Comments on: Scenes from “pro-life” America

By: Historiann

Historiann — Sun, 28 Mar 2010 16:34:51 +0000

Good lord. Were there any witnesses? Malaika Brooks’s decision not to get out of her car was probably the right one, considering how you as a pedestrian were assaulted anyway.

I hope you found good legal representation.

By: Profane

Profane — Sun, 28 Mar 2010 16:28:11 +0000

The short of it (as much as I will say in a public forum) is that I was nearly struck in crosswalk by a plainclothes State Trooper who ran a red light, left his vehicle to shout and curse at me, tackled me in the middle of the street without announcing that he was a police officer, and followed that up by choking me while I was handcuffed. Naturally I was the one who ended up being charged.

By: Historiann

Historiann — Sun, 28 Mar 2010 15:07:48 +0000

Profane–tell us more. What happened to you?

I think Tony Grafton is correct. In the last thirty years or so, Americans have increasingly identified with the bullies rather than the bullied, so it’s easy to believe that if someone was a victim of brutality they must have done something to “deserve” it. The Bush/Cheney years didn’t create the problem–they just exported it and used it as an instrument of foreign policy.

In an article forwarded to me by Indyanna in the Huffington Post published Friday, Linda K. Kerber and Christopher Merrill suggest that the American acceptance of torture and brutality is perhaps linked to the longstanding withdrawl of support for higher education in the U.S.

By: Tony Grafton

Tony Grafton — Sun, 28 Mar 2010 14:12:01 +0000

What an ugly continuum: from torture for (suspected) enemies of the country to tasers for ordinary citizens who disrespect cops. They’re not identical, of course, but these practices are products of the same cultural climate. Oy.

By: Profane

Profane — Sun, 28 Mar 2010 14:10:42 +0000

http://www.fourthamendment.com/blog/ has been regular reading for me since I was on the receiving end of police misconduct last year. The collection of case law there illustrates that incidents like those described here are a routine part of 21st century policing. If you can stomach it, also check out the comments section at http://www.policeone.com/, which brillianty illustrates “the increasing professionalism of police forces, including a new emphasis on internal police discipline”, to use Justice Scalia’s words.

By: Comrade PhysioProf

Comrade PhysioProf — Sat, 27 Mar 2010 19:17:17 +0000

As Digby has pointed out repeatedly (and, of course, eloquently), the original justification for the acceptability of arming cops with Tasers was that they would be used solely as a safer alternative to deadly force: i.e., firearms. Now, without any real public discussion whatsoever, they are being used routinely as a tool for inducing compliance under circumstances where deadly force would never, ever have even been contemplated. This is an extremely bad development.

By: Indyanna

Indyanna — Sat, 27 Mar 2010 17:31:18 +0000

Remember when the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals was considered a “liberal” court? So let’s say this is a law class. What could be cited as a rational basis for the state having ANY interest whatsoever in requiring somebody sitting behind the wheel to sign a ticket? Is there some fine print in there indemnifying Officer Fife in the event it becomes necessary to tase the customer? You could be signing an implied confession. If you have on-board fax, can you fax it to your counsel for a quick read-over? Would an illiterate infractor automatically get tased and bound over? This is pretty nuts.

By: LadyProf

LadyProf — Sat, 27 Mar 2010 15:43:52 +0000

When are we going to get a study informing us of the social harms and benefits of taser guns? How do they protect the public? Do they have a deterrent effect that reduces dangerous resistances of arrest? Have they saved any lives and, if so, at what cost?

I am old enough to have been around when they were first distributed to police officers and the notion back then was ALWAYS that they’d inflict less harm on the citizenry: that getting stunned was what would happen to a person instead of getting killed. Now they’re handy torture devices that can be aimed at anyone at whim. If you don’t like it, you’re obviously against law enforcement!