[0] https://twitter.com/JaredGoyette/status/1265786797650558976
[1] https://twitter.com/JaredGoyette/status/1266115234420400129
[2] https://twitter.com/JaredGoyette/status/1265779746153078793
I'm not a lawyer, but it doesn't
> There is no precedent supporting laws that attempt to distinguish between corporations which are deemed to be exempt as media corporations and those which are not. We have consistently rejected the proposition that the institutional press has any constitutional privilege beyond that of other speakers.
Supreme court in citizen's united, internal quotation marks omitted. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-205.pdf
> protections of the First Amendment do not turn on whether the defendant was a trained journalist, formally affiliated with traditional news entities, engaged in conflict-of-interest disclosure, went beyond just assembling others' writings, or tried to get both sides of a story.
9th circuit in Obsidian Finance Group, LLC v. Cox http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2014/01/17/12...
The goal is to wipe the slate clean and rebuild from the foundation.
You know the protests are in all 50 states. Some of the flare-ups are due to responses to pent-up frustration from covid, but a lot are due to police riots/escalation. The rest of the protests are peaceful.
> But what are the second and third order effects of underfunded police departments?
Police departments, for many reasons, are the most over-funded [1]. NYPD went on strike and crime actually went down [2] for the month they didn't police.
The goal is not to "disband" but essentially rewrite the entire purpose of the department. Essentially put the policing function in receivership to be revived with new leadership.
[1] https://theappeal.org/spending-billions-on-policing-then-mil...
[2] https://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-proacti...
The problem is that they are dramatically limited in the types of charges they can press against officers of the law (charges that carry big penalties, and have a very high burden of proof). This is anachronistically because we as a society have decided that officers deserve benefit of the doubt in the lack of compelling evidence. These days, many instances of misconduct are recorded, and the rules should change.
In Eric Garner's case, for example, the govt attorneys declined to press charges, because they lacked sufficient evidence that the officer was knowingly violating the rights of Eric Garner. The burden of proof for any kind of misconduct charge is currently so high, that even an egregious misconduct case like this passes by untouched.
If the attorneys general had a wider range of misconduct charges in their arsenal, they could raise the average cost of police misconduct, and it might improve the situation.
[1] recently informed by https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/pushkin-industries/deep-bac...
[1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/nicksibilla/2020/06/03/new-bill... (direct source at https://twitter.com/justinamash/status/1267267244029083648)
The Norther Ireland article specifically covers a few of the reasons why this works.
Edit: I realized that I didn't respond to your question of whether this demonstrates an improvement in Camden. Citylab seems to think so, but offers a nuanced explanation of why this may not be the case and what other factors are at play [3]
[1] https://www.sipri.org/commentary/topical-backgrounder/2019/p... [2]https://www.centreforpublicimpact.org/case-study/siezing-mom... [3] https://www.citylab.com/equity/2018/01/what-happened-to-crim...
https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/29/politics/tim-walz-minnesota-c...
https://www.aclu.org/blog/privacy-technology/surveillance-te...
A CNN reporter and crew have been arrested live on air while covering the Minneapolis protests over the killing of George Floyd.
Black correspondent Omar Jimenez had just shown a protester being arrested when about half a dozen white police officers surrounded him.
Mr Jimenez told the Minnesota State Patrol officers: “We can move back to where you like”, before explaining that he and his crew were members of the press, adding: “We’re getting out of your way.”
The journalist was handcuffed and led away alongside a producer and camera operator for CNN.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TIClA57jWmQ&t=138s
accompanying story from same publication's site:
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/cnn-report...
I don't think it implies that covering events has some kind of immunity. It's still subject to any general restriction on the assembly. The government can impose restrictions on the time, place, and manner of peaceful assembly, provided that constitutional safeguards are met. See https://www.loc.gov/law/help/peaceful-assembly/us.php
While less legally defensible it is much of the reason why the BBC, FCC exist, why we have camera crews embed with troops.
> I don’t know yet, though several of us on the council are working on finding out, what it would take to disband the MPD and start fresh with a community-oriented, non-violent public safety and outreach capacity.
It takes a lot of investment in the community, but it works: https://www.citylab.com/equity/2018/01/what-happened-to-crim...
I remembered this as being stated too the cops much clearer than it actually was. Likely I was mixing what they said with what the CNN reporters said later on when they were replaying this clip.
Even during these protests we have instances of people being shot by the police and conflicted recollections from both sides of the events that took place.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2020/06/03/david-...
Record everything and hold everyone accountable for their own actions.
Really?
Only about 18% of current prisoners (state and federal) are serving time for drug offenses. [1]
Of federal prisoners serving time for drug offenses, only 12% are primarily about marijuana. (54% are cocaine and 24% are meth.) [2]
Only 14% of federal offenders were subject to a mandatory minimum sentence. (About half of those were drug offenses, so this overlaps heavily with the 18% figure above.) [3]
No realistic minor changes could reduce the prison system to 1/8 of its size. 51% of prisoners are serving time for violent offenses. In fact, 14% of prisoners are serving time for homicide alone, and a similar number for rape. [4] So if you decriminalized _every_ crime except homicide and rape, and cut the sentences for homicide and rape in _half_, then the prison system would be 1/8 of its current size.
I am optimistic that the USA could eventually, in the very long term, reduce the prison system to 1/8 of its size. Fifty years ago, the prison system was 1/4 its current size. [5] Most western European countries have between 1/8 and 1/4 the US incarceration rate, and a few have below 1/8. [6] But this will require way, way, way bigger societal changes than just marijuana decriminalization or other minor tweaks.
[1] Source is https://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=6846. Of the 1.274M state prisoners, 14% are serving time for drug offenses. Of the 162k federal prisoners, 47% are serving time for drug offenses.
[2] Source is https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/dofp12.pdf. Caveat: this is federal-only, and federal prison statistics are often different from state prison statistics.
[3] Source is https://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/research-and-pu.... Caveat: this is federal-only, and federal prison statistics are often different from state prison statistics.
[4] Source is https://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=6846 again. Of the 1.274M state prisoners, 56% are serving time for violent offenses (16% for homicide). Of the 162k federal prisoners, 8% are serving time for violent offenses (2% for homicide).
[5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incarceration_in_the_United_St...
[6] https://www.statista.com/statistics/957501/incarceration-rat...
I don't have any association with the company other than knowing the founders. No endorsement other than that they're good folks who want to help people have an easier time giving.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualified_immunity
"Qualified immunity is a legal doctrine in United States federal law that shields government officials from being sued for discretionary actions performed within their official capacity, unless their actions violated "clearly established" federal law or constitutional rights. Qualified immunity thus protects officials who "make reasonable but mistaken judgments about open legal questions", but does not protect "the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law"."
Is the bill of rights not "clearly established"? They've had long enough.
To me the phrasing seems clear, it's a lack of political will that's the issue. Not the law.
[1] https://action.aclu.org/give/make-tax-deductible-gift-aclu-f...
These are the people you are defending.
> Where are news reports of protesters throwing rocks at riot police?
Yes, where are they? After all, you have to have this from somewhere. And after seeing the above scenes, keep in mind that this isn't two soccer teams who both have the same job. The police's job is to uphold the law, citizens don't have a job as such. They don't get paid to not break the law, they pay for the apparatus that punishes them if they break it (and let's too many cops go free when they do). The cops are armed, they get paid, they have special privileges to prevent such things, not to use them to do them.
Imagine a little child hitting an adult with all their force, and then the adult hitting back with all their force, and someone just saying "they're both being bad". Not that the cops are adults versus infants, but they do have levers and enjoy protections -- all paid for by the people they or their colleagues brutalize -- that multiply their force by many orders of magnitude.
1) It's extremely difficult being a cop
2) It's extremely terrifying being a cop
3) It's extremely unpopular being a cop
It boggles me every time I hear people say cops need "stricter requirements" and "less pay" but never hear anyone volunteering to join the force and make real change. Look around, how many white knights want to be a cop?
The videos from Thursday/Friday night Minneapolis shape my framework for these riots, not the supposed abuse to protesters and reporters. IMO, given the circumstances, the cops overall have been very civil while taking an onslaught of verbal and even physical abuse. And don't get me wrong, I'm not ignoring police abuse and brutality.
Weird. I wonder why there's a Wikipedia article for something that's "not even a thing"[0].
> It's just a repackaging of Marxist ideals applied to other demographic groupings besides class, and it's just as easily disproven.
Can you cite a single critical theorist who simply transposes class analysis to "other demographic groupings"? The theorists I've read actually stray pretty far from the concept of class conflict, and they do not construct, for example, "gender conflict" or "race conflict" out of the "ideals" such as class conflict. Is there any evidence for your claim at all? Or are you claiming that any analysis of conflict between demographics is simply a repackaging of class conflict?
You fail to recognize the specificity of the idea of class conflict, and why it can't be "repackaged" as an abstraction. As an abstraction, all you're left with is "societal conflict", but nobody would deny that there is some conflict in society of some kind. The concepts of economic exploitation, alienation, historical and current primitive accumulation, base and superstructure, etc. are all core to class conflict analysis, but from what I've read, few if any of these are present in the literature on race and gender.
And while we're on the topic, can you point to which "easy disproofs" you're talking about as they relate to class conflict or "other demographic" conflicts? Ironically, the same critical theorists you claim "aren't a thing" were the same ones to argue against the traditional conception of class conflict (e.g. Marcuse).
https://reason.com/2020/05/19/qualified-immunity-supreme-cou...
Plus, I've seen little textual basis for qualified immunity at all.
https://theappeal.org/ice-friendly-policies-a-string-of-jail...
“Sheriff candidates must have either an advanced certificate from the state’s Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training, or a certain combination of education and law enforcement experience. The law, enacted in 1988, was devised by a subcommittee of the California State Sheriffs’ Association. Before then, the only requirement was that a candidate be registered to vote in the county.”
Where were Deukmejian and Wilson when this was passed?