IssuesConnect

Pop-up Window

Cops and Taser Confusion

5/25/2021

ABC News

Kim Potter

Kim Potter, the white cop who killed Daunte Wright, a twenty-year-old black man, murdered Wright when she drew and fired her handgun instead of her taser. Potter claimed she only intended to tase him. According to Potter, she mistakenly drew and fired her gun instead of her taser. Potter may be telling the truth. She may have accidentally used her gun instead of a taser. But if she had successfully drawn her taser, its use would have exceeded Minneapolis Police use-of-force guidelines cited in the Derek Chauvin trial.

Use-of-force trainers in the Chauvin trial testified that law enforcement officers should only respond with the level of force proportionate to the resistance or aggression of the suspect. After pulling Wright over because of alleged expired tags, Potter and two other officers found that he had an outstanding warrant for a misdemeanor. As one officer attempted to take Wright into custody, Wright slipped away from him and re-entered his car. According to the Minneapolis Police Department Defense & Control Guide (see below), the proportionate force would have been a controlled take-down, including a neck restraint. Potter should only have considered the use of a taser if Wright had been actively aggressive.

When Police Kill, Prosecutors Can Convict

5/17/2021

George Floyd

Derek Chauvin’s defense failed to “emotionally distance” George Floyd from the jury. And I believe that failure was a significant contributor to Chauvin being found verdict. The defense could not emotionally distance George Floyd from the jury for three fundamental reasons. First, the bystanders who saw Chauvin’s knee on Floyd’s neck and heard him cry out for help recognized his humanity. The bystanders on the gruesome scene did not know George Floyd, but his humanity impacted them. And because the defense could not distance the bystanders from Floyd, their testimony, along with the videotape, prevented the defense from emotionally distancing the jurors. Second, George Floyd’s girlfriend gave powerful testimony about their struggle with opioid addiction. Even though opioid addiction has affected a more diverse group of people than was once true, some people still see addiction as an individual’s moral failing. Floyd’s girlfriend humanized their addiction and prevented it from being used to distance the jury from Floyd. Third, there were four blacks and two mixed-race members on the twelve-person jury. Jury experts have found that the presence of non-white jurors minimizes unfair racial distinctions. Also, three white jurors in their twenties might have had moderate racial views.

Travon Martin

How juries respond to these fundamental reasons is also seen in the deadly excessive force trials such as George Zimmerman’s trial for killing sixteen-year-old Trayvon Martin. Although Zimmerman was a member of a neighborhood watch program and not a policeman, he stalked and killed Trayvon under the color of law. Because several houses in Zimmerman’s complex had been burglarized, possibly by blacks, Zimmerman became suspicious when he saw Trayvon walking back from the store to his father’s home. While Zimmerman followed Trayvon, he called the police to report a suspicious person. The police dispatcher advised Zimmerman that the police were on the way and warned Zimmerman to stop following Trayvon. Zimmerman, however, continued to follow Trayvon. Zimmerman claimed that Trayvon had jumped him from bushes and knocked him to the ground. As the two fought on the ground, Zimmerman claimed Trayvon, who weighed sixty pounds less than Zimmerman, began pounding his head on a concrete walkway and reached for Zimmerman’s holstered gun. Zimmerman alleged that Trayvon shouted that he was going to kill Zimmerman and engaged in a struggle for the pistol. Zimmerman claimed that he had shot Trayvon in self-defense.

Republicans Move to Destroy Our Democracy

3/29/2021

Governor Brian Kemp signs the much-criticized Election Integrity Act of 2021. Photograph: Governor Brian Kemp’S Twitter Fe/Reuters

The law (SB202) passed in Georgia on March 25, 2021, restricts voting in several different ways. The 96- page bill allows the state legislature to seize the power of county election boards. As a result, the state legislature—usually heavily slanted toward rural areas—can disqualify Democratic voters in more urban areas.

This law also allows any Georgia citizen to challenge the eligibility of an unlimited number of voters. Although citizens could challenge voters' eligibility, they were limited in the number of challenges they could make. Thus, large groups of voters could not be challenged and therefore intimidated. More importantly, if Republicans challenge large groups of voters in a county, and the state legislature seizes the election board, Republicans can systematically disenfranchise Democratic-leaning voters.
Another provision of this bill eliminates signature matching for identification in absentee voting in favor of requiring copies of documents such as bank statement, current utility bills, or other state documentation. Obtaining copies of these documents, if a prospective voter has them, may be a barrier for the elderly or poor.

Taken together, the provisions in this bill slants the Georgia election process toward single party rule. And single party rule is authoritarianism or fascism.

The actions of the Georgia Republicans update the long story of Republicans working against American democracy. Below is my article from further describing this very worrisome goal. posted earlier this month.

Republicans Have Rejected Democracy
March 15, 2021

Some Democrats and others refuse to recognize that Republicans signal they intend to sabotage our democracy. Centrist Democrats and others hope each Republican statement or act that undermines our government will be the last before Republicans return to normalcy. But for a variety of reasons, Republicans no longer have the same goals as Democrats. Too many Republicans have become radicalized against our democracy. They have stopped acknowledging the legitimacy of the institutions and procedures that underlie our democracy. And now they refuse to collaborate in governing with Democrats. They even reject the reality that a Democrat won the Presidency. These Republicans believe our democracy robs them of their God-given benefits. They want to return to a democracy that they believe will restore their advantages.

The most extreme Republicans do not believe that they can restore a democracy that benefits them through conventional means. They think they must resort to the extraordinary means of obstruction, obfuscation, and violence. Despite contradictory evidence, centrists continue to believe, "the fever will break." Centrists seem to underestimate the extent to which Republicans have become disaffected from our form of democracy. These centrists seem to think that if they admit extremist Republicans intend to destroy our democracy, it will force them to counter the insurrection equally forcefully. Centrists are not comfortable considering the use of extreme actions, even to break the fever.

Republicans Have Rejected Democracy

3/15/2021

Republican Senator Josh Hawley shows support for insurrectionists before voting against certifying the electoral college vote - Jan 6, 2021. Francis Chung / E&E News and Politico via AP Images)

Some Democrats and others refuse to recognize that Republicans signal they intend to sabotage our democracy.  Centrist Democrats and others hope each Republican statement or act that undermines our government will be the last before Republicans return to normalcy.  But for a variety of reasons, Republicans no longer have the same goals as Democrats.  Too many Republicans have become radicalized against our democracy. They have stopped acknowledging the legitimacy of the institutions and procedures that underlie our democracy.  And now they refuse to collaborate in governing with Democrats.  They even reject the reality that a Democrat won the Presidency.  These Republicans believe our democracy robs them of their God-given benefits. They want to return to a democracy that they believe will restore their advantages.

The most extreme Republicans do not believe that they can restore a democracy that benefits them through conventional means.  They think they must resort to the extraordinary means of obstruction, obfuscation, and violence.  Despite contradictory evidence, centrists continue to believe, "the fever will break." Centrists seem to underestimate the extent to which Republicans have become disaffected from our form of democracy.  These centrists seem to think that if they admit extremist Republicans intend to destroy our democracy, it will force them to counter the insurrection equally forcefully.  Centrists are not comfortable considering the use of extreme actions, even to break the fever.

Republicans Have Rejected Our Democracy

Republicans' denying the legitimacy of our institutions and procedures undermine our democracy.  Some extremist Republicans endorse or commit violence against the government, such as the January 6 insurrection.  These extremist Republicans include some who are extraordinarily wealthy and believe that they can shape a different type of democracy that would guarantee them relief from their fair share of taxes and regulations that benefit everyone.  Other extremist Republicans refuse to accept the U.S.'s development as a multicultural society and want a type of democracy based on white ethnic identity.  Still, other extremist Republicans want a different democracy to reverse their perceived social status loss due to globalization, immigration, and economic dislocation.  Even though these Republicans reject our form of representative democracy, they see a new constitution as a remedy for it.  To achieve the cure they want, they are willing to accept an authoritarian or fascist government.

Lies Within Delusions Within Psychoses

12/27/2020

Kevin Lamarque; REUTERS

Since he claimed that Barack Obama was not an American citizen, we have known that Trump is a liar. I wondered whether Trump lies to manipulate others or because he is delusional. In either case, I underestimated just how much of a liar Donald Trump, is. I think we all did. But a November 28 story in the Washington Post (20 Days of Fantasy ad Failure: Inside Trump's Quest to Overturn the Election) clarified how Trump's lies serve his mental disorder. Sequestered in the White House and brooding out of public view after his election defeat, rageful and at times hysterical in a torrent of private conversations, Trump was, in the telling of one close adviser, like 'mad King George' muttering "' I won. I won. I won."' Trump, haunting the White House and claiming to have won an election he lost, does not manipulate an audience. Trump has a mental disorder – delusional psychosis (DSM-V, 297.1, [F22]). It is a disorder that causes him to believe with absolute certainty that he is a superior human being, always destined to be a winner. He persists in these beliefs despite the accumulation of a massive amount of evidence to the contrary. And the persistence of these beliefs in the face of contradictory evidence is a symptom of his delusional psychosis. Besides the inability to change provably false beliefs, his other symptoms include (1) the number of lies he tells to support his delusional beliefs, (2) his view of every event and circumstance in terms of its impact on him his sense of universal persecution.

Trump's delusional psychosis renders him mentally incapable of acquiring or fully understanding information or advice. Trump's inability to acquire information is shown by how he filters his sources of information. When Trump was considering whether to fire the FBI director, James Comey, he consulted several people in his administration. Except for one advisor, they recommended that Trump should not fire Comey. The one advisor who recommended firing Comey was his son-in-law, Jared Kushner. Compared to the other advisors, Kushner knew the least about government and the possible consequences of firing Comey. Trump took Kushner's advice. And the result was the appointment of a Special Counsel, Robert Mueller, and a two-year investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election. Trump fails to see how his actions led to the troubles that eventually confronted him.

Biden's Dilemma: How to Deal with a Criminal Predecessor

11/20/2020

Creator: Joe Raedle Credit: Getty Images

Since the television networks announced Joe Biden the winner of the 2020 Presidential election, cable news commentators have marched across their screens to lament Donald Trump's refusal to cooperate in transitioning to the new administration. These commentators note that Trump's constant and fruitless court battles against the election results undermine U.S. democracy and law rule. They also point out that the Trump Administration's plans to distribute coronavirus vaccines are now being formulated without input from the Biden Administration, even though Biden will be responsible for carrying out those plans. Further, because Trump has refused to provide Biden with security briefings while destabilizing military conflict zones by withdrawing troops and contemplating military attacks on enemies, he risked military aggression against the U.S. Despite these dire consequences, no one has suggested a way to end this stalemate except waiting until Biden has been sworn in as President on January 20, 2021.

Given the legal dangers facing Donald Trump and his penchant for making deals, there is an obvious approach. Biden could offer Trump immunity in return for an end to his refusal to transition his administration to the Biden Administration. Specifically, the New York Times has presented convincing evidence that Trump is guilty of evading taxes for years. The New York District Attorney is currently investigating Trump and his businesses. Michael Cohen, Trump's personal attorney's conviction for federal campaign violations involving payoffs to two of Trump's mistresses, identified Trump as an unnamed co-conspirator. And the Mueller report presented evidence of Trump's obstruction of justice even though the Department of Justice did not indict him because he was a sitting President.

According to press reports, Biden has told members of his inner circle that he does not want to pursue Trump. Biden believes pursuing Trump would consume too much of his administration's attention, make it harder to work with Republicans in Congress and undercut his efforts to unite the country. These reasons are like those given by President Obama when he announced his decision to forego an investigation of the Bush Administration's use of "enhanced interrogation." Presumably, Biden would attempt to deflect attention from his decision by claiming that he will leave the decisions about criminal investigations to his attorney general. But the decision about whether to pursue Trump's wrongdoing is a policy decision that only the President can make. And if Biden is not going to have Trump investigated with an eye toward criminal prosecution, then he might as well get something concrete for the reprieve. At least, Trump's acceptance of a pardon would be an admission of guilt.

Dems Must Fight Against the Republican Fantasy Factory

11/16/2020

TIME Inc. Image of "The Republican Club" courtesy of Andy Thomas Source: https://pressfrom.info/us/news/us/-200073-that-painting-of-trump-having-a-diet-coke-with-abraham-lincoln-is-now-hanging-in-the-white-house.html

Following the Democrats disappointing showing in the 2020 Congressional elections, losing 10 to 15 House seats and failing to take the Senate majority as predicted, a war between the Progressive and moderate wing has erupted. Representative Abigail Spanberger accused Progressives of “defunding the police” and “democratic socialism” for the Democratic losses and her near loss. House Whip Jim Clyburn echoed this accusation explaining the loss of his protégé, Jaime Harrison, in a Senate race against Trump sycophant, Senator Lindsey Graham.

While losses can be expected to generate intra-party disputes, this internal struggle highlights a more fundamental weakness in the Democratic Party. Except for Joe Biden, a well-known commodity for almost 50 years, Democrats who shunned “defunding the police” and “democratic socialism” still could not effectively push back against these Republican attacks. As Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez accurately pointed out, not a single Democratic member of the House campaigned for defunding the police or democratic socialism. Yet, repetitive Republican messaging of Democratic socialism and police disbandment undermined Democrats.

Countering Republican lies and negative messaging will require that Democrats overcome a major barrier: a fantasy world dictated by resentment, fear, and tribalism rather than reality. Republican voters selectively attend to “their” media, like Fox, Salem Media, and Sinclair Broadcasting, while disbelieving voices on “other” media they label as Democratic. The idea that merely presenting evidence and the truth will persuade Republican leaning voters has long since passed. Now the source of information is as important as the “facts” that are offered.

Democrats Must First Win Elections and Then Improve the Lives of People

10/26/2020

People wait on long lines to vote Oct. 2020. Frank Becerra Jr./The Journal News

If Democrats have a blowout victory and take the Presidency, House, and the Senate, they should defer their inclination to improve people's lives as hard as that may be. Instead, Democrats should immediately take steps to try and ensure future electoral success. Despite our almost total concentration on Trump, we must remember he is just one link in a chain that has spanned at least 40 years. Democrats must make structural adjustments to break that chain and make sure that the changes Democrats make will not be stripped away by electoral fortunes or a hostile Supreme Court. Those changes must be made immediately because Democrats cannot be assured of controlling Congress for more than two years. And two years to make legislative changes is a short period.

Barak Obama, understandably, focused on improving the lives of people and not on structural adjustments. Obama, for example, faced a financial disaster (the worst recession in 50 years) that he had to address. He championed the banking industry's bailout that contributed to the economic recovery, although he could not completely repair the home mortgage market. Obama devoted himself to passing healthcare legislation, the Affordable Care Act (ACA), but could not wholly implement the ACA because of electoral changes. Rulings by Supreme Court further undermined the ACA's implementation and now threaten its very existence.

Improving Lives and Ensuring Future Electoral Success

Of course, some initiatives to improve people's lives will overlap with ensuring future electoral success. One initiative Democrats must address is providing COVID-19 relief to avoid a looming health and economic crisis. The twenty-nine million households that need some form of aid is expected to multiply in the coming weeks. This growth will be fueled, in part, by the increase in unemployed state and city employees as local government budgets are depleted.

As a part of that effort, Democrats must also begin to repair the damage that may be done by the Supreme Court's decision on the constitutionality of the ACA. The addition to the Court of ultra-conservative Amy Coney Barrett likely ensures the overthrow of some parts of the ACA. To allow some parts of the ACA to be terminated in the middle of a pandemic would make COVID-19 relief efforts even more difficult. But for now, reversing the Court's decision on the ACA should be the extent of the Democrats' effort to reform the ACA. Making other needed reforms to the ACA should be delayed until the Democrats have made the changes necessary to ensure future electoral success. While providing COVID-19 and health care relief will not directly lead to future electoral success, it is essential to differentiate Democrats from Republicans for voters.

Protesters at Supreme Court Harvard Law Review Blog

Balancing the Scales of Justice

10/12/2020

Some readers of my post on "Leveling a Tilted Court" (see below) asked if my call for increasing the number of justices on the court amounted to an endorsement of "court-packing." Opponents of Franklin Delano Roosevelt's Judicial Procedures Reform Bill of 1937 derisively called the critical purpose of that bill "court-packing." The bill allowed Roosevelt to appoint a new justice for each justice over 70 and a half years old. Although the bill was couched as a measure to improve the court's functioning with younger justices Roosevelt's proposal was not about age.

Opponents did not object because it would have increased the number of younger justices. Rather, they objected because his proposal would have permitted him to appoint justices more favorable to his economic proposals. And as planned by Roosevelt, court-packing means adding justices to the court for the express purpose of receiving favorable decisions.

These considerations show that the negative view of adding more justices to the court is that it promises to make court decisions less fair, that is, likely to favor one side consistently. As I have outlined below, adding more justices to the court would make the court decisions more honest and less predictable. One way of ensuring that the public appreciates the court's growing fairness is to add even more justices from the list of "approved justices" Trump received from the Federalist Society. Additional justices, not recommended by the Federalist Society, could be added for balance. And if increasing the number of justices needed to balance the court results in a Supreme Court of 23 or more, so be it.

Leveling a Tilted Court
September 28, 2020

cales of Justin published February 14, 2018 by Steve Nease politicalcartoons.com

Republicans have biased the Supreme Court and the federal judiciary. That is, Republicans used their control of the Senate to subvert accepted practices for confirming judges. Contrary to accepted practices, Republicans confirm judicial candidates who say that they will judge cases according to conservative orthodoxy, regardless of the fallout for society. Previously, the Supreme Court tended to weigh the outcomes of their decisions for society, along with legal principles. Amy Coney Barrett, the latest Republican nominee to the Court, has expressed a willingness to disregard stare decisis. Stare decisis is the legal principle that allowing a flawed decision to stand may be better for the country than upsetting the legal system with continually changing rulings.

During the Obama, Administration Republicans failed to confirm 69 of his picks because the candidates did not affirm conservative legal principles. Republicans have confirmed 194 of Trump’s judicial appointments, including three found unqualified by the American Bar Association. Most importantly, Republicans refused to consider Obama’s pick for the Supreme Court, Merrick Garland. Their justification for ignoring their duty to consider a Supreme Court nomination occurred within a year of a Presidential election. They claimed consideration of the Garland nomination was too close to a Presidential election. Donald Trump’s confirmation of two Supreme Court justices, and likely confirmation of a third, will tilt the Court to the far right for at least a generation.

The 2020 Election: White Supremacist Rule vs Democracy

10/10/2020

Photograph by Erin Scott / Reuters

Joe Biden is running against Donald Trump and, more importantly, he is running against Trump's vision of a white supremacist U.S. Biden is leading in the polls. However, Democrats still agonize about the prospect of either a Trump resurgence or Republican corruption of elections. Trump had a revival in the 2016 election, spurred by Russian interference, and he won. Also, Trump has announced his willingness to cheat. Many experts who have studied the state-wide election systems have found them to be seriously corrupted.

White supremacists accept cheating and justify it under the guise of protecting democracy. White supremacy holds that black and brown people are inferior to whites and thus should not be allowed all the privileges and respect that whites routinely have. They claim that the need to protect American democracy from the inferiority of nonwhite voters justifies voter suppression. widespread corruption.

From the beginning of this country, white supremacists debased black people through slavery, segregation, and denial of voting rights. Supremacists pretend their actions will not affect whites because whites are not the target. But white supremacy limits the choice of everyone because it inevitably leads to authoritarianism. Authoritarianism is a form of government whose essential characteristic is centralized power. Authoritarians exercise their power to control the rest of society, including whites. Whites and blacks who are not in power, paradoxically, are equally controlled by those who are.

Confederate flag at polling place - WRAL

Pop-up Window