5 ms·
To anyone who thinks this could be hyperbolic; every single statement here is verifiable, from asset-forfeiture being applied overwhelmingly to people who are n
by j42 12y ago
To anyone who thinks this could be hyperbolic; every single statement here is verifiable, from asset-forfeiture being applied overwhelmingly to people who are never convicted of a crime, to the police themselves admitting that seized funds are subject to NO regulation and are routinely used for "nice-to-haves" such as Margharita Machines, office parties, and other institutional costs.
I'm all for capitalism, but it has created a vicious positive-feedback loop here that if unchecked, means this will NEVER change.
1) Ex-LE create "training" subsidiary programs like Black Asphalt and Desert Snow succeed because, they teach the "police" how to operate "efficiently" and increase their financial "earnings." This is perpetuated by the rationalization of many police that they are "underfunded," "constrained" and thereby justified in the name of "protecting the public."
2) LE adopting these programs see an exponential rise in intake, and news spreads. These training programs become the new "ideal," and earn large sums in the process for the "training" they provide--an increased incentive to keep developing them.
3) Somewhere in this process the police 'mentality' shifts from "how do I uphold the law and protect the freedoms it affords" to, "how do I get mine, while not majorly stepping outside the bounds of the law."
In many ways it's ironically American, and yet, it's also very much an automatic symptom of this feedback loop where priorities are shifted in pursuit of personal gain and rationalizations are made that create a dangerous disconnect between a true "agent of the law" and a predatory individual with knowledge of said law who is inherently looking for ways to use that knowledge to take advantage of you.
Frankly, I think we're all self-interested in some way and make many rationalizations in the pursuit. The point of legislation is to allow that in a healthy context, while preventing those rationalizations from substantially harming the culture and society.
If we want to see any change here, I think designing intelligent disincentives is the only path that will produce a lasting effect. "Punishment" as deterrence isn't enough. Additional "civil liberty" stipulations aren't either, as we learned with the tax code--more complexity just makes more holes to be exploited.
How do we curtail the ability for these programs to remain economically viable? Remove the incentive, and only then, perhaps the psychology will change.
- remarkEon 12y agoThe Washington Post did a few great stories on this fact. http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/investigative/2014/10/11/cash-seizures-fuel-police-spending/ http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/investigative/2014/10/11/ca... http://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/highway-seizure-in-iowa-fuels-debate-about-asset-forfeiture-laws/2014/11/10/10f725fc-5ec3-11e4-8b9e-2ccdac31a031_story.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/highway-seizure... The second link (the Iowa incident) has an ~11 minute video that is a must see, but only if you want to be truly disturbed by how police just dgaf. Additionally, SCOTUS decided Heien v. North Carolina[0] last December in an 8-1 decision for North Carolina. From SCOTUS blog summary: Holding: A police officer’s reasonable mistake of law gives rise to reasonable suspicion that justifies a traffic stop under the Fourth Amendment. [0] http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/heien-v-north-carolina/ http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/heien-v-north-car...
- maratd 12y ago> I'm all for capitalism What does this have to do with capitalism? The word you're looking for is "stealing". That's the word we use when someone takes property from someone else without due process. So let's stop calling it "asset forfeiture" and call it what it is. Theft.
- j42 12y agoAbsolutely. Theft is the outcome. It's also getting worse. Work your way back up the chain, though, and you'll see that worsening correlates heavily with the adoption of these privatized "training programs." Capitalism is the best system we have, in my opinion--and it's predicated on "reasonable freedom in the pursuit of profit." I personally don't think it's reasonable to for that profit to come from public/municipal funds directed to "training programs" with a demonstrable connection to a systemic increase in civil rights abuses.
- stretchwithme 12y agoAnd do you think associating this disgraceful activity with capitalism hurts or helps the best system we have?
- j42 12y agoI believe framing the discussion as an honest dialectic will appeal more broadly to people who may not share the same beliefs as you and I.
- stretchwithme 12y agoI don't see that effort as helping anybody get closer to the truth.
- 9872 12y agoYou believe a carefully selected assortment of facts plus commentary can't be hyperbolic as long as the facts themselves are true? Police have been corrupt as long as they have existed. We just hear about it more now, so they are forced to come up with legal loopholes to justify their misbehavior.
- j42 12y agoYou're right, and you're also ignoring the inverse effect that "hearing about more" now has on depersonalization. That profession has always attracted those who will abuse the rights of others and seek power for personal gain, however, that's an intrinsically human quality that applies in many contexts. What is clear is that its more damaging in some than others, and its momentum/inertia is relevant. Pass a certain threshold of such behavior and, as per game theory, the motivations of the entire network (or "culture") change. We're hearing about it more, but I'm also gravely concerned about the rapid rise in annual cumulative seizures. We may never solve the intrinsic problem, but if we don't take action now things could quickly become untenable with no method of recourse.
- pdkl95 12y agoWhile it is patently[1] true that corruption has always been a problem in law enforcement, you cannot explain recent-ish events with better reporting and legal loopholes. Unexplained topics include: * Asset forfeiture, at least in its current widespread form that now includes whole departments and is assumed to be a regular part of the budget. * It used to be a scandal in all but the worst cities if an officer killed an unarmed suspect, that at least warranted an investigation or trial, instead of the current norm of rewarding murder with a paid vacation. * Even in a country stereotypically known to love firearms, we used to limit regular police work to the same type of small arms that the average citizen might own. More powerful weapons were limited to special-purpose groups. Now, police = without adequate training - get to play soldier with APCs, camo (!), and a variety of modern weapons that are overpowered or unsuited for police work. * A gang-mentality that has been growing for a long time. There used to be some truth to the idea of a police department having "a few bad apples" among many generally decent officers. Now we have a situation where former officers have spoken about how they had to resign (some voluntarily, some force out) because they didn't want to aid and abet the crimes of other officers. [1] the problem was big enough that significant parts of the Constitution attempt to limit corruption and its effects