The Shooting Gallery: Police Violence MEGATHREAD

[Syt]

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-53636098

Kaepernick shirt used as a target at Navy Seal event

The US Navy Seals are investigating after footage emerged of military dogs attacking a "stand-in" wearing a Colin Kaepernick shirt at an event last year.

The video was reportedly taken at the National Navy Seal Museum in Florida in 2019, but went viral this weekend.

In a statement, the Navy Seals said the video was "completely inconsistent" with its values.

Kaepernick, a quarterback, began kneeling during the national anthem to protest racial injustice in 2016.

Several clips posted on Twitter on Sunday show a target wearing the red Kaepernick jersey being attacked by a number of military dogs.

In one video, the man appears to say "Oh man, I will stand" after being brought down by the dogs, drawing laughter from the crowd.

"We became aware today of a video of a Navy Seal Museum event posted last year," the Navy Seals said in a message posted on Twitter.

"The inherent message of this video is completely inconsistent with the values and ethos of Naval Special Warfare and the US Navy.

"We are investigating the matter fully and initial indications are that there were no active duty Navy personnel or equipment involved with this independent organisation's event."

Kaepernick first started kneeling during the national anthem in 2016 when he was a player for the San Francisco 49ers.

However, he faced a strong backlash and has remained unsigned for several years.

Only this year did the National Football League (NFL) reverse its opposition to players taking a knee during the anthem.

The decision came amid global protests over the death of African-American George Floyd while in police custody.

[Valmy]

Dogs eh? Well that doesn't remind us of anything.

[grumbler]

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-53636098

Kaepernick shirt used as a target at Navy Seal event

The US Navy Seals are investigating after footage emerged of military dogs attacking a "stand-in" wearing a Colin Kaepernick shirt at an event last year.

The video was reportedly taken at the National Navy Seal Museum in Florida in 2019, but went viral this weekend.

In a statement, the Navy Seals said the video was "completely inconsistent" with its values.

Kaepernick, a quarterback, began kneeling during the national anthem to protest racial injustice in 2016.

Several clips posted on Twitter on Sunday show a target wearing the red Kaepernick jersey being attacked by a number of military dogs.

In one video, the man appears to say "Oh man, I will stand" after being brought down by the dogs, drawing laughter from the crowd.

"We became aware today of a video of a Navy Seal Museum event posted last year," the Navy Seals said in a message posted on Twitter.

"The inherent message of this video is completely inconsistent with the values and ethos of Naval Special Warfare and the US Navy.

"We are investigating the matter fully and initial indications are that there were no active duty Navy personnel or equipment involved with this independent organisation's event."

Kaepernick first started kneeling during the national anthem in 2016 when he was a player for the San Francisco 49ers.

However, he faced a strong backlash and has remained unsigned for several years.

Only this year did the National Football League (NFL) reverse its opposition to players taking a knee during the anthem.

The decision came amid global protests over the death of African-American George Floyd while in police custody.

The BBC continues to depress me with its declining intellectual integrity and/or competence.  The title is false; this wasn't a Navy SEAL event (oh, and BTW, BBC, SEAL is all caps, like BBC is), it was a private museum event.  These weren't military dogs, they were owned by the museum.

Its disgusting, but special forces groupies do disgusting things; it's in their nature.

[The Brain]

The BBC needs the clicks.

[Eddie Teach]

Dogs eh? Well that doesn't remind us of anything.

Fellow NFL quarterback Michael Vick?

[viper37]

U.S. District Court Judge Carlton Reeves couldn't do justice for the plaintiff in his court, who had sued over police abuse. The Supreme Court won't let him. So Reeves issued an opinion that dutifully followed the law — and blistered the justices for the all-but-insurmountable barrier they have constructed to shield police officers from being held to account.

Reeves, a Barack Obama nominee who sits in Jackson, Miss., and is the second Black federal judge in the history of the state, produced one of the most powerful pieces of legal writing I have encountered. His opinion is a 72-page cri de coeur directed at the Supreme Court, arguing that it must do away with the doctrine of "qualified immunity" for law enforcement officials.

Reeves begins with the larger context. "Clarence Jamison wasn't jaywalking." Footnote: "That was Michael Brown," shot by police in Ferguson, Mo. "He wasn't outside playing with a toy gun." Footnote: "That was 12-year-old Tamir Rice," shot in a park by a Cleveland police officer. "He wasn't suspected of 'selling loose, untaxed cigarettes.' " Footnote: "That was Eric Garner," the Staten Island man who died after an officer put him in a chokehold.
AD

And on and on, for 19 excruciating footnotes, George Floyd and Philando Castile, Sandra Bland and Breonna Taylor, until we get to Jamison's non-offense: "He didn't make an 'improper lane change.' He didn't have a broken tail light. He wasn't driving over the speed limit. He wasn't driving under the speed limit. No, Clarence Jamison was a Black man driving a Mercedes convertible." In 2013, in Pelahatchie, Miss., an hour south of Philadelphia, Miss., where Andrew Goodman, Michael Schwerner and James Chaney were killed in 1964. Because his temporary tag — he had just purchased the car — was allegedly folded over.

As Reeves recounts, Jamison's fate was less dire than that of many others: "As he made his way home to South Carolina from a vacation in Arizona, Jamison was pulled over and subjected to one hundred and ten minutes of an armed police officer badgering him, pressuring him, lying to him and then searching his car top to bottom for drugs. Nothing was found. Jamison isn't a drug courier. He's a welder."

Jamison wasn't shot. He wasn't killed. But he was frightened and humiliated, and his car suffered several thousand dollars in damage to its seats and convertible top. And, as Reeves found, his constitutional rights were violated: Officer Nick McClendon's search of Jamison's car violated the Fourth Amendment, and Jamison's supposed "consent" to the search could hardly be deemed voluntary.
AD

"In an America where Black people 'are considered dangerous even when they are in their living rooms eating ice cream, asleep in their beds, playing in the park, standing in the pulpit of their church, birdwatching, exercising in public, or walking home from a trip to the store to purchase a bag of Skittles,' " Reeves wrote, "who can say that Jamison felt free that night on the side of Interstate 20? Who can say that he felt free to say no to an armed Officer McClendon?"

But none of that mattered, which brings us to the larger context that Reeves explores: the purpose of the federal civil rights law under which Jamison sued McClendon. Its popular name tells the story: the Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871, a Reconstruction era-effort to respond to what a later court described as the "reign of terror imposed by the Klan upon black citizens and their white sympathizers in the Southern States." The law, now commonly known as Section 1983, provides for damages against state officials who deprive individuals of their constitutional rights.

All good, but for the fact that the Supreme Court began to eviscerate the law more than 50 years ago. As Reeves explains, "Judges have invented a legal doctrine to protect law enforcement officers from having to face any consequences for wrongdoing. The doctrine is called 'qualified immunity.' In real life it operates like absolute immunity."
AD

Nothing in the text of the 1871 statute provides for immunity — not a single word — but the court imported common-law protections in 1967 to shield officials operating in good faith.

Then, in 1982, it went further. To be held liable, it's not enough to prove that a police officer violated someone's constitutional rights; the right must be so "clearly established" that "every reasonable official would have understood that what he is doing violates that right." There must be a case on point, except that how can there be a case on point if there wasn't one already in existence. This is Catch-22 meets Section 1983.

Numerous justices across the ideological spectrum — Anthony M. Kennedy, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Sonia Sotomayor — have criticized the doctrine. But the court has appeared unwilling to do anything about it. As its term concluded, the court refused to hear any of the eight cases offering it the opportunity to reconsider the doctrine.
AD

This cannot continue. As Reeves writes, "The status quo is extraordinary and unsustainable. Just as the Supreme Court swept away the mistaken doctrine of 'separate but equal,' so too should it eliminate the doctrine of qualified immunity."

The judge couldn't help Jamison. But maybe his message to his judicial bosses will help future Jamisons win the justice they deserve.

Link

[Syt]

https://apnews.com/7e660cd8c172fca5cd49e703d74f92fc

Utah protesters face charges with potential life sentence

SALT LAKE CITY (AP) — Some Black Lives Matter protesters in Salt Lake City could face up to life in prison if they're convicted of splashing red paint and smashing windows during a protest, a potential punishment that stands out among demonstrators arrested around the country and one that critics say doesn't fit the alleged crime.

The felony criminal mischief charges are more serious because they carry a gang enhancement. Prosecutors said Wednesday that's justified because the protesters worked together to cause thousands of dollars in damage, but watchdogs called the use of the 1990s-era law troubling, especially in the context of criminal justice reform and minority communities.

"This is so far beyond just the enforcement of the law, it feels retaliatory," said Madalena McNeil, who is facing a potential life sentence over felony criminal mischief and riot charges. Charging documents say she bought red paint at a Home Depot before the July 9 demonstration sparked by a fatal police shooting ruling. She later yelled at and shifted her weight as if to slam into police during the demonstration, charges state. "It's really frustrating and scary ... I just feel so much concern for what this means for the right to protest in general."

The charges have Democratic leaders at odds in Salt Lake City, the liberal-leaning capital of conservative Utah, with the top county prosecutor arguing vandalism crossed a line and the mayor calling the charges too extreme.

The potential life sentence stands out as harsh punishment even among other people facing felony charges stemming from protests around the country. In Portland, Oregon, for instance, a 32-year-old man is facing up to 20 years on an arson charge alleging he broke into a building that houses the police headquarters and set an office on fire.

The Utah demonstrators are unlikely to serve prison time, said Salt Lake County District Attorney Sim Gill. Though they'd get at least five years if convicted as charged, criminal cases often end with a plea to lesser counts.

"I don't think anyone is going to be going to prison on this," he said. Gill is a generally reform-minded Democrat who said he has participated in Black Lives Matter protests himself and declined to charge dozens of protesters accused of curfew violations.

Still, he argued "there's some people who want to engage in protest, but they want to be absolved of absolved of any behavior," he said. "This is not about protest, this is about people who are engaging in criminal conduct."

But for the American Civil Liberties Union of Utah, invoking a law aimed at street gangs in troubling, especially against demonstrators of color. "You are calling participants in a protest gang members," said attorney Jason Groth.

And there are other side effects to criminal charges, he said. McNeil tweeted Thursday she was asked resign from her job in the nonprofit sector and all the defendants have to post $50,000 bail to get out of jail.

"This is the highest degree felony. This is usually reserved for murders and rapists," said attorney Brent Huff, who represents co-defendant Madison Alleman.

Another defense attorney Jesse Nix, who represents protester Viviane Turman, questioned whether Gill should have filed charges involving his own office. "No one should get life in prison for putting paint on a building," he said.

Gill countered that short staffing during the coronavirus pandemic necessitated that but others will handle the case going forward.

More than 30 people have been charged with various crimes in Salt Lake County since the national wave of protests over George Floyd's death began in late May. Similar first-degree felony counts have also been filed against people accused of flipping and burning a police car May 30.

"We have to have some agreement of what constitutes protected First Amendment speech," Gill said. "When you cross that threshold, should you be held accountable or not?"

[Valmy]

Utah protesters face charges with potential life sentence

So instead of fining them for the damage and keeping them in the county jail for a few months we get to house them for decades at immense public expense for property damange? Shouldn't we be primarily locking people up who actually dangerous?

Sounds like a good plan.

[Syt]

Utah protesters face charges with potential life sentence

So instead of fining them for the damage and keeping them in the county jail for a few months we get to house them for decades at immense public expense for property damange? Shouldn't we be primarily locking people up who actually dangerous?

Sounds like a good plan.

Hey. what's good for Louisiana ...

https://www.npr.org/2020/08/05/899525589/louisiana-supreme-court-wont-review-life-sentence-for-man-who-stole-hedge-clippe

Louisiana Supreme Court Won't Review Life Sentence For Man Who Stole Hedge Clippers

(the man in the article was convicted of armed robbery in '79, possession of stolen property in '87, attempted check forgery in '89, burglary in '92, before pulling the hedge clipper heist in '97)

[Valmy]

Oh sure they have plenty of money to lock up hedge clipper stealers for life but can't fix their damn roads.

[The Minsky Moment]

(the man in the article was convicted of armed robbery in '79, possession of stolen property in '87, attempted check forgery in '89, burglary in '92, before pulling the hedge clipper heist in '97)

Someone in 2002 still has their garden hose thanks to the vigilance of the State of Lousiana.

[Maximus]

But can they drink from it? 

[viper37]

Utah protesters face charges with potential life sentence

So instead of fining them for the damage and keeping them in the county jail for a few months we get to house them for decades at immense public expense for property damange? Shouldn't we be primarily locking people up who actually dangerous?

Sounds like a good plan.

they are dangerous.  But life imprisonment is too harsh.  10-15 years of hard labour to pay back the costs of the damages, with interests, would be enough.

[garbon]

https://www.politico.com/states/california/story/2020/08/10/san-francisco-becomes-first-county-in-the-nation-to-offer-free-calls-to-jail-inmates-1306715

San Francisco becomes first county in the nation to offer free calls to jail inmates

San Francisco has become the first county in the nation to offer free phone calls to inmates from county jail — one of a series of reforms that Mayor London Breed announced Monday to "stop generating revenue from incarcerated people and their families."

Marking up prices for phone calls and commissary items remains a widespread practice in jails and prisons across the country, Breed's office noted Monday — but with the action, San Francisco now joins New York City in slashing or eliminating these costs and becomes the first county in the nation to make the move.

"Being able to stay in touch with family is always important, but it is even more critical during a health emergency like COVID-19," Breed said in a statement. "This change is an important continuation of our efforts to reform fines and fees that disproportionately impact low-income people and communities of color." Incarcerated people and their families paid more than $1 million for phone calls from county jails in 2018, she said.

Breed included the plan to make jail phone calls free and end commissary markups in her budget for fiscal year 2019-20 and credited Sheriff Paul Miyamoto with developing the details over the past year. Miyamoto negotiated the county's "first-in-the-nation fixed rate contract" with GTL, a jail phone service contractor, "to ensure the lowest possible cost to the City and taxpayers," Breed said. Under the new contract, rather than families having to pay GTL per minute, the city will pay the vendor a fixed monthly rate per phone device, according to Breed's office. The new contract also allows for free video calls.

Earlier this year, Miyamoto's office eliminated markups for commissary items, reducing prices an average of 43 percent. For example, a package of Top Ramen — a staple at many prisons — now costs $0.50, down from $1.08, and shoes are now priced at $19, down from $30, Breed's office said.

The San Francisco initiative comes as a parallel effort is before the state legislature. CA SB555 (19R), sponsored by state Sen. Holly Mitchell (D-Los Angeles), would change contracting rules to reduce jail phone call rates and eliminate commissary markups statewide. The bill is being heard in the Assembly Appropriations Committee on Friday.

[Tamas]

I get the general point of not creating financial incentives for locking people up, but phone bills? If it is morally wrong to charge convicted criminals for their phone calls, how it is not morally wrong to charge me for them?