it it up to the officer to decide whether a crime has occurred or not, it shouldn’t be surprising that the complaints follow the same pattern of bias and bigotry that the officers themselves hold.

      Like the protesters who stormed into the Michigan statehouse and Idaho statehouses recently.
      We have video evidence showing that multiple crimes were committed; Violating a secure space, failure to follow an officer’s instructions, failure to disperse, disorderly conduct, threatening violence.

      Had the officers involved chosen to do so, they could have arrested most of the participants.

      But, they chose not to, and the crime statistics will forever show that there were no crimes committed that day.Report

  2. Avatar Mike Schilling
    Ignored
    says:

    L2: Thanks. for the explanation It seemed suspicious that the bill removed the right to vote for those convicted of violent felonies and unauthorized camping.Report

  3. Avatar Jaybird
    Ignored
    says:

    An interesting observation:

    Report

    • Avatar Oscar Gordon in reply to Jaybird
      Ignored
      says:

      When having the support of the police union becomes an electoral liability, rather than an advantage, this will change.Report

      • Avatar Chip Daniels in reply to Oscar Gordon
        Ignored
        says:

        Its illustrative that even here in Democratic Los Angeles, when someone wants to run for City Councilman, they have to court the shopkeeper class, the neighborhood groups, the Chamber of Commerce and so on.

        In all the years of wielding power, in all these fundraiser mixers and cocktail parties they held, did any of these groups ever once, raise the issue of police reform and accountability?

        Its not like they can claim they didn’t know or were given any warning. Every year like clockwork, there was a shooting by LAPD that resulted in protests. We were warned repeatedly, again and again.

        Yet year after year after year, council races were run and won by people who never were asked to address police reform.

        And now, when the shopkeepers stand there surveying their shattered windows, they are crying and pretending to be shocked and surprised that such a thing could happen.Report

        • Avatar Oscar Gordon in reply to Chip Daniels
          Ignored
          says:

          Because the MC & above have bought the police narrative that if the police are not given the ability to do their jobs as they see fit (they are, after all, the professionals), then the chaos of the looting is what the MC can expect.Report

  4. Avatar Michael Cain
    Ignored
    says:

    L6: Long ago, when I lived in New Jersey, a friend with some inside knowledge told me that any sizeable real estate company operating in NYC/NJ was technically guilty of both money laundering and fraud in the form of misrepresentation. He said that there was simply too much dirty money sloshing around, and it was too easy to find an assessor who would plausibly justify almost any valuation that you wanted. Also that it was ignored unless it was particularly egregious because the investigations were very expensive to undertake.Report

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *