8 ms·

The United States needs to overhaul its law-enforcement system

130 points by frrp 12y ago

toddsiegel 12y ago
This one sentence towards in the bottom of the article needs to happen. As we saw in the Eric Garner case, video footage means little. > To improve accountability, complaints should be heard by independent arbiters, brought in from outside. The prosecutors and police are on the same team. > If an officer is accused of a crime, the decision as to whether to indict him may rest with a local prosecutor who works closely with the local police, attends barbecues with them and depends on the support of the police union if he or she wants to be re-elected. Or it may rest with a local “grand jury” of civilians, who hear only what the prosecutor wants them to hear.
moskie 12y ago
Small complaint (about an otherwise very good article): > Eric Garner ... guilty only of selling single cigarettes The cops involved suspected this, but I don't believe it's known that he is guilty of this. Especially in a legal sense: he did not live to see a trial.
- jMyles 12y ago
  It actually seems quite plausible that he was innocent: the cops were there for other reasons, saw him and knew him to have a history of selling cigarettes, and engaged him as such. None were found on his person.
- hellbanner 12y ago
  Why exactly is selling single cigarettes illegal?
  - cushychicken 12y ago
    Legal constraints of selling tobacco require a licensed vendor to sell them in licensed packages/quantities. Eric Garner wasn't licensed, and single cigarettes aren't allowed to be sold in the US. Fairly petty crimes, but crimes.
    - jonah 12y ago
      You can buy single cigarettes in many bars. (Don't know if it's legal though.)
      - cushychicken 12y ago
        Interesting. I've never seen that. The packaging thing may be a state to state restriction, because I've never been to a bar that sold cigarettes in quantities less than a pack.
  - sp332 12y ago
    Taxes on packs of cigarettes are very high in New York. So people smuggle in packs or cartons from neighboring states and sell them under the table.
    - waterlesscloud 12y ago
      Until this story I didn't realize how expensive cigarettes are now in New York. They're $13-14 for a pack of 20. So people sell them as singles for $1 each. Likely brought in from lower-taxed areas so the profit margin is higher. I've heard cigs sell for $5 a pack in South Carolina, which doesn't add on taxes at all, so you can see how much the taxes add up. EDIT- changed price in SC based on googling.
  - mc32 12y ago
    I dont know for sure but i think they typically come from contraband cigarettes (where taxes have not been paid and, as others point out, without required license). It'd be like selling whiskey shots on a street corner.
    - thrownaway2424 12y ago
      Strangely not illegal: making and marketing a toxic product that has killed literally tens of millions of people.
      - freditup 12y ago
        Alcohol? </sarcasm> Truth is, pretty much everything is toxic at some point of consumption or another. Deciding where to draw the line is not black & white to me
  - refurb 12y ago
    Taxes. You can do a lot of things to the government and get away with it, but the second you take their money all hell breaks loose.
  - fnordfnordfnord 12y ago
    It's tax evasion. They buy them in Jersey or something and import them into NYC illegally. They can't just sell packs of cigarettes over the counter because they lack a tax-stamp or something. Edit: I mean, it's for the children of course. /s
- parineum 12y ago
  As far as I know, he was guilty of doing that in the past. He was killed in the process of being arrested for suspicion of doing it again.
- superuser2 12y ago
  When people fixate on the untaxed ciagarettes thing, what's often going on is an implicit assumption that once someone has an interaction with the police, it's just inevitable that the police will summarily execute them. That's stupid. We can debate the laws too, but you should be demanding police that enforce the laws with due process and respond to threats proportionally. If you're thinking, "well, once the police suspect someone of violating regulations, of course they're going to kill him" then we're never going to get anywhere.
  - angersock 12y ago
    When police fixate on the criminal thing, what's often going on is an implicit assumption that once someone has an interaction with a suspect, it's just inevitable that the suspect will attack. See how that works? As for the rest, go look up Warren vs. District of Columbia. The police are not there to serve and protect.
    - superuser2 12y ago
      Then programmers are not there to write good software, firefighters are not there to fight fires, doctors are not there to cure diseases, etc. There is a huge difference between being "there" to do something, and going to prison or paying out a massive judgement because you weren't successful.
      - angersock 12y ago
        No, read the case: they are literally not required to do their jobs--in contrast with the other professions you listed.
        rayiner 12y ago
        Sigh. The word "duty" as used in the case is a term of art in tort law. It doesn't just mean you have a generic obligation to do your job, as it does in common parlance, but it means you can be legally liable for someone's damages in a tort lawsuit. If programmers had a "duty" to do their jobs, most software companies would have been sued out of existence. Software companies would get sued over every bug that caused people to lose time or money, and would be liable not just for the purchase price of the software, but if they were found to be negligent in writing-in that bug, would be liable for the actual damage suffered.
- RealGeek 12y ago
  Several eye witnesses say that he was not selling cigarettes when he was arrested. The cops suspected him because of his previous history of selling cigarettes.
joesmo 12y ago
How about also ending grand juries altogether (or at least in cases of potential homicide)? It's obvious that the people on the grand juries are not qualified to asses anything and it's an archaic system not employed by any other country (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_jury http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_jury). In addition, the prosecutors' powers need to be curtailed. Such crimes should always be charged, regardless of what the prosecutor wants. If there is doubt, bring in an outside prosecutor like the article suggests.
- anigbrowl 12y ago
  I'm inclined to agree about limits on discretion in these cases. You can't take back homicide, so it's better to hold a trial automatically and air the entire issue out. In cases of justifiable homicide, the justification will be much stronger for having been challenged and considered. The English jurist Lord Hewart said it best: 'Not only must Justice be done; it must also be seen to be done.' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_v_Sussex_Justices,_ex_p_McCarthy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_v_Sussex_Justices,_ex_p_McCar...
  - figure_c 12y ago
    Then you run into the problem of innocent, or at least justified, people having their financial lives destroyed defending against murder charges. I don't think it's as simple as "if someone dies there needs to be a trial".
    - jnks 12y ago
      > I don't think it's as simple as "if someone dies there needs to be a trial". But there almost always is in reality, if there's a reasonable suspect. The only exception seems to be with law enforcement officers.
      - Crito 12y ago
        Not really. Iff it makes it to the Grand Jury, then what you said is true. Often it never makes it that far. In many self-defense cases involving non-police civilians the district attorney will decide that no crime was committed and that will be the end of it. One quick example from the top of a google search: http://www.jsonline.com/news/crime/janitor-wont-be-charged-in-shooting-deaths-of-2-teens-b99239212z1-253608471.html http://www.jsonline.com/news/crime/janitor-wont-be-charged-i...
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
lifeisstillgood 12y ago
Several parts strike me 1. Killings by the police in the US are daily events but. "nobody knows the exact number as not all deaths are reported" WTF! The police don't report upwards if they shoot someone! 2. 37% of US blacks have confidence in the police (pretty high considering) but just 59% of whites. Good grief how do you police a city or a block if 40% of the nice white middle class people think you are going to cock it up ?! It's the last that counts the most. Guns and force cannot replace trust - community policing is not some nice to have, Chuck Culson was wrong, Hearts and Minds matter, at home and abroad.
- mc808 12y ago
  I'm guessing they mean a shooting may not show up in the statistics as "shot dead" if someone dies from complications 6 months later, even if the shooting was responsible for the death.
  - Anechoic 12y ago
    No, the police do not report any shooting statistics. The numbers we have are based on press reports, but police are not required to report to any central authority (DOJ or FBI) about how or when their officers shoot someone.
    - jonah 12y ago
      There is _some_ reporting, but it's very incomplete. Google link to WSJ article: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=newssearch&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CB8QqQIoADAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.wsj.com%2Farticles%2Fhundreds-of-police-killings-are-uncounted-in-federal-statistics-1417577504&ei=mU-KVNDTB4fXoATjkIDgBQ&usg=AFQjCNEK7jbzcFKBbEsTqz9jPmeYSmlUmg&bvm=bv.81456516,d.cGU https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=newss...
gavanwoolery 12y ago
As someone else pointed out to me, its not just the US, but the world. There are abuses to the system everywhere - in some places it is better than the US but in many places it is far worse. Law enforcement is actually pretty good here in my opinion (when you look at the big picture). But our legal system (as in, the court system) benefits mostly lawyers, wealthy people, etc.
TillE 12y ago
One problem among many is that US police are both allowed and trained to use deadly force very quickly, when under any kind of threat. German police will often (successfully!) shoot to disable, not to kill, even when confronted by someone armed with a knife. It's a common American meme that when police fire a gun, the only rational decision is to shoot to kill, but it's just not true.
- higherpurpose 12y ago
  In other countries the police is even obligated to fire a "warning shot" (in the air) before shooting to disable (and only later can shoot to kill).
  - pzxc 12y ago
    1. Firing a shot in the air is reckless -- the bullet/round comes down with the same speed and momentum as when it was first fired, and it's gotta land somewhere -- and I'd be surprised if that was the standard operating procedure of any law enforcement agency in the world (however my surprise doesn't mean it isn't true). Perhaps you meant they fire a warning shot in the ground, but there is a big difference and that you missed the distinction suggests to me you may not have accurate information about what law enforcement agencies are or are not required to do. 2. As for the GP, you should neither shoot to kill nor shoot to maim. You should shot to stop the threat. Whether they live or die is not as important as stopping a lethal threat (and if there is no lethal threat, you should not be shooting). And if your intent is to stop the threat rather than kill or injure, the best chance of stopping the threat is to shoot center of mass until the target goes down. (Which will, in most cases, kill the target, incidentally)
    - zik 12y ago
      > ...the bullet/round comes down with the same speed and momentum as when it was first fired... This would only be true if air resistance wasn't a thing. Physics is against you on this one.
      - 12y ago
rayiner 12y ago
The article makes some excellent points, but the comparison to Europe rang a little hollow to me. The U.S. is an order of magnitude more violent than the U.K., and always has been: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate_by_decade http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentiona.... In 1960 there was no drug war, there was no prohibition, the country was prosperous, but more than eight times as many people were murdered per capita than in the U.K. > Sentences are harsh. Some American states impose life without parole for persistent but non-violent offenders; no other rich nation does. In 1993-94, years where the per-capita murder rate in the U.S. was 9x higher than in the U.K., California and Washington voters approved the three strikes laws that lead to these harsh sentences by 3-1 margins. It's easy to talk about the things that are wrong with the justice system in the U.S., but it's a pretty cursory analysis until you tackle the real question: when exercising their democratic will, whether in the small on grand juries or in the large through referendums, why do voters keep supporting the system?
- refurb 12y ago
  In 1993-94, years where the per-capita murder rate in the U.S. was 9x higher than in the U.K., It's important to keep in mind that murder rates are pretty low in general (save for a handful of countries). It's only when you compare countries to each other that the differences seem large. In 1993-1994 Canada's murder rate was double that of the UKs. I wouldn't, by an stretch of the imagination say that Canada had a murder problem then.
  - rayiner 12y ago
    They're low in the sense that any given person is unlikely to be personally murdered. They're not low in the sense that the impact of the crime on the community can't be felt. I used to live in Wilmington, DE, where 0.038% of people in the city get murdered each year. Vanishingly small odds, to be sure, but high enough where in the year I lived there several scary incidents "hit close to home." There was someone gunned down a block away from my wife's office (in the business district of downtown). There was another person killed on a street corner a few blocks from our house, which we used to pass regularly on the way to our favorite Indian restaurant. That sort of thing weighs on a community's psyche. I have to admit, the hair on the back of my neck would stand up when I was walking around Wilmington at night. Also, it's reasonable to believe that murder rates are a proxy for violent crime in general. The former is a more reliable statistic, because different jurisdictions' definitions of violent crime differ dramatically.
sybhn 12y ago
some interesting numbers... > This year 46 policemen were shot dead and > the police shot and killed at least 458 people last year 10% or so of death involving police is a policemen. Not that it justify the police force level, but an interesting statistic.
- thrownaway2424 12y ago
  That figure does not even place law enforcement in the top ten most dangerous professions.
  - sybhn 12y ago
    Nor it should? I wouldn't want policemen to have the same death on the job as say loggers, if only because you don't want policemen to be reckless/desperate by nature. Anyway, my observation was that ratio it isn't usually expose in pieces I read from other sources :)
    - thrownaway2424 12y ago
      Sure. Any statement like that has to be read based on the averages, though. 4.7 per 100k Americans are intentionally murdered every year, and there's about 780k police officers, so you'd expect just from that background number ~37 homicides of cops every year.
  - hiou 12y ago
    Automobile accidents, are by far the most lethal part of US life outside of disease. This is no different for police officers.
    - thrownaway2424 12y ago
      I'm always saying that the best thing the police can do is get out of their cars. If it makes them safer, even better.
chappi42 12y ago
> 300m guns in circulation... what wonder that people get shot. [Edit: what wonder I get downvoted, kind of expected this]
- angersock 12y ago
  ...have you seen how well armed the State is? You'd be a fool not to own a cannon or two.
  - chappi42 12y ago
    I have only read about it and seen pictures. If there are that many guns, it escalades much faster and probably a policeman is more afraid also. In Germany / Switzerland policeman still often feel kind of normal people and are rather relaxed. Not sure if you also get this feel in the US.
- thret 12y ago
  John Oliver on Gun Control (just a huge brag for Australia) https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLOKWcH1zBl2kfnCwyyZWk5MW28lgaNa7L https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLOKWcH1zBl2kfnCwyyZWk...
poulsbohemian 12y ago
I've been reading the Economist for 20+ years now and it never ceases to amaze me that while there is some excellent journalism, they really don't get the United States. Statements like "If America did not have 300m guns in circulation, much of this would change." show their bias, rather than having anything to do with the way the US turns everything - drugs, immigration, poverty - into a policing issue infused with violence. Does the Economist really believe that American gun ownership is a good excuse for why (in my case) rural police departments feel it necessary to be buying mine resistant vehicles? The whole situation is out of control, but like so many issues in American life, the Economist really misses the cultural and social picture.
- res0nat0r 12y ago
  The actual title of this article is "America's Police on Trial" so I don't think this editorial is trying to apply itself to every area of US law. They qualify the above statement in the prior paragraph: "One reason why so many American police shoot first is that so many American civilians are armed."
  - Crito 12y ago
    Even with that qualification that is still crap logic. There are lots of guns in America, but the number of Americans who own guns are at all-time lows. The "number of guns in America" figure is deceptive because of all of the people who own dozens to hundreds of guns. http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/06/04/a-minority-of-americans-own-guns-but-just-how-many-is-unclear/ http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/06/04/a-minority-o... Arresting somebody who owns one or two guns is really not inherently safer than arresting somebody who owns a few crates of guns, so the number of guns in the country is irrelevant. The number of gun owners is relevant. The apparent upward trend in police militarization and the number of Americans that own guns simply do not correlate. The Economist's unfamiliarity with American culture (particularly American gun culture) explains how they could make this mistake.
    - res0nat0r 12y ago
      It isn't because gun ownership is up, it is stating that police shootings occur because of the mere fact that there are already more guns in the USA than any other first world country, thus police are more likely to encounter criminals with guns. We also have the highest gun homicide rate of any first world country. The two are directly related.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
mc32 12y ago
I think this issue has many aspects, some of which are very political and polarizing, as well as your mundane issues. First, police often act with worst case scenarios in mind. That is err on the side of the suspect inflicting immediate harm. Why? Because oftentimes proven offenders actually had arms. Now, the UK, Japan, the police may not be any nicer but they have the privilege of correctly presuming suspects are unarmed. As Americans i don't think we'll get to a place where arms are well regulated, so I think other options will be necessary. Training in defusing confrontations, perhaps sending in officers in exoskeletons and armor. Something which allows for the suspect to actually intend harm but unable to execute on the officer. That way police don't feel they have to err on the side of safety given the propensity of arms in The US. The police are trained to neutralize a suspect rather than "wing" them. I think it has to do with how "baddies" can have actual firearms whereas in many other countries firearms are heavily regulated for the general pop. In any event, the police and the general pop need to be able to feel more at ease with each other otherwise we'll be on our way to judge dredd and that's not a good path.
callmeed 12y ago
I'm getting to the point where I can't stand local law enforcement. Combined with local governments, courts, and other entities, it just seems like a big racket to keep money flowing. Yesterday, I was pulled over for not buckling my seatbelt until 2 blocks after pulling out of a parking spot. Turns out I had an unresolved fix-it ticket from 2013 which caused my license to be suspended (had no idea). CHP officer accused me of lying to him (I wasn't) and immediately impounded my car. Getting my car back took visits from 4 places (court, dmv, CHP office, tow yard) with fees at every turn. I can't imagine how bad it is for people living in larger cities.
- rahimnathwani 12y ago
  Do they not send you a letter or something when they suspend your licence? It seems strange that they would do it without you knowing. For the future: belt up before turning on the ignition. Seat belts save lives.
  - dllthomas 12y ago
    "Do they not send you a letter or something when they suspend your licence?" Michigan claims they sent me a letter, but I never received one. I occasionally had trouble with my mail at that address, so I chalked it up to that, but they got a few thousand extra dollars out of me because of it so I've always been just a little skeptical. Oh, and later, when I hadn't been in the state for years, and had a license issued in a different state, and my MI license was years expired, they decided to suspend my license again, and claim this time they sent the letter to an old address of mine. Thankfully this time I discovered it without being pulled over. I've been calling periodically, just to check. I'm not the OP, but I can vouch that it's totally possible to discover that your license is suspended on being pulled over.
- meowface 12y ago
  Can't say I blame the cop for any of that. 2 blocks is plenty long enough to get into an accident. And he has no other choice if you're driving on a suspended license.
thrownaway2424 12y ago
If you need proof that police in America are out-of-control thugs you only need to look at this shocking photo from Oakland last night: http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Undercover-cops-outed-attacked-at-Oakland-5951011.php http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Undercover-cops-outed-... In which an out-of-uniform CHP officer is brandishing a gun in the face of a photographer while another plain-dressed CHP officers wearing a bandana over his face tackles a protester. These cops had no reason to be in this situation, no reason to draw their weapons, certainly no reason to threaten members of the press with lethal force. No reason to hold their weapon sideways like an ignorant thug. These are the kinds of people who would certainly be removed from duty, probably prosecuted in more civilized countries.
- mynameishere 12y ago
  http://imgur.com/gallery/QSyWdcy http://imgur.com/gallery/QSyWdcy Sorry for laughing. I'm really amazed that every single Simpsons reference has an imgur link already made. But you're right--that guy needs canned.
- chrisbennet 12y ago
  One of the officers was punched in the back of the head and then kicked in the head. When the crowd/mob closed in, his partner drew his gun to keep them at bay.
pyrocat 12y ago
If only. All of the actions recommended in this article are moderate, common sense changes that benefit the populous as a whole and will never happen. The police have no interest in changing practices that benefit them, and any politician that tries to oppose their will is going to get called "soft on crime", a nonsense attack that somehow still persists in our political dialog.
superbaconman 12y ago
These people are trained to take on murders, yet we expect them to nab every bit of weed they can find in a culture where it's weird if you don't own a gun. What do you expect them to do? If you want a better society pass better laws. That means funding rational candidates for office.
Sir_Substance 12y ago
I would like to remind everyone that the US gun ownership rate is not the cause of US gun crime. A key assertion of this article is that guncrime is high because guns are common, and thus police have a somewhat justified reason to shoot first to defend themselves. I would like to remind everyone that ownership of a military assault rifle is mandatory for 2/3rds of all men between 20 and 34 in Switzerland, and the rifle must be kept at home, by law. Once their service is complete, they may elect to keep their weapon. This results in one of the highest gun ownership rates in the world. Despite this, gun crime in Switzerland is almost the lowest in the world. US gun crime and police aggression is the result of unhealthy gun culture and an unhealthy attitude towards mental health, not ownership rates. One of the unhealthy aspects is that the population fears the police will shoot them, so they prepare to defend against the police. The police respond by preparing to preemptively defend themselves, and the cycle escalates until someone thinks it is reasonable to give US police forces mine-proof trucks.
- mc32 12y ago
  The Swiss may have one of the highest rates of firearms at home but almost no ammunition is held at home. Previously the militia stored ammo at home, but it was strictly audited and missing ammo would get the person in potentially serious trouble. So, while they have arms, the arms are in effect, disarmed.
  - dllthomas 12y ago
    Do you have a source for this?
    - Veratyr 12y ago
      http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-21379912 http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-21379912 > "And we don't get bullets any more," he adds. "The Army doesn't give ammunition now - it's all kept in a central arsenal." This measure was introduced by Switzerland's Federal Council in 2007.
      - 12y ago
jqm 12y ago
I see part of the problem being an extreme lack of civility in our society. At one point I suppose the police felt they were members of the community. So they treated people with some measure of respect and dignity while carrying out their duties. They would see these same people at church, at the store, at baseball games, at funerals etc. So it was different. Now, the police are often unreasonably rude and hostile immediately and without provocation. For example, the case of M. Brown... sure, it's understood Brown probably did attack the officer and was shot. But, the officer pulls up squealing tires and shouts for Brown to get the F* out of the street. So he gets Brown angry and is physically attacked. Then he _has_ to shoot the kid. Certainly Brown shouldn't have been walking in the middle of the road. But what if the officer had pulled up and said "Fellows, how are you doing today? Can I get you to get off the street? I wouldn't want to see you get run over." Then, if they didn't comply, ramp it up a little bit at a time as needed. Chances are there never would have been a shooting. But as it is, the officers hostile speech and generally dickish attitude led to a situation in which deadly force eventually was used. That officer is morally in the wrong, he did help create this situation, he should be fired, he should be punished. We should demand our officers act with politeness and basic respect even as they enforce the law. If they can't do the job without behaving like psychotic bullies, we should find some people who can. On the other hand, looking at the people they deal with day in and day out, it's easy to understand how they could get this attitude. Many citizens officers deal with have no basic respect nor manners themselves. Still... officers should be held the a higher standard (and appropriately compensated if it comes to that). They are still nominally public servants and should be acting in the best interests of the community. A community which includes the people they may be arresting btw.
- A_COMPUTER 12y ago
  This is a red herring. I lived around the KS City area for a year and people walking in the middle of the street intentionally obstructing traffic was a thing that happened on a regular basis. They walk in the street while you're driving and glare at you, basically trying to prove they can make you do their will by having to drive around them just walking there. Civility is already gone at that point, it is willful, aggressive disruption. Maybe the cop was dickish, but for the same reason you can't blame Brown's behavior for his homicide, you can't blame Wilson for escalation that would make brown figure he could win a confrontation against a law officer. If Wilson shouldn't have acted like an asshole because it escalated the situation, the it more applies to Brown that he shouldn't have been walking in the street.
brg 12y ago
Every metropolitan region in the US needs to elect a modern tribune. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tribune_of_the_Plebs http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tribune_of_the_Plebs A modern tribune should play both the role of sheriff and prosecutor. The powers of a tribune should be constrained to act for the people against government agencies. To that end, they would have power to arrest and detain government officials, convene grand juries, and prosecute trials. To do their job, a modern tribune and their family would require lifetime immunity from local law enforcement. To enforce this immunity, any interaction by local law enforcement would need to be punishable by suspension and jail time and the burden is strict liability. But the tribune could not be a position of total local authority. Their powers would need to be constrained to local government officials. And they would need to be under the jurisdiction of country Sheriff's or State police. This would break the incestuous relationships between the DA office, the police, and the judiciary.

130 points by frrp 12y ago

This one sentence towards in the bottom of the article needs to happen. As we saw in the Eric Garner case, video footage means little. > To improve accountability, complaints should be heard by independent arbiters, brought in from outside. The prosecutors and police are on the same team. > If an officer is accused of a crime, the decision as to whether to indict him may rest with a local prosecutor who works closely with the local police, attends barbecues with them and depends on the support of the police union if he or she wants to be re-elected. Or it may rest with a local “grand jury” of civilians, who hear only what the prosecutor wants them to hear.

moskie 12y ago

Small complaint (about an otherwise very good article): > Eric Garner ... guilty only of selling single cigarettes The cops involved suspected this, but I don't believe it's known that he is guilty of this. Especially in a legal sense: he did not live to see a trial.

jMyles 12y ago
It actually seems quite plausible that he was innocent: the cops were there for other reasons, saw him and knew him to have a history of selling cigarettes, and engaged him as such. None were found on his person.
hellbanner 12y ago
Why exactly is selling single cigarettes illegal?
- cushychicken 12y ago
  Legal constraints of selling tobacco require a licensed vendor to sell them in licensed packages/quantities. Eric Garner wasn't licensed, and single cigarettes aren't allowed to be sold in the US. Fairly petty crimes, but crimes.
  - jonah 12y ago
    You can buy single cigarettes in many bars. (Don't know if it's legal though.)
    - cushychicken 12y ago
      Interesting. I've never seen that. The packaging thing may be a state to state restriction, because I've never been to a bar that sold cigarettes in quantities less than a pack.
- sp332 12y ago
  Taxes on packs of cigarettes are very high in New York. So people smuggle in packs or cartons from neighboring states and sell them under the table.
  - waterlesscloud 12y ago
    Until this story I didn't realize how expensive cigarettes are now in New York. They're $13-14 for a pack of 20. So people sell them as singles for $1 each. Likely brought in from lower-taxed areas so the profit margin is higher. I've heard cigs sell for $5 a pack in South Carolina, which doesn't add on taxes at all, so you can see how much the taxes add up. EDIT- changed price in SC based on googling.
- mc32 12y ago
  I dont know for sure but i think they typically come from contraband cigarettes (where taxes have not been paid and, as others point out, without required license). It'd be like selling whiskey shots on a street corner.
  - thrownaway2424 12y ago
    Strangely not illegal: making and marketing a toxic product that has killed literally tens of millions of people.
    - freditup 12y ago
      Alcohol? </sarcasm> Truth is, pretty much everything is toxic at some point of consumption or another. Deciding where to draw the line is not black & white to me
- refurb 12y ago
  Taxes. You can do a lot of things to the government and get away with it, but the second you take their money all hell breaks loose.
- fnordfnordfnord 12y ago
  It's tax evasion. They buy them in Jersey or something and import them into NYC illegally. They can't just sell packs of cigarettes over the counter because they lack a tax-stamp or something. Edit: I mean, it's for the children of course. /s
parineum 12y ago
As far as I know, he was guilty of doing that in the past. He was killed in the process of being arrested for suspicion of doing it again.
superuser2 12y ago
When people fixate on the untaxed ciagarettes thing, what's often going on is an implicit assumption that once someone has an interaction with the police, it's just inevitable that the police will summarily execute them. That's stupid. We can debate the laws too, but you should be demanding police that enforce the laws with due process and respond to threats proportionally. If you're thinking, "well, once the police suspect someone of violating regulations, of course they're going to kill him" then we're never going to get anywhere.
- angersock 12y ago
  When police fixate on the criminal thing, what's often going on is an implicit assumption that once someone has an interaction with a suspect, it's just inevitable that the suspect will attack. See how that works? As for the rest, go look up Warren vs. District of Columbia. The police are not there to serve and protect.
  - superuser2 12y ago
    Then programmers are not there to write good software, firefighters are not there to fight fires, doctors are not there to cure diseases, etc. There is a huge difference between being "there" to do something, and going to prison or paying out a massive judgement because you weren't successful.
    - angersock 12y ago
      No, read the case: they are literally not required to do their jobs--in contrast with the other professions you listed.
      - rayiner 12y ago
        Sigh. The word "duty" as used in the case is a term of art in tort law. It doesn't just mean you have a generic obligation to do your job, as it does in common parlance, but it means you can be legally liable for someone's damages in a tort lawsuit. If programmers had a "duty" to do their jobs, most software companies would have been sued out of existence. Software companies would get sued over every bug that caused people to lose time or money, and would be liable not just for the purchase price of the software, but if they were found to be negligent in writing-in that bug, would be liable for the actual damage suffered.
RealGeek 12y ago
Several eye witnesses say that he was not selling cigarettes when he was arrested. The cops suspected him because of his previous history of selling cigarettes.

joesmo 12y ago

How about also ending grand juries altogether (or at least in cases of potential homicide)? It's obvious that the people on the grand juries are not qualified to asses anything and it's an archaic system not employed by any other country (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_jury http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_jury). In addition, the prosecutors' powers need to be curtailed. Such crimes should always be charged, regardless of what the prosecutor wants. If there is doubt, bring in an outside prosecutor like the article suggests.

anigbrowl 12y ago
I'm inclined to agree about limits on discretion in these cases. You can't take back homicide, so it's better to hold a trial automatically and air the entire issue out. In cases of justifiable homicide, the justification will be much stronger for having been challenged and considered. The English jurist Lord Hewart said it best: 'Not only must Justice be done; it must also be seen to be done.' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_v_Sussex_Justices,_ex_p_McCarthy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_v_Sussex_Justices,_ex_p_McCar...
- figure_c 12y ago
  Then you run into the problem of innocent, or at least justified, people having their financial lives destroyed defending against murder charges. I don't think it's as simple as "if someone dies there needs to be a trial".
  - jnks 12y ago
    > I don't think it's as simple as "if someone dies there needs to be a trial". But there almost always is in reality, if there's a reasonable suspect. The only exception seems to be with law enforcement officers.
    - Crito 12y ago
      Not really. Iff it makes it to the Grand Jury, then what you said is true. Often it never makes it that far. In many self-defense cases involving non-police civilians the district attorney will decide that no crime was committed and that will be the end of it. One quick example from the top of a google search: http://www.jsonline.com/news/crime/janitor-wont-be-charged-in-shooting-deaths-of-2-teens-b99239212z1-253608471.html http://www.jsonline.com/news/crime/janitor-wont-be-charged-i...

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

lifeisstillgood 12y ago

Several parts strike me 1. Killings by the police in the US are daily events but. "nobody knows the exact number as not all deaths are reported" WTF! The police don't report upwards if they shoot someone! 2. 37% of US blacks have confidence in the police (pretty high considering) but just 59% of whites. Good grief how do you police a city or a block if 40% of the nice white middle class people think you are going to cock it up ?! It's the last that counts the most. Guns and force cannot replace trust - community policing is not some nice to have, Chuck Culson was wrong, Hearts and Minds matter, at home and abroad.

mc808 12y ago
I'm guessing they mean a shooting may not show up in the statistics as "shot dead" if someone dies from complications 6 months later, even if the shooting was responsible for the death.
- Anechoic 12y ago
  No, the police do not report any shooting statistics. The numbers we have are based on press reports, but police are not required to report to any central authority (DOJ or FBI) about how or when their officers shoot someone.
  - jonah 12y ago
    There is _some_ reporting, but it's very incomplete. Google link to WSJ article: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=newssearch&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CB8QqQIoADAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.wsj.com%2Farticles%2Fhundreds-of-police-killings-are-uncounted-in-federal-statistics-1417577504&ei=mU-KVNDTB4fXoATjkIDgBQ&usg=AFQjCNEK7jbzcFKBbEsTqz9jPmeYSmlUmg&bvm=bv.81456516,d.cGU https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=newss...

gavanwoolery 12y ago

As someone else pointed out to me, its not just the US, but the world. There are abuses to the system everywhere - in some places it is better than the US but in many places it is far worse. Law enforcement is actually pretty good here in my opinion (when you look at the big picture). But our legal system (as in, the court system) benefits mostly lawyers, wealthy people, etc.

TillE 12y ago

One problem among many is that US police are both allowed and trained to use deadly force very quickly, when under any kind of threat. German police will often (successfully!) shoot to disable, not to kill, even when confronted by someone armed with a knife. It's a common American meme that when police fire a gun, the only rational decision is to shoot to kill, but it's just not true.

higherpurpose 12y ago
In other countries the police is even obligated to fire a "warning shot" (in the air) before shooting to disable (and only later can shoot to kill).
- pzxc 12y ago
  1. Firing a shot in the air is reckless -- the bullet/round comes down with the same speed and momentum as when it was first fired, and it's gotta land somewhere -- and I'd be surprised if that was the standard operating procedure of any law enforcement agency in the world (however my surprise doesn't mean it isn't true). Perhaps you meant they fire a warning shot in the ground, but there is a big difference and that you missed the distinction suggests to me you may not have accurate information about what law enforcement agencies are or are not required to do. 2. As for the GP, you should neither shoot to kill nor shoot to maim. You should shot to stop the threat. Whether they live or die is not as important as stopping a lethal threat (and if there is no lethal threat, you should not be shooting). And if your intent is to stop the threat rather than kill or injure, the best chance of stopping the threat is to shoot center of mass until the target goes down. (Which will, in most cases, kill the target, incidentally)
  - zik 12y ago
    > ...the bullet/round comes down with the same speed and momentum as when it was first fired... This would only be true if air resistance wasn't a thing. Physics is against you on this one.
    - 12y ago

rayiner 12y ago

The article makes some excellent points, but the comparison to Europe rang a little hollow to me. The U.S. is an order of magnitude more violent than the U.K., and always has been: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate_by_decade http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentiona.... In 1960 there was no drug war, there was no prohibition, the country was prosperous, but more than eight times as many people were murdered per capita than in the U.K. > Sentences are harsh. Some American states impose life without parole for persistent but non-violent offenders; no other rich nation does. In 1993-94, years where the per-capita murder rate in the U.S. was 9x higher than in the U.K., California and Washington voters approved the three strikes laws that lead to these harsh sentences by 3-1 margins. It's easy to talk about the things that are wrong with the justice system in the U.S., but it's a pretty cursory analysis until you tackle the real question: when exercising their democratic will, whether in the small on grand juries or in the large through referendums, why do voters keep supporting the system?

refurb 12y ago
In 1993-94, years where the per-capita murder rate in the U.S. was 9x higher than in the U.K., It's important to keep in mind that murder rates are pretty low in general (save for a handful of countries). It's only when you compare countries to each other that the differences seem large. In 1993-1994 Canada's murder rate was double that of the UKs. I wouldn't, by an stretch of the imagination say that Canada had a murder problem then.
- rayiner 12y ago
  They're low in the sense that any given person is unlikely to be personally murdered. They're not low in the sense that the impact of the crime on the community can't be felt. I used to live in Wilmington, DE, where 0.038% of people in the city get murdered each year. Vanishingly small odds, to be sure, but high enough where in the year I lived there several scary incidents "hit close to home." There was someone gunned down a block away from my wife's office (in the business district of downtown). There was another person killed on a street corner a few blocks from our house, which we used to pass regularly on the way to our favorite Indian restaurant. That sort of thing weighs on a community's psyche. I have to admit, the hair on the back of my neck would stand up when I was walking around Wilmington at night. Also, it's reasonable to believe that murder rates are a proxy for violent crime in general. The former is a more reliable statistic, because different jurisdictions' definitions of violent crime differ dramatically.

sybhn 12y ago

some interesting numbers... > This year 46 policemen were shot dead and > the police shot and killed at least 458 people last year 10% or so of death involving police is a policemen. Not that it justify the police force level, but an interesting statistic.

thrownaway2424 12y ago
That figure does not even place law enforcement in the top ten most dangerous professions.
- sybhn 12y ago
  Nor it should? I wouldn't want policemen to have the same death on the job as say loggers, if only because you don't want policemen to be reckless/desperate by nature. Anyway, my observation was that ratio it isn't usually expose in pieces I read from other sources :)
  - thrownaway2424 12y ago
    Sure. Any statement like that has to be read based on the averages, though. 4.7 per 100k Americans are intentionally murdered every year, and there's about 780k police officers, so you'd expect just from that background number ~37 homicides of cops every year.
- hiou 12y ago
  Automobile accidents, are by far the most lethal part of US life outside of disease. This is no different for police officers.
  - thrownaway2424 12y ago
    I'm always saying that the best thing the police can do is get out of their cars. If it makes them safer, even better.

chappi42 12y ago

> 300m guns in circulation... what wonder that people get shot. [Edit: what wonder I get downvoted, kind of expected this]

angersock 12y ago
...have you seen how well armed the State is? You'd be a fool not to own a cannon or two.
- chappi42 12y ago
  I have only read about it and seen pictures. If there are that many guns, it escalades much faster and probably a policeman is more afraid also. In Germany / Switzerland policeman still often feel kind of normal people and are rather relaxed. Not sure if you also get this feel in the US.
thret 12y ago
John Oliver on Gun Control (just a huge brag for Australia) https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLOKWcH1zBl2kfnCwyyZWk5MW28lgaNa7L https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLOKWcH1zBl2kfnCwyyZWk...

poulsbohemian 12y ago

I've been reading the Economist for 20+ years now and it never ceases to amaze me that while there is some excellent journalism, they really don't get the United States. Statements like "If America did not have 300m guns in circulation, much of this would change." show their bias, rather than having anything to do with the way the US turns everything - drugs, immigration, poverty - into a policing issue infused with violence. Does the Economist really believe that American gun ownership is a good excuse for why (in my case) rural police departments feel it necessary to be buying mine resistant vehicles? The whole situation is out of control, but like so many issues in American life, the Economist really misses the cultural and social picture.

res0nat0r 12y ago
The actual title of this article is "America's Police on Trial" so I don't think this editorial is trying to apply itself to every area of US law. They qualify the above statement in the prior paragraph: "One reason why so many American police shoot first is that so many American civilians are armed."
- Crito 12y ago
  Even with that qualification that is still crap logic. There are lots of guns in America, but the number of Americans who own guns are at all-time lows. The "number of guns in America" figure is deceptive because of all of the people who own dozens to hundreds of guns. http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/06/04/a-minority-of-americans-own-guns-but-just-how-many-is-unclear/ http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/06/04/a-minority-o... Arresting somebody who owns one or two guns is really not inherently safer than arresting somebody who owns a few crates of guns, so the number of guns in the country is irrelevant. The number of gun owners is relevant. The apparent upward trend in police militarization and the number of Americans that own guns simply do not correlate. The Economist's unfamiliarity with American culture (particularly American gun culture) explains how they could make this mistake.
  - res0nat0r 12y ago
    It isn't because gun ownership is up, it is stating that police shootings occur because of the mere fact that there are already more guns in the USA than any other first world country, thus police are more likely to encounter criminals with guns. We also have the highest gun homicide rate of any first world country. The two are directly related.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

mc32 12y ago

I think this issue has many aspects, some of which are very political and polarizing, as well as your mundane issues. First, police often act with worst case scenarios in mind. That is err on the side of the suspect inflicting immediate harm. Why? Because oftentimes proven offenders actually had arms. Now, the UK, Japan, the police may not be any nicer but they have the privilege of correctly presuming suspects are unarmed. As Americans i don't think we'll get to a place where arms are well regulated, so I think other options will be necessary. Training in defusing confrontations, perhaps sending in officers in exoskeletons and armor. Something which allows for the suspect to actually intend harm but unable to execute on the officer. That way police don't feel they have to err on the side of safety given the propensity of arms in The US. The police are trained to neutralize a suspect rather than "wing" them. I think it has to do with how "baddies" can have actual firearms whereas in many other countries firearms are heavily regulated for the general pop. In any event, the police and the general pop need to be able to feel more at ease with each other otherwise we'll be on our way to judge dredd and that's not a good path.

callmeed 12y ago

I'm getting to the point where I can't stand local law enforcement. Combined with local governments, courts, and other entities, it just seems like a big racket to keep money flowing. Yesterday, I was pulled over for not buckling my seatbelt until 2 blocks after pulling out of a parking spot. Turns out I had an unresolved fix-it ticket from 2013 which caused my license to be suspended (had no idea). CHP officer accused me of lying to him (I wasn't) and immediately impounded my car. Getting my car back took visits from 4 places (court, dmv, CHP office, tow yard) with fees at every turn. I can't imagine how bad it is for people living in larger cities.

rahimnathwani 12y ago
Do they not send you a letter or something when they suspend your licence? It seems strange that they would do it without you knowing. For the future: belt up before turning on the ignition. Seat belts save lives.
- dllthomas 12y ago
  "Do they not send you a letter or something when they suspend your licence?" Michigan claims they sent me a letter, but I never received one. I occasionally had trouble with my mail at that address, so I chalked it up to that, but they got a few thousand extra dollars out of me because of it so I've always been just a little skeptical. Oh, and later, when I hadn't been in the state for years, and had a license issued in a different state, and my MI license was years expired, they decided to suspend my license again, and claim this time they sent the letter to an old address of mine. Thankfully this time I discovered it without being pulled over. I've been calling periodically, just to check. I'm not the OP, but I can vouch that it's totally possible to discover that your license is suspended on being pulled over.
meowface 12y ago
Can't say I blame the cop for any of that. 2 blocks is plenty long enough to get into an accident. And he has no other choice if you're driving on a suspended license.

thrownaway2424 12y ago

If you need proof that police in America are out-of-control thugs you only need to look at this shocking photo from Oakland last night: http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Undercover-cops-outed-attacked-at-Oakland-5951011.php http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Undercover-cops-outed-... In which an out-of-uniform CHP officer is brandishing a gun in the face of a photographer while another plain-dressed CHP officers wearing a bandana over his face tackles a protester. These cops had no reason to be in this situation, no reason to draw their weapons, certainly no reason to threaten members of the press with lethal force. No reason to hold their weapon sideways like an ignorant thug. These are the kinds of people who would certainly be removed from duty, probably prosecuted in more civilized countries.

mynameishere 12y ago
http://imgur.com/gallery/QSyWdcy http://imgur.com/gallery/QSyWdcy Sorry for laughing. I'm really amazed that every single Simpsons reference has an imgur link already made. But you're right--that guy needs canned.
chrisbennet 12y ago
One of the officers was punched in the back of the head and then kicked in the head. When the crowd/mob closed in, his partner drew his gun to keep them at bay.

pyrocat 12y ago

If only. All of the actions recommended in this article are moderate, common sense changes that benefit the populous as a whole and will never happen. The police have no interest in changing practices that benefit them, and any politician that tries to oppose their will is going to get called "soft on crime", a nonsense attack that somehow still persists in our political dialog.

superbaconman 12y ago

These people are trained to take on murders, yet we expect them to nab every bit of weed they can find in a culture where it's weird if you don't own a gun. What do you expect them to do? If you want a better society pass better laws. That means funding rational candidates for office.

Sir_Substance 12y ago

I would like to remind everyone that the US gun ownership rate is not the cause of US gun crime. A key assertion of this article is that guncrime is high because guns are common, and thus police have a somewhat justified reason to shoot first to defend themselves. I would like to remind everyone that ownership of a military assault rifle is mandatory for 2/3rds of all men between 20 and 34 in Switzerland, and the rifle must be kept at home, by law. Once their service is complete, they may elect to keep their weapon. This results in one of the highest gun ownership rates in the world. Despite this, gun crime in Switzerland is almost the lowest in the world. US gun crime and police aggression is the result of unhealthy gun culture and an unhealthy attitude towards mental health, not ownership rates. One of the unhealthy aspects is that the population fears the police will shoot them, so they prepare to defend against the police. The police respond by preparing to preemptively defend themselves, and the cycle escalates until someone thinks it is reasonable to give US police forces mine-proof trucks.

mc32 12y ago
The Swiss may have one of the highest rates of firearms at home but almost no ammunition is held at home. Previously the militia stored ammo at home, but it was strictly audited and missing ammo would get the person in potentially serious trouble. So, while they have arms, the arms are in effect, disarmed.
- dllthomas 12y ago
  Do you have a source for this?
  - Veratyr 12y ago
    http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-21379912 http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-21379912 > "And we don't get bullets any more," he adds. "The Army doesn't give ammunition now - it's all kept in a central arsenal." This measure was introduced by Switzerland's Federal Council in 2007.
    - 12y ago

jqm 12y ago

I see part of the problem being an extreme lack of civility in our society. At one point I suppose the police felt they were members of the community. So they treated people with some measure of respect and dignity while carrying out their duties. They would see these same people at church, at the store, at baseball games, at funerals etc. So it was different. Now, the police are often unreasonably rude and hostile immediately and without provocation. For example, the case of M. Brown... sure, it's understood Brown probably did attack the officer and was shot. But, the officer pulls up squealing tires and shouts for Brown to get the F* out of the street. So he gets Brown angry and is physically attacked. Then he _has_ to shoot the kid. Certainly Brown shouldn't have been walking in the middle of the road. But what if the officer had pulled up and said "Fellows, how are you doing today? Can I get you to get off the street? I wouldn't want to see you get run over." Then, if they didn't comply, ramp it up a little bit at a time as needed. Chances are there never would have been a shooting. But as it is, the officers hostile speech and generally dickish attitude led to a situation in which deadly force eventually was used. That officer is morally in the wrong, he did help create this situation, he should be fired, he should be punished. We should demand our officers act with politeness and basic respect even as they enforce the law. If they can't do the job without behaving like psychotic bullies, we should find some people who can. On the other hand, looking at the people they deal with day in and day out, it's easy to understand how they could get this attitude. Many citizens officers deal with have no basic respect nor manners themselves. Still... officers should be held the a higher standard (and appropriately compensated if it comes to that). They are still nominally public servants and should be acting in the best interests of the community. A community which includes the people they may be arresting btw.

A_COMPUTER 12y ago
This is a red herring. I lived around the KS City area for a year and people walking in the middle of the street intentionally obstructing traffic was a thing that happened on a regular basis. They walk in the street while you're driving and glare at you, basically trying to prove they can make you do their will by having to drive around them just walking there. Civility is already gone at that point, it is willful, aggressive disruption. Maybe the cop was dickish, but for the same reason you can't blame Brown's behavior for his homicide, you can't blame Wilson for escalation that would make brown figure he could win a confrontation against a law officer. If Wilson shouldn't have acted like an asshole because it escalated the situation, the it more applies to Brown that he shouldn't have been walking in the street.

brg 12y ago

Every metropolitan region in the US needs to elect a modern tribune. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tribune_of_the_Plebs http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tribune_of_the_Plebs A modern tribune should play both the role of sheriff and prosecutor. The powers of a tribune should be constrained to act for the people against government agencies. To that end, they would have power to arrest and detain government officials, convene grand juries, and prosecute trials. To do their job, a modern tribune and their family would require lifetime immunity from local law enforcement. To enforce this immunity, any interaction by local law enforcement would need to be punishable by suspension and jail time and the burden is strict liability. But the tribune could not be a position of total local authority. Their powers would need to be constrained to local government officials. And they would need to be under the jurisdiction of country Sheriff's or State police. This would break the incestuous relationships between the DA office, the police, and the judiciary.