|
|
 |
|
|
|
News, analysis, commentary, social trends, culture, politics, government, books, movies, travel, cycling and other stuff
|
|
|
|
T H E T E R R Y R E P O R T 2012
|
|
|
Facts first, logic always, truth before everything
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
DO POLICE OFFICERS HAVE THE “RIGHT” TO ESCALATE CONFRONTATIONS WITH CITIZENS THE MOMENT THEY REFUSE TO OBEY AN ORDER?
|
|
|
|
Three police officers in Seattle are appealing a ruling to the Supreme Court in regard to the use of a taser on a woman who was seven months pregnant, stopped for a minor traffic violation and then was uncooperative. What is really interesting about this case is that the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals essentially ruled in favor of the police officers, but they are appealing to get a clear green light on the issue of using Tasers on citizens. (You can read the full story at the NY Times and come back here for analysis.)
The police used the Taser three times on the woman who told them she was pregnant and who refused to sign a traffic ticket, then refused to get out of the car. She had no criminal history. People often act irrationally when they are stopped by police, especially those who have never or seldom been stopped before. It can be a frightening experience and there is always at least a tinge of humiliation as an adult to be pulled over.
Beyond the legal issue to be considered by the Supreme Court, one important question is whether the police have a right to escalate a confrontation with an otherwise peaceful citizen who doesn’t immediately obey an officer and who has shown no other signs of threat. Police in the United States always answer this question in the affirmative. It is part of the attitude that “We don’t take no s---- from anyone”. What this means is that any encounter with police officers is filled with risk and potential danger for citizens. You could be in your best tux, driving your 80,000 dollar BMW to a charity ball, but if you get on the wrong side of the police, and they decide to act, you are in deep, deep trouble. For one thing, the threat of injury is not anywhere near the end of it; serious charges will likely be filed in order to back-up the police actions.
One of the big warning signs for a citizen is when the officers call for back-up. The new officers arriving on the scene essentially have no idea what they are facing. Many come in with a kind of cowboy attitude that they are going to put things right, right now. It would be a safe bet to say that 60 to 80% of these type of events that escalate to violence by the police on citizens involve not those who were first on the scene, but the “hot shots” who arrive later with the intention of setting things right, pronto. (Have police departments or criminologists studied this issue?
|
|
Police should, first and foremost, work as peace officers, not as those intent on a violent confrontation at the moment they sense someone doesn’t give them immediate respect. One of the judges, the chief judge, in fact, in the 9th Circuit said that he believed the police had few good choices to make the pregnant woman get out of the car. He betrays an all but total lack of knowledge of police confrontations and options. (My guess is that he has never gone on a police ride along, nor served in any capacity where he could learn about police training and tactics. In other words, he’s ignorant, pretending to be a learned scholar of the law.) One way would have been for the Sergent called to the scene to talk to the woman, explain carefully and calming that he was required to sign the ticket and, having refused to do so, was then subject to arrest. Another way would be to park police cars immediately in the front and back of her car (assuming there was room) and tell her she was under arrest and MUST come out of the car.
|
|
|
|
|
Some police officials would complain that they don’t have the time to “negotiate” with people who are violating the law. But arresting someone, getting them booked and filling out all of the required paperwork, plus going to court, is certainly going to be more time consuming than spending an extra ten or fifteen minutes trying to resolve the situation peacefully.
At base, many police don’t want these things to be settled peacefully. They use the threat of violence against some to imply that they can use violence against anyone, so we, the rest of us, had better shut-up and do what they say. There are also many, many cases where police officers have escalated matters in order to use violence, in order to assert their authority. One way is to stand in front of a car that a “suspect” is about to move so that the suspect can be shot. Make no mistake, if something escalates, the citizen will be charged with the most severe crime possible. The police are always right in these situations, unless the citizen has witnesses or proof that they weren’t.
We, as law abiding citizens, should not have to live in fear of the police. Nor should we fear that the slightest encounter can turn, in a few seconds, into violence or a possible felony charge. As things stand now, that is the common risk across most of the American landscape. In some places, like Mississippi, Alabama and New York City, with its stop and frisk campaign, the dangers are much, much higher. Doug Terry, 5.14.12
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dana Milbank in the Wash Post is taking note of a fact mentioned frequently here on The TerryReport and in comments on the NY Times online: Congress is out of DC these days more than it is in. Here is a preview of his column with a link. The Republicans in the House have formalized the old tradition in DC of being gone as much as possible. They’ve also extended it to one week out of every four. Since DC means everything evil, then not being there, to some radicals, is a plus.
All of this begs the question: why hasn’t this gotten more attention in the media? It is just too much “routine news” when Congress decides it doesn’t need to be in the capital to do its job?
|
|
|
Our do-almost-nothing Congress
If you were to stroll by the House chamber today or tomorrow, or the next day, or the day after that, you would arrive at the ideal time to see what the lawmakers do best: absolutely nothing.
It’s another recess week for our lazy leaders. Oh, sorry: “Constituent Work Week”€ is what they’re calling it these days, as if lawmakers were filling potholes and making calls to Social Security rather than raising campaign cash.
By the time the Republican-led House returns next week, members will have been working in Washington on just 41 of the first 127 days of 2012 and that was the busy part of the year. Recess!
|
|
|
|
“Carroll desperately wanted to beat all the Europeans at Le Mans He wanted to show all those fancy, highbred Euros in their slick racing suits that a chicken farmer from Texas could beat them at their own game.”
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In the Washington Post:
|
|
|
Paul Farhi
Researchers have found bias in reporting, but they don’t agree that one side is consistently favored.
|
|
|
|
GINGRICH’S STRANGE CAREER ENDS
|
|
|
|
|
IS COLLEGE “THE ANSWER”?
|
|
|
|
IN THE WASHINGTON POST:
|
|
|
|
USA Today requires most of its 1,425 workers to take unpaid week off to offset weak ad salesBy Associated Press, Thursday, April 5
McLEAN, Va. USA Today is requiring most of its staff to take an unpaid week off to save money, as the nation’s second-largest newspaper struggles to sell more advertising.
The furloughs, which were announced Wednesday, are the latest in a series of cost-cutting measures by USA Today since 2008.
|
|
|
|
THE LINK:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Here in the US, “leaders” are constantly harping on the idea of education as being the key to better jobs and a better future. The experience in Europe (as well as unreported events here) indicates otherwise. In Spain, 86 percent of young people have at least a high school diploma. Here is a quote from a 35 yr. old woman who got her Ph.D. but couldn’t find employment in Spain in her field (from BusinessWeek)
|
|
|
“I worked. I went to university. I studied. And now if you want a job, you have to take something totally unrelated to your qualifications, or you have to go abroad. For what have they trained us so much?”
|
|
|
This is an excellent point. No amount of training works if there aren’t jobs available. What’s more, there is such a thing as an over trained society, ready for high tech or high finance, but not ready to do the work that needs to be done.
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
THE MAIN WOODS IN SUMMER TIME WITH A BLUE SKY (what more do you want?)
|
|
|
|
JON CARAMANICA writing in the NY Times about the state of rock music in 2012 |
|
|
|
|
|
From the NY Times, an article about how the Lauder cosmetics family, and specifically Ronald S. Lauder, use tax breaks and loopholes to reduce the tax burden while amassing billion of dollars in assets.
|
|
|
|
The tax burden on the nation’s super elite has steadily declined in recent decades, according to a sliver of data released annually by the I.R.S. The effective federal income tax rate for the 400 wealthiest taxpayers, representing the top 0.000258 percent, fell from about 30 percent in 1995 to 18 percent in 2008, the most recent data available.
|
|
|
|
Republicans in Indiana have nominated a representative of their nihilist wing to try for the US Senate seat now held by Richard Lugar. Here is what Dana Millbank of the Wash Post had to say in regard to Richard Mourdock’s victory and the increase partisanship Mourdock is calling for:
|
|
|
|
Mourdock prevailed in part because he ridiculed Lugar for living in the Washington area. But this “history student” should know that’s how it was done for most of our history. The lawmakers who beat the Nazis, won the Cold War and led the nation to economic dominance didn’t do three-day workweeks in the capital and jet home on weekends; they got to know each other and learned to work with each other. (TerryReport quotation marks added)
|
|
Note: The Republicans in the House of Representatives aren’t even doing three day work weeks. They are officially out of town for one full week a month and the only really safe day to schedule votes when they are in session is on Wednesdays, because many come in on Tuesdays and leave on Thursdays. The necessity of foreshortened work schedules comes from the need to constantly campaign, along with the idea that Washington, DC, itself is somehow an evil influence to be avoided. Further, many members leave their
families in their home states these days, meaning if they don’t go home often, they must live alone in DC. This trend of not establishing a place for families to live in DC started under Newt Gingrich, who advised Republicans to avoid the capital as much as possible. One result has been to increase the hostility between the political parties, because in many cases those on opposing sides don’t even know each other and certainly don’t know others well. |
|
|
|
|
|
